Skip to content

Merkel Suffering a Nervous Breakdown? German Chancellor Pushed to Her Breaking Point by Engineered Immi-destabilization

According to a leak reported this week Angela Merkel is missing meetings, suffering from depression and heavily medicated. This not the behavior of a confident, competent leader free to make her own decisions about the future of Germany — supporting the theory that secret treaties and loyalty oaths bind Merkel to trans-Atlantic masters.

What we are seeing is the behavior of a woman who sees no way out of trying and failing to serve two masters — the German people who want her to control the borders and preserve their way of life, and the globalists who want to destroy borders. Nonetheless, one does not see exactly a clamoring among the CDU ‘elder statesman’ Wolfgang Schäuble, Bavarian Christian Social Union leader Horst Seehofer, or SPD vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel (who has called for improving relations with Russia) to take her job. Perhaps because each man understands the orders to allow the immi-destabilization of Germany and Europe will keep coming to them, even if they replace a depressed, burned out Mutti in the Chancellery?

From ZeroHedge: France’s highways descend into chaos and lawlessness

All the same, a Merkel resignation, rather than vote of no-confidence that would risk the wrath of the Atlanticist bosses, may be in the cards for Germany. Most likely by summer — which would be after anti-Kiev results from April elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics reveal the limits of Merkel’s diplomacy in Ukraine. Most critically for Europe, better summer weather in the Mediterranean and the Russian-aided rout of the anti-Assad jihadists in Syria (plus assaults on ISIS in Libya and general economic depression in Tunisia) promise to bring a new wave of young Muslim male invaders refugees surging into German cities. Which will raise the volume of the #MerkelMussWeg demands from the murmur of about ten to fifteen percent of the German people (most of them men) who currently support PEGIDA or AfD (Alternative for Germany) to a CSU roar from migrant-swamped Bavaria. Even the Left Party and SPD may start saying at that point it’s time for Merkel to go.

Unbelievable: a physics professor interrupts Merkel’s speech at a technical institute to say he fears for the future of his children because of her open borders policies, only to be disavowed and threatened with firing by his institute

Breitbart: Cologne was tip of the iceberg, migrant sexual assaults have been reported in 75% of Germany

Alex Jones and other clips on the growing backlash against mass Muslim migration and open borders

#BlamePutin? We don’t think so…but the Russians will try to surf a tsnuami wave of Euro- nationalism


7 thoughts on “Merkel Suffering a Nervous Breakdown? German Chancellor Pushed to Her Breaking Point by Engineered Immi-destabilization Leave a comment

    • SJ, SOF: I’m old enough to remember when we in the good ole’ USA would mock Third World banana republic dictatorships that tried exiles in absentia. Well it looks like the good ole’ DisUnited Kingdom basically put two Russians on trial for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko without anything in the way of defense counsel or anyone to question the evidence presented by the Crown Prosecution. A Star Chamber political verdict indeed. Here’s British-trained former barrister Alexander Mercouris describing the farcical case:
      This is basically how any civil trial on MH17 would be handled in London or Dutch courts — they would simply refuse to allow attorneys to subpoena Ukrainian air force and SAM responsible officers who were on duty on July 17, 2014, and those individuals probably wouldn’t respond to subpeonas anyway.
      It’s just like with the evidence of the polonium trail — nobody has been allowed to independently test a sample of what was supposedly found by the British government to determine if it’s consistent with the product of Russian reactors, or for instance if it may’ve come from a small country in the southeastern Mediterranean with an undeclared nuclear program. The Russians offered to take a sample of the recovered polonium and test it, but the Brits refused. They also according to Mercouris refused any sort of testimony from witnesses for the prosecution via video conference, if said witnesses did not feel safe coming to Russia. The same goes for the supposed three, whopping three pieces of BUK shrapnel the Dutch Safety Board report cites as being able to authenticate when it should’ve recovered hundreds of pieces from the cockpit alone, if a BUK had exploded less than a meter from the plane rather than two Python air to air missiles fired by a Ukrainian SU-25KM.

      The Public Inquiry was in all essentials a murder trial. Any legal proceedings which examine a case of murder and which pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the individuals accused is in effect a trial.
      The Public Inquiry into Litvinenko’s death has ended in a pronouncement of guilt for the crime of murder against two individuals: Lugovoi and Kovtun. That makes it a trial of those two men, regardless of what it is called.
      In Britain a trial for murder is conducted in open court with the defendant present and represented by lawyers of his or her choice.
      The defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses and to look at – and challenge – all the evidence.
      The final verdict of guilt and innocence is delivered by the jury – twelve citizens selected at random – after they receive directions on legal questions from the judge.
      Strict rules apply on what evidence can be presented to the court and how the court is to decide how the evidence is proved. As a general principle only evidence actually presented to the court at the trial can be considered, and only witnesses who physically come and give their evidence to the court – and are cross-examined on it – are heard, though it is now becoming more and more common for evidence to be given by video link.
      A court cannot convict on the basis of evidence given anonymously by witnesses who do not disclose their identities to the defendants save in very exceptional circumstances.
      The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove its case, and it must do so beyond reasonable doubt.
      It is a fundamental legal principle that anyone accused of a crime is deemed by the law innocent until the verdict of the court is delivered.
      Once the verdict is delivered, a defendant who is found guilty has a right to appeal.
      The Public Inquiry that has now delivered its verdict in the Litvinenko case has thrown all this out of the window.
      There was no jury.
      Part of the evidence was secret and the defendants and their lawyers were denied sight of it. Some of the witnesses gave their evidence to the Judge in secret and their identities were not disclosed to the defendants.
      Since technically it was not a trial and the Public Inquiry is not a court there is no right of appeal.
      Since the defendants – Lugovoi and Kovtun – were denied sight of part of the evidence, they refused to take part. The judge who tried the case – Sir Robert Owen – commented at length in his judgment about their refusal to take part, but failed to state the reason for it.
      The trial nonetheless proceeded in the absence of the defendants though that is almost unprecedented in Britain. Moreover no lawyers were appointed to represent their interests in their absence as it is perfectly possible to do, and as happens from time to time in other kinds of proceedings.
      The result is that the evidence of what we must call the prosecution went entirely unchallenged.


      • Looks like I was mistaken regarding how easy it is to trace polonium 210 back to a single source (meaning any nuclear bomb producing or modifying state, including Israel, the United States or the UK itself, could’ve been the source, not just Russia) from Mercouris:

        The single strongest reason up to now for thinking the Russian authorities might have been responsible for Litvinenko’s murder is that he was poisoned with polonium.
        The story as it is usually told is that polonium comes exclusively from Russia where it is produced at a single tightly controlled government facility. It has been claimed it contains a trace element that enables it be traced back to this facility.
        It has also been said that polonium is extremely expensive. The lawyer representing Litvinenko’s widow claimed the cost of the amount used to kill Litvinenko would have run into millions of dollars.
        Moreover it has been claimed that the history of Lugovoi’s and Kovtun’s movements in London made it impossible for them to have polonium in their possession unless they brought it with them from Russia.
        If all these claims were true then the case for Russian state involvement in Litvinenko’s murder would be compelling.
        It turns out that none of them are true.
        It seems polonium can be produced – and probably is being produced – in any number of facilities outside Russia.
        It turns out that commercially produced polonium contains no trace elements such as would make it possible to identify the facility it comes from – be that facility in Russia or anywhere else.
        It turns out polonium is not expensive at all, with a police officer telling the Inquiry that an amount of polonium much greater than the amount used to poison Litvinenko sold in New York for just $20,000.
        Lastly the Judge himself decided that there is simply insufficient information about Lugovoi’s and Kovtun’s movements in London to say definitely that they must have brought the polonium with them from Russia and could not have obtained it in London.
        All this information demolishes the keystone of the case for Russian state involvement.
        It turns out that it was not solely the Russian state that could have provided the polonium to murder Litvinenko. Anyone with the right contacts and a few thousand dollars to spare could have obtained it.
        The Judge’s frustration and disappointment is all too obvious from this truly remarkable comment:
        “Although it cannot be said that the polonium 210 with which Mr Litvinenko was poisoned must have come from the Avangard facility in Russia, it certainly could have come from there.” (Underlining in the original)
        Of course in a sense this statement is true. The polonium could have come from Russia. It could also however just as well have come from any of the other places where it is being produced. This comment is neither here nor there and I at this point register my surprise to see a Judge saying it.


  1. SouthFront – Foreign Policy Diary – China Launches New Wave of Military Reforms
    “Any nation that is too proud to lick the jackboot of the American hegemon will have to prepare for war.
    In a school playground that is dominated by a ruthless bully, there are only two types of children: Those who hand over their lunch money every day, and those who hang punching bags in their bedrooms and prepare themselves for the inevitable showdown.” – Stesilaus


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: