Why Do Anti Westerners Hate Merkel?

Because she stands against the Eastern Roman Empire

Anti Merkel Italian newspaper 

weirdly cited favorably by the supposedly anti-Rome 'The UnHived Mind'

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-circus-3.html

Merkel is Lutheran, with her paternal family previously being Roman Catholic before converting during the 1920s.

Merkel is acknowledged as 1/4 Polish.

Her maiden name was Kasner, which is the Germanification of Kazmierczak.

Merkel's father was Horst Kasner (1926–2011),^[13][14] a native of Berlin.

Merkel's paternal grandparents were Horst's father Ludwig Kasner, a German national^[16] of Polish origin from Posen/Poznań^,  born 1896, and his German wife Margareta.

Merkel's paternal paternal great-grandparents - the parents of Ludwig Krasner - were Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwig Wojciechowski who were un-married, with Ludwig taking his mother's surname and growing up with her and her later husband Ludwig Rychlicki in Poznan. Thus, Merkel's earlier blood ancestral paternal name was not Kazmierczak but rather Wojciechowski.

Angela Merkel's paternal Grandparents - Margareta and Ludwig Kazmierczak

http://www.dw.de/the-german-chancellors-polish-roots/a-16698783

Merkel's mother was Herlind, born in 1928 in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as Herlind Jentzsch, a teacher of English and Latin.

Merkel's maternal grandparents were the Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch (born 15 May 1886 in Bitterfeld-Wolfen, died 23 May 1936 in the Free City of Danzig), and his wife, married in Danzig in 1921, Gertrud Alma Drange.

Willi Jentzsch was a German teacher, school administrator and politician.and maternal granddaughter of the city clerk of Elbing (now Elbląg, Poland).  He served as chairman of the Danziger Beamtenbund (Danzig Federation of Civil Servants) and was elected as one of the eleven senators of the Free City of Danzig on 27 October 1926, but resigned on 1 November 1927 for health reasons. On 1 November 1927, he was appointed rector of the renowned Gymnasium St. Johann in Fleischergasse. In March 1936, he became school director in Danzig, and thus head of all elementary schools in the city-state, mere weeks before his death.  Gertrud Alma Drange, if I recall correctly, was of Kushubian-Polish ethnicity.  If so, that makes Merkel more then 1/4 Polish. 

Merkel's maternal paternal great-grandfather, the father of Willi Jentzch, was Wilhelm Jentzsch, a landowner (Gutsbesitzer) who belonged to a prominent family in Bitterfeld-Wolfen.

Merkel's maternal maternal great-grandparents, the parents of Gertrud Alma, were Emil Drange, (born in East Prussia, 18 March 1866, died 8 April 1913 in Elbing), and his wife Emma Wachs (born in Glogau in 1871 and died in 1935).

Emil Drange was a German municipal official who served as the city clerk (Oberstadtsekretär) and deputy mayor of Elbing and thus as one of the top municipal officials of the city.  His father, was a miller born in Lower Silesia, and his mother was a native of the Posen (Poznan) area.^[1]

Merkel is favored by Poles:

http://www.dw.de/the-german-chancellors-polish-roots/a-16698783

The Poles have developed a soft spot for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The reason: According to the largest Polish daily "Gazeta Wyborcza," her grandfather Ludwig Kazmierczak was Polish and is believed to have fought against the Germans as a Polish soldier in 1918.

At the time of the First World War, Poland had been divided and occupied by Germany, Russia, and Austria, and lost its statehood for 123 years. Merkel's grandfather fought to put Poland back on the map.

And also important Polish-Americans:

Chancellor Merkel's strategically tough-minded stance against Putin's anti-European adventurism provides the leadership that Europe needs.- Zbignew Brzezinski

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2013/11/merkel-ukraine.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2014/01/against-russian-imperialism-for.html

 http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2014/02/brzezinski-on-ukraine.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2014/09/western-eastern-roman-empire-101.html

Brzezinski On Ukraine

Says Russia should have Yanukovitch resign and Germany should put up some money

From Deutsche World:

http://www.dw.de/brzezinski-finland-role-model-for-ukraine/a-17448110

DW: The situation in Ukraine is very volatile and has gotten increasingly violent over the last few days. Do you fear an outright civil war in the country?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I think that is in fact threatening Ukraine. But I still am of the view that this issue can be resolved by compromise provided that the there is a firm stance by the West, provided that Yanukovych is willing to negotiate in good faith and provided that Putin realizes that it's in Russia's long-term interest to have this issue resolved by compromise. I am not sure that all three of these three conditions can be met and it increasingly appears that Yanukovych is altogether unreliable.

What do you make of Yanukovych'srole in this crisis so far? Do you think he can remain in office?
I think it's increasingly doubtful. In the beginning one might have considered some arrangement that would involve him staying in as president for at least a while until the situation settles down and genuinely democratic elections for a president with fewer powers can be held. He appears to be either cowardly or indecisive or deceitful.

Couldn't he simply alleviate the situation by stepping down now?

That would certainly be helpful. But I imagine that he is not only concerned about his position as president, but also about the personal wealth that he has acquired while in office and his son has also acquired since Yanukovych became president.

The West, that is the US and the EU, has been divided over how to deal with the situation in Ukraine. What is your sense of the West's actions so far?

So far it has not been very impressive. It was slow to react to the sudden change in Yanukovych's stance several months ago. It then didn't step forward with any specific and immediate proposals to deal with the deepening socio-economic crisis in the country. Only in the last week or so has it generated a more visible engagement. And I think the West is now increasingly conscious of the fact that it has to have a meaningful financial package as well as a clearly defined set of political objectives that give Ukraine the opportunity to remain a good neighbor to Russia, but at the same time expand its relationship with Europe; and that America itself can reassure Russia that a Ukraine that has freedom of movement towards Europe does not mean a Ukraine that becomes part of coalition that threatens Russia's interests; and last but not least, that if Russia is not prepared to accept this it will find itself confronted in all probability by an increasingly hostile, bitter and perhaps altogether explosive Ukraine.

There has been a lot of talk about sanctions against Ukraine and the EU has just now agreed on sanctions against those responsible for the escalation of violence. Are you for or against sanctions against Ukraine?
 
I am neither for nor against sanctions by which I mean I would not make sanctions the principle tool of our policy which I have outlined in answering your last question. But I would not avoid applying sanctions against particular individuals who have financially benefitted from access to the West, but who are playing a negative role both in Ukraine and in Russia.

Let's talk about the West a bit more. Has the Obama administration done enough in this crisis in your opinion?

It has been very slow, but it is doing much more now. It is becoming very seriously engaged. The United States has to be engaged indirectly in the negotiations between the EU and the Ukraine and much more directly on a bilateral basis in discussing the issue with the Russians, although the EU may wish to be engaged in these discussions as well. But to the Russians in the long run a stable relationship with America which doesn't slide into an increasing cold war negativism is of direct interest, as it should be to us as well. Putin should be mindful of the fact that his support for Yanukovych - whom the Russian press increasingly describes as a totally unreliable crook - is not in Russia's long-term interest because he is going to create in Ukraine a widespread anti-Russian sentiment, maybe not among all, but certainly among the majority of Ukrainians. And that is not in Russia's interest.

Do you hope that Russia and Mr. Putin press Yanukovych to step down?

I think that would be a very healthy contribution and that would enable Putin, indirectly of course, to influence who would replace him. Not all of the oppositionists - probably at this stage most of the responsible oppositionists are not anti-Russian. But these events, clearly occurring under Russia's protection, are likely to turn the Ukrainians into very intensely anti-Russian nationalists.

What then do you see as the role of the EU, whose lack of engagement has been criticized very vocally recently by the US?

I am glad that the EU is actively involved and that prominent foreign ministers of some leading EU countries are in fact right now in Kyiv. But the bottom line is - and this is particularly pertinent to Germany - if the EU is to be serious it has to put up some money. It's very easy to talk about democracy and long-term cooperation, but the fact is that money is also needed right now to stabilize Ukraine. But let me emphasize my key point. If we want a solution that's constructive it has to be based on compromise. And I can envisage Ukraine evolving in the context of a constructive compromise into a country whose domestic and foreign policies will be somewhat similar to that of Finland.

You mentioned Germany's role in the Ukraine crisis. What do you make of Berlin's stance so far?
I think it's good that Germany is involved, but I think that Germans have to take the lead in an area which they resent having to do so - which is putting up some money. You cannot have a compromise for the present problem that is acceptable and constructive and which is good for the West as well as for Russia without some serious financial involvement by the EU. And the fact is that Germany is the most prosperous and economically most successful member of the EU.

Zbigniew Brzezinski served as National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and is regarded as one of the preeminent US foreign policy scholars. He is currently professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

Against Russian Imperialism For the Liberation of Central-East Europe

from the Stalinist-Counter Reformation Borders

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928. His family, members of the nobility (or "szlachta" in Polish), bore the Trąby coat of arms and hailed from Brzeżany in Galicia in the Tarnopol Voivodeship (administrative region) of then eastern Poland (now in Ukraine). The town of Brzeżany is thought to be the source of the family name. Brzezinski's father was Tadeusz Brzeziński, a Polish diplomat who was posted to Germany from 1931 to 1935; Zbigniew Brzezinski thus spent some of his earliest years witnessing the rise of the Nazis. From 1936 to 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's Great Purge.^{[citation needed]}

In 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to Canada. In 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was agreed to by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; subsequently the two powers invaded Poland. The 1945 Yalta Conference between the Allies allotted Poland to the Soviet sphere of influence, meaning Brzezinski's family could not safely return to their country.^{[citation needed]} The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski, who stated in an interview: "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."^[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezhany

Zbigniew Brzezinski:

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

by Alexander Cockburn And Jeffrey St. Clair

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Portions of the books can be read at: <http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm>