A foreign affairs comment by retired General Hans-Lothar Domröse that appeared in Monday’s edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung is a warning in this regard. In a piece entitled “World in turmoil,” he wrote, “As Europe’s biggest economic power, Germany can fulfill its global responsibilities only if it possesses an appropriately equipped military.” In the future, he continued, units should “not be established for specific operational scenarios, but equipped according to military principles.”

This statement comes only four weeks before Germany’s federal election. The intervention of a high-ranking general into the election campaign underscores how far advanced is the return of German militarism. Seventy years after the end of World War II, the “primacy of politics over the military” guaranteed in Germany’s Basic law is being transformed into its opposite. As in the Kaiser’s Reich, the Weimar Republic and under the Nazis, leading military figures are once again emerging as spokespeople for foreign and war policies.

It is now clear that her initiative was merely empty talk. In response to a parliamentary question, it has been revealed that a number of Bundeswehr barracks bearing the names of officers active during the Third Reich will not be renamed. In four cases, the names of the barracks are to be retained. Three of the barracks are named after Nazi officers.

The Rommel barracks in the Augustdorf district of North Rhine-Westphalia will keep its name. Erwin Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” was one of Hitler’s favourite officers and was elevated to the status of war hero by Goebbels’s propaganda ministry. It was only at the end of the war that he fell into disgrace and was forced to commit suicide.

Two other military officers are also regarded as suitable role models for the Bundeswehr. Two barracks in the Lower Saxony town of Munster are to retain their names: the Bamm and Schulz-Lutz barracks. Who were these men?

Peter Bamm served as a military physician in World War II, first in France and later in Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. Adelbert Schulz was a brigadier general and commanded a division of the Wehrmacht. He was active in the invasion of the Sudetenland and Austria. He was awarded the Iron Cross in 1940 for his rapid advance in the French campaign and the breakthrough to Cherbourg on the English Channel. Schulz was also awarded the Knight’s Cross, first and second class. He received, as well, several awards for his military role on the Eastern Front before he died in battle in January 1944 in Ukraine.

In a report released today, the ministry wrote: "Risks linked to how Brexit will shape out and future US trade policies remain. In addition, the so-called diesel crisis should be classified as a new risk to the German economy even though its effects are not possible to quantify at the moment."

The shock admission will come as a major boost to Brexit negotiators as they try to strike a free-trade agreement with Brussels. Germany's economy is heavily reliant on car exports to Britain, meaning Berlin is desperate to keep the UK in the single market and customs union. Last year, an estimated 950,000 newly registered vehicles in the UK were made in Germany, a figure that could slump after a hard Brexit.

But hold on. Merkel has blown big leads in the past, she is fighting a campaign so complacent that it makes Theresa May’s look like a whirlwind of charisma and energy and, perhaps most importantly of all, there is a global backlash against establishment political leaders.

What would happen if she lost, or only limped back into power with a fragile coalition? There would be a sharp sell-off in European equities, a chaotic government in Berlin, and a more rapidly integrationist EU as France’s Emmanuel Macron became the Continent’s dominant political leader. It would create a huge shock, and the ripples would be felt everywhere.

Under Germany’s system of proportional representation, all six parties are likely to be represented in Parliament, but Merkel will be by far the dominant force. The only real excitement will be what sort of coalition she forms. And yet, the one thing we have surely learnt in the past year is never to take any election for granted. When the experts say something is a done deal, it often pays to take the other side of the trade. There are signs that an upset could be on the cards.

“Everyone who illegally entered the European Union after September 1, 2017 as an asylum seeker – especially through the Mediterranean Sea – [should] be placed in new asylum centers opened in North Africa during their asylum [application] proceedings,” the party's statement said, as quoted by the Welt media outlet.

The document said that the German Navy, along with Italian and Libyan forces, should put an end to migration via the Mediterranean Sea. According to recent polls, the AfD is supported by up to 10 percent of voters ahead of the September 24 parliamentary election.

In an interview with Baden Online, Mr Thuerer was asked why he was standing down as an MEP after eight years in favour of national politics. He replied: "I am a passionate European. Eight years of Strasbourg and Brussels showed me that a lot is possible, but also that a lot isn't.  Let's not fool ourselves: The big ​​Europe idea has hit the ground and needs new impulses for central questions."

Mr Theurer said he planned to advance the ambitions of the EU - including the controversial EU army - from a seat of power in Berlin.  "Protection of the common external borders, cross-border counter-terrorism, a common army - the responsibility lies not with the EU but the key lies in the national capitals," he said.  "This is exactly what I am looking for in the Bundestag." 

Mr Theurer, a former town mayor of Horb am Neckar in the southwest state of Baden-Württemberg, is widely tipped to win a seat in the Bundestag for the centrist Free Democrats party.  Once there he could be joining his former European Parliament president Martin Schulz, whose faltering election campaign as leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) looks set to end in humiliation. 

Now statues across the world could see the same fate - with London’s monument to Lord Nelson which towers over Trafalgar Square being the latest to face calls for the chop. But the demands have provoked a furious response from politicians who claim the removal would be ‘un-British’. In an opinion piece on the Guardian website, columnist Afua Hirsch argued it “is figures like Nelson who immediately sing to mind” when hearing the latest about the 700-odd confederate statues which have been pulled down in the US.

She wrote that while the reaction in Britain to the Charlottesville incident is “almost entirely condemnatory of neo-Nazis in the US”, the “colonial and pro-slavery titans of British history are still memorialised” in the UK. Highlighting monuments such as Lord Nelson’s tower, along with one celebrating notorious slaver Edward Colston in Bristol, she suggested the angry tone seems to disappear. Ms Hirsch wrote: “We have ‘moved on’ from this era no more than the US has from its slavery and segregationist past. The difference is that America is now in the midst of frenzied debate on what to do about it, whereas Britain – in our inertia, arrogance and intellectual laziness – is not.”

The article sparked outrage among some Britons, with former Ukip leader Nigel Farage tweeting: “Shocking that The Guardian are encouraging this. The left really do hate Britain.” Hordes of other people have reacted with horror over the article, with one social media user sharing a photo comparing the “alt-left” to members of Islamic State (ISIS) - who tore up huge swathes of land in Palmyra which was covered in historic statues.

One Twitter user said: “Miss Hirsch doesn’t realise how multicultural Nelson’s navy was and how it saved us from invasion from a dictator.”

“White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty,” Helm writes in an article titled “White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leader.” White people are asked, “Give up the home you own to a black or brown family,” pass on any inherited property “to a black or brown family,” or “re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.”

White women, especially, are urged to “get a racist fired” or “get your boss fired cause they racist too,” Helms writes. She concludes, “Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.”

During a press conference in New York City last Tuesday, President Donald Trump condemned the neo-Nazis and white nationalist protesters in Charlottesville. “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,” Trump said before calling the man who rammed a car into counter-protesters and killed a woman a “disgrace” and a horrible “murderer.”

Maduro has faced months of deadly mass protests by opponents who blame him for an economic crisis and are demanding elections to replace him. International pressure has also grown, with US President Donald Trump even saying this month that the United States reserved the option of military intervention in the Venezuela crisis. Maduro pointedly highlighted his alliance with Russia, which had rejected Trump's recent threat as "unacceptable."

The Venezuelan leader said he wanted to "keep strengthening the military cooperation agreement" between the two countries "for the sovereign defense of Venezuela." Russia recently sold fighter jets and ground to air missiles to Venezuela. "Venezuela has the full and absolute support of Russia," he said, adding that he would soon go to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Of course, the real question that needs to be asked here is simple: “If Assad is killing his own people, why are Syrians running back to him in droves?” Why would people who were being slaughtered by their own government rush back to it at the earliest possible opportunity? Perhaps because they actually prefer to live in Syria than some other country.

Perhaps their government isn’t killing them like Americans are being told they are. It is also important to point out that the rate of return for Syrian refugees has increased directly with the amount of territory liberated by the Syrian government. In other words, as the Syrian government liberates more territory, more Syrians return to their homes in government-controlled territory.

Obviously, if Syrian refugees were fleeing Assad, we would be seeing an increase in refugees. Regardless, it is clear to all who are not being paid to see otherwise that Syrians are returning home because America’s terrorists are losing territory and, thus, they now have the ability to return to their homes under government control.

While alternative media researchers have been pointing this out since the beginning of the conflict, mainstream media now has no choice but to admit that Syrians are willingly returning to the country run by the man these same outlets have attempted to demonize and destroy for six years. Slowly but surely, the mainstream media’s narrative surrounding Syria is unraveling in front of everyone’s eyes.

After enduring the worst natural disaster in American history, New Orleans was given billions of dollars to fix their flood control infrastructure, yet the city government has utterly failed to follow through. And let’s not forget what happened after Katrina. Multiple investigations found that the levees failed due to things like poor design, improper materials, and a lack of maintenance. And everyone knew for decades that one day those levees would fail, yet they kept kicking the can down the road. They’re still kicking the can.

So what really causes a natural disaster? Is it really an act of God, or are people to blame? There’s nothing “natural” about corruption and mismanagement. That’s what’s really responsible for most disasters, and that’s what really caused the flooding in New Orleans in 2005, and in 2017. And it’s not just New Orleans that we see human weakness written all over a natural disaster with massive casualties. Pretty much every time there is an earthquake, a fire, or a storm that kills hundreds or thousands of people, you’ll find that people failed to prevent the preventable. They built unstable buildings and failed to maintain levees.

Or they built homes where they should have never been built. A stone marker in Japan reads, “High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants. Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point.”

The marker was placed near Fukushima, and there are hundreds of them all over Japan that were built by tsunami survivors centuries ago. They’re a warning to future generations, not to build their homes too close to the coastline. The village that resides above this marker was untouched by the Tohoku tsunami that devastated Japan in 2011. The people who lived below it were not so lucky.

In reality, natural disasters are rare. The kinds of disasters that are completely unexpected and kill lots of people who didn’t know they were in danger, only strike once in a blue moon. But man-made disasters, the kinds that are caused by a lack of preparedness, willful ignorance, corruption, and normalcy bias, are very common. They happen every day.