Friday, July 29, 2016

The Most Powerful Woman in the World

Yesterday, the most powerful woman in the world took time out from her vacation to campaign for Donald Trump.

Having persuaded Great Britain to vote itself out of the European Union, German Chancellor Merkel is now hard at working trying to convince Americans that women are unfit for major leadership positions.

After all, Merkel is the most powerful woman in the world. And her open arms policy-- welcoming over a million Muslim refugees-- is widely considered to have persuaded the British public—but certainly not the British ruling class, both left and right—that they no longer wanted to belong to a union that had such weak leaders.

In some sense, Merkel is just following the lead of our own president. The Obama administration and many within the Democratic Party embrace an open-borders policy in America. Each time there is a terrorist attack in Europe the chances of a Trump presidency increase.

Thus, I have taken special care to report on recent events in Europe, especially on the wave of terrorist assaults. Even more than campaign advertising, balloon drops and ill-considered tweets these events are influencing our own politics, profoundly.

Like France, Germany has increasingly been the object of attacks by Muslim extremists. Some Islamists have murdered people. Others have threatened, harassed, molested and abused women.

The situation has become so bad that Merkel had to return from her vacation. Sadly, she has not changed her tune and has not been willing to change her policy. Even more sadly, neither she nor the woman leaders in Scandinavian countries has expressed outrage about the way the refugees are treating women.

One notes that Merkel offered her remarks while sitting at a dais between two other women. One notes that Margaret Thatcher made a habit of surrounding herself with men. One imagines that the Iron Lady understood that the perception of female weakness can be mitigated by a sufficient number of male aides. Merkel does not seem to have gotten the point. 

One might say that, on the left and on the right, there are two kinds of political leaders. Some change policy when they see that their policy is not working. Others double down on failed policies.

It is true that no one knows how a policy will work until it is tried. But once it is tried and fails, only the most obdurate and egotistical soul will continue to insist that it is a good thing.

The Daily Mail reports on the press conference Merkel gave yesterday:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday rebuffed calls to reverse her welcoming stance toward refugees after a series of brutal attacks in the country.

Merkel, who interrupted her summer holiday to face the media in Berlin, said the four assaults within a week were 'shocking, oppressive and depressing' but not a sign that authorities had lost control.

The German leader said the assailants 'wanted to undermine our sense of community, our openness and our willingness to help people in need'.

'We firmly reject this,' she said at a wide-ranging news conference.

Merkel repeated her rallying cry from last year when she opened the borders to people fleeing war and persecution, many from Syria, which brought nearly 1.1 million migrants and refugees to Germany in 2015.

'I am still convinced today that "we can do it" - it is our historic duty and this is a historic challenge in times of globalisation,' she said.

'We have already achieved very, very much in the last 11 months.'

So, wet note, have the terrorists.

One remarks, with considerable chagrin, that Merkel, a right-of-center politician is here channeling Barack Obama, the man who famously intoned, in Spanish, Yes, we can.

While Obama is consciously trying to transform the culture by allowing in as many non-white refugees as possible, Merkel does not even understand the import and the impact of her policies. She thinks that she is showing German compassion for the weak and the downtrodden.

In schoolmarmish fashion Merkel also declared that the terrorists were mocking German culture and hospitality. How much time did it take her to reach that conclusion? It ought to be obvious to everyone that the new wave of terrorism is not just an everyday crime spree. It cannot be grasped by comparing the number of victims to the number killed in automobile accidents.

Islamist terrorists are at war against Western civilization. They want to change the way people speak, where they can or cannot go, how they dress, and where they worship. Young women in Merkel’s Germany now feel threatened if they go out along at night. They feel threatened at swimming pools. They assume that they risk assault for going to a music festival. And they know that the government does not have their backs. Their government is hard at work covering up the incidence of refugee violence and refugee rapes. Just like they do in Sweden.

Strangely, Merkel took another page out of the Obama playbook when she said that Germany would bring the terrorists to justice. She was saying that the problem can be solved by the criminal justice system, thus that it is not a culture war against the foundations of Western civilization, our freedoms and our way of life.

Of course, Merkel wants to preserve Germany’s way of life. It’s a noble sentiment, made ignoble by the fact that the flood of refugees she has allowed into the country wants nothing more than to destroy Germany’s way of life.

Yesterday, she said:

Merkel said that she would not allow jihadists, following a series of deadly attacks in France, Belgium, Turkey and the US state of Florida, to keep her government from being guided by reason and compassion.

'Despite the great unease these events inspire, fear can't be the guide for political decisions,' she said.

'It is my deep conviction that we cannot let our way of life be destroyed.'

Merkel said those who carried out attacks 'mocked the country that took them in'. 

She vowed Germany will 'stick to our principles' and give shelter to those who deserve it.  

'The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need,' she told a news conference for which she interrupted her vacation.

'They see hatred and fear between cultures and they see hatred and fear between religions. We stand decisively against that,' she added.

The terrorists are breaking down Germany’s sense of cohesion and community. They are inhibiting Germany’s openness and generosity. They are doing so because Chancellor Merkel invited them to do so, and continues to allow them to do so.

They fear nothing because in Angela Merkel they have nothing to fear.

They will continue to do so until politicians like Merkel summon up the courage to face the mess that they have created, to stop the madness of allowing millions of new refugees who want to destroy the culture that has welcomed them, and to begin a deportation movement.

We are not dealing with a crime wave. We are not dealing with a few disgruntled outliers. We may or may not be dealing with terrorists who are being directed from a bunker in Raqqa. But we are dealing with a major assault on Western civilization. The people who have been entrusted with leading the fight for the civilization now reveal themselves to be weak and ineffectual, more comfortable defending their own failed policies and apologizing for terrorism.

The whole world is watching what is happening in Merkel’s Germany. The weaker she seems, the less she understands what is happening, the greater the chance that after November 8 she will still be the most powerful woman in the world.


David Foster said...

"It cannot be grasped by comparing the number of victims to the number killed in automobile accidents."

These kinds of comparisons are being made all the time....'you're more likely to be killed by slipping in the bathtub than by terrorists'....I respond at my post Statistical Malpractice, Cluelessness About Humans

Dennis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dennis said...

David Foster,

Along those lines; Lies, damn lies and statistics.,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Never had much trust in statistics utilized for explaining the actions or inclinations of people. Example the Brexit vote.

Merkel cannot change her position because to do so would make her responsible for some of the terrorism that has occurred.

Trigger Warning said...

If we stop them before they kill us, it shows our fear and the terrorists will have won. As Obama bravely noted from behind a phalanx of guns, "We [sic] can absorb another terrorist attack."

sestamibi said...

Come January, we face the prospect of three of the most powerful western countries being headed by cunt--who have produced a total of precisely one child among them. That says it all, don't you think?

Ares Olympus said...

Anonymous Trigger Warning said... As Obama bravely noted ..."We [sic] can absorb another terrorist attack."

I was curious about that, see it goes to a 2010 quote from Woodward:
Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

It is an interesting quote, apparently 2009, nearly 7 years ago. Obama is saying the standard for safety can't be perfect, but our resilience, our ability to carry on even under the worst terroristic attack in our history.

As well, it is understandable that Edward Snowden should be rightfully seen as a traitor, for exposing the otherwise illegal monitoring power of the NSA, and its nongovernmental subcontractors to do anything within their power to expose terroristic plots before they happen.

And whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is elected president in November, the threat of terrorists guarantees an otherwise compliant citizenry who consider this a harmless loss of privacy for innocent people, but to help protected from dangerous men with box cutters, guns, or trucks as the case may be.

In the conspiracy world there's also the idea of "false flag", so if a vocal minority of citizens start getting uppity and demand illegal spying be stopped, an autoritarian goverment merely has to identify a few unstable youth of the correct ethnic identity, and plant some provocateurs who help radialize these youth, and look the other way as they plan their attack, and then when the public cries in fear and outrage, the authoritarian establishment quickly offers calming plans about how future such attacks can be prevented, with just a few more losses of freedom and privacy by citizens. And the vocal minority who wanted the opposite direction will be effectively silenced, and even blamed, because they were the ones fighting against these high tech ways of catch radicals.

I'm not a paranoid person by nature, mainly because it seems hard to imagine secrets being kept, but I can see how Obama's position "We can absorb it" is a voice against fear-mongering, against ideals that says "The government can protect you" which Conservatives always laugh at, except when they have imagined enemies like terrorists.

I quite sure that Trump's rhetoric is destructive, and will create the exact thing he claims he's against. He thinks he can encourage hatred against Muslims, and that this won't have any negative consequences to Muslims living in America. He wants to keep out more Muslims while Muslim populations already live here. He thinks we can spy on Muslims because they're Muslims and can catch radicals before they act, and not create a backlash of us-vs-them that won't further divide our nation.

Anyway, I'm not sure who I should most fear, but I'd prefer Obama's approach - terrorists like IS/ISIS/ISIL or whatever are amateur bullies who can and will destroy themselves by their own brutality, if we let them. And we just raise their status by promising to spy on and harrass millions of Muslims to protect ourselves from the 0.00001%, ultimately less the common criminals which exist in all races and cultures.

Multiculturalism certainly won't save us, but at least mixing us up in the world helps some of us accept its a battle between the violent and the nonviolent, not between races, ethnic groups and religions.

Trigger Warning said...

"During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Sez the man surrounded by a phalanx of guns...

If he ceases considering American citizens as collateral damage, the I*****c t*****ists will have won.

Ron Paul Wannabee said...

Stu making some great points here.

My concern is similar to what Ron Paul's might be: Indigenous people being occupied or attacked within their own country will act out against the aggressors. Westerners labeling these indigenous as Islamist extremists doesn't change that basic fact. Here, Stu is looking at the other side of the coin, though: immigrants who leave, rather than stay, in their own country, i.e. Syria, but the case applies equally for Libyan or Iraqi or other ME/NA countries where residents want to get away from Western bombing and regime change meddling; they cannot, so they leave. Where do/can they go to? Well, towards the societies/cultures that produced their misery in the first place, to a degree! In other words, Merkel, Obama and NATO (all the same in their eyes) are both the cause and the solution (in their eyes) to their plight, that of not having a place to live in harmony somewhere, anywhere. While this explanation excuses no ones' actions or crimes on an individual scale, it does place their actions in a different geopolitical context. My concern is that no one in this discussion is looking at the root causes at all. If they continue, if NATO continues to bomb and Obama & his lackeys (e.g. Merkel) continue policies of attempted regime change utilizing ISIL & others, the residents will naturally be inclined to look for a better place to live than THEIR OWN COUNTRY!

Trigger Warning said...

Obviously, when happy campesinos turn to blood-curdling violence, it's the fault of the west and its colonialist impulses.

The training is strong in this one, Commissar.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Valerie Jarrett is the most powerful woman in the world.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Who is Valerie Jarrett?

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

Ron Paul Wannabee said
" ... Indigenous people being occupied or attacked within their own country will act out against the aggressors ... "

So the Syrians being bombed in their own country by their own government escape to Germany and "act out" because of women in bathing suits, that's what you're saying?

Uh, no.

The Middle East is a hellhole, and the "hell" is due solely to Mohammed and the vile "religion" and bloodthirsty "god" he invented. Period.

The whole point of Islam is Might Makes Right. They claim it's about "submission" to the divine plan, but it's really about DOMINATION, and who gets to be the Absolute Master over whom. It's a degraded and dysfunctional society that can only "work" when there's a brutal warlord willing to commit atrocities to keep the "peace" of Islam from erupting all over his home turf.

Read about the 1400-year history of Islam, dear R-P-W. In the very-very-very beginning, ol' Mohammed declared that neighboring tribes who declined his friendly offer to convert to Islam, surrender their possessions and property to him, and keep their heads attached, were by their refusal "offending Allah" and thus Mohammed's Brave and Noble Goons were justified in slaughtering them wholesale and taking their women and children as slaves. This same pattern has continued without change for a millenium-and-a-half.

"Reacting to aggression" ? Pish-tush. Pfui. Nonsense. It's Islam's S.O.P.

Dennis said...


Interestingly stated, but true in the main. There is this idea that almost every ill in the world started in this country. Sadly much of this is perpetrated by a public school system that is more indoctrination than education. This is why we see so few people who know their own history much less world history. Thank you Howard Zinn and the progressives who took control of our supposed education system.
It does not matter whether one studies religions, Western history, Eastern history or world history one finds most of these ills, including slavery blamed on this country, existed long before we became a country and those foreign cultures had centuries long acquaintance with these ills. Why do the Bible and the Koran both mention slaves? Why are there Sunnis and Shias and what created the schism in Islam?
We, as a country, have at least tried to address these ills, even at the outset of this country. Even remembering that many citizens came from countries that had a rich history of evil and in some cases human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was practiced in both North and South America.
As I stated before Jefferson tried to address slavery in the Declaration of Independence and the Founders did as well in the Constitution. The reasoning behind a "more prefect union."

It is hard to take RPW seriously because he demonstrates a true lack of history and historical perspective and an attempt to insinuate Modernism into a place where it does not have value.

ANM Tough, but right in the main.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

RPW's world needn't be countered. His worldview is very simple: if we don't meddle in the world, we won't be involved and, therefore, we won't get hurt. People only bother us if we bother them.

Rubbish. Evil men seek to destroy men, whether they like it or not. What we call evil (which is real) is really self-annihilation gone wild. It's metastasized hate and destruction.

That's what Islamism is: EVIL.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

And RPW is, by nomenclature, a wannabe. It would be refreshing if he were just himself...