Thursday, February 4, 2016

What Hath Merkel Wrought?

In an important article (via Maggie’s Farm) Stephen Brown explains that Angela Merkel bears full responsibility for Europe’s refugee crisis.

Brown quotes an Oxford Professor named Paul Collier who argues that Angela Merkel precipitated the wave of invading migrants by announcing to the world that Germany was open to receiving them. If Merkel had not invited them in, they would not have undertaken the dangerous journey to Germany.

They would have remained where they were. Good, humanitarian intentions have produced a humanitarian calamity and will almost certainly damage Western civilization.

You know the old adage: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Unfortunately, when people have the best of intentions, when their hearts are in the right place, it is nearly impossible to persuade them that good intentions do not necessarily produce good policy and that good intentions can produce unwanted negative outcomes.

Brown writes:

Despite the negative effects this huge influx of people has had on the German economy and society, such as the mass sexual molestation and rape of hundreds of women last New Year’s Eve in Cologne, increased crime and concerns for personal safety among native Germans, supporters of Merkel’s action believe it was nevertheless justified by the humanitarian emergency and the need to save lives.

But in an exclusive and revealing interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, an internationally recognised migration and Third World expert, Paul Collier, author of the book Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World, convincingly debunks this myth. Collier, a former director of the World Bank who currently holds an economics professorship at Oxford University, believes Merkel’s open-doors decision “…did not save a single Syrian from death.”

“Despite best intentions, Germany has, instead, dead people on its conscience,” Collier told Die Welt. “Many people understood Merkel’s words as an invitation and only after that did they actually set out on the dangerous journey, sacrifice their savings and entrust their lives to dubious smugglers.”

Meant as a humanitarian gesture, Collier maintains Merkel’s announcement had the opposite effect in regard to migrants’ safety and well-being. The refugees, he said, were already in safe, third states, such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and did not come to Germany directly from “war and crisis countries.” But it was this “invitation” that caused them to leave these relatively safe havens, where most lived in tolerable conditions, and risk their lives on the arduous trip to Germany.

“With her communication,” Collier said, “she (Merkel) made migrants out of refugees.”

If the migrants thought that they would find the Promised Land in Germany, they were mistaken. They found refugee camps, places where life has been cruel and brutal.

Brown explains:

And even if the migrants reach the Promised Land, the “affluence heaven” of Germany, their suffering often does not end there. In fact, for some, this may constitute the worst part of their ordeal. In the refugee asylums the Germans hastily erected, life can be very dangerous. As is now well known, violence between young men of different ethnic groups is rampant, and the police’s ability to control it is minimal. But even worse, it is the women and children in these cramped accommodations who are most often victims of sexual assault.

The migrant crisis must, of course, be distinguished from the problems Europe has been having for past willingness to open its doors to Muslim refugees from the Middle East and Africa.


A-Bax said...

Quoting Steve Sailer:

“I think it’s important that Merkel sooner or later lose her job for committing Merkel’s Boner. That’s what makes a lasting impression on politicians: other politicians losing their jobs.

The Narrative is so powerful at rewriting history that politicians don’t even understand examples of other politicians winning their jobs: for example, George H.W. Bush winning on Willie Horton in 1988 or Pete Wilson winning on Prop. 187 in 1994 are down the Memory Hole.

But losing … that’s what grabs future politicians’ attention.”

Most readers of the blog can agree, I would think, that Western politicians of the past 25 years or so how been particularly bad stewards of the civilizations they were born into and rose up in. Most would heartily welcome a reversal in this regard.

But, incentives matter, and short-sighted politicians need to understand in their bones that Merkel royally f*cked up. They only way to effect that is for her to resign or be outsted quickly.

This shouldn’t even really be an open question. Merkel was derelict in her duty and is unfit for further executive responsibilities. And it is the German people, especially their young women, who are suffering for her vanity and naiveté.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

I second the motion.

Anonymous said...


"... Western politicians of the past 25 years or so how been particularly bad stewards of the civilizations they were born into and rose up in."

I think you're giving the Western political class too much credit. They simply don't appreciate their inheritance because they're falling all over each other trying to see who can be more tolerant and understanding of everyone not like them. Meanwhile, they are intolerant of the issues most important to the constituents they represent -- like fraus and frauleins being able to walk around without being molested by unwelcome foreigners demanding favors. This is because of their complete lack of understanding of culture and its impact on choices, and therefore development. Their postmodern sophistication makes them blind to the impact of these mass emigrant events. It's someone else's problem, or soon will be. They're not "stewards," they're talking heads on the Glowing Box. They don't represent "civilizations," they're citizens of the world. The same kind of leader we have the in the good ol' US of A.

As for the "short-sighted politicians," I'm afraid the "long-sighted" among them isn't necessarily any better. It's the long-term view of the same ideological outcome: tolerance, shopping and otherwise bemusing themselves.

And I think you're assuming that Merkel cares about Germany's young women. Not as much as she likes being admired by her peers and lauded for not being a "mean" person... whatever that means. She's a chemist, yet doesn't understand what happens when you create instability by welcoming volatile "molecules" that don't form bonds. And she's the head of the Christian Democratic Union in Germany. Seems she can't remind herself of her heritage in the name of the party. Kind of like here, where we have Republicans who haven't the faintest clue of what a republic actually is, and Democrats who can't seem to bring themselves to follow the will of the people on much of anything these days.

IAC (from an undisclosed location)

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really believe the political class cares about us? Really? Do you think they're stewards or public servants in any capacity? I'm not being cynical here, I'm talking about speaking the truth to those living in denial. The Ruling Class is as intellectually despotic as any form of despotism in history. They believe postmodern drivel hook, line and sinker. The only thing that matters to them is power. They don't appreciate anything else. That's why A-Bax is correct, in that losing power is the only thing they'll understand. Until they figure out a way to end elections. Always remember: accountability is the bane of the Ruling Class.


Ares Olympus said...

Today I saw a drone-camera video of some of the devastation in Syria, yes, still far from being leveled into a parking lot, and I didn't see any sand glowing, but it looks effective to me.

Who would want to live there? And who would want to rebuild anything knowing 20 years of redevelopment can be flattened again in a couple years of the next civil war.

I don't think Germany or Angela Merkel are directly involved in arming any side of that civil war, or using their military to help out in the destruction.

But we have learned that if you destroy people's homes, and give them hope they'll be welcomed elsewhere, a large number of people will risk their lives, and their children's lives, to have some hope for a better future.

Germany itself had its cities flattened in the actual carpet bombing of their cities in World War II, and they can believe their ancestors deserved that fate, along with the millions of civilians murdered. But guilt and shame apparently can't be offset by simple good deeds, like showing mercy and kindness to strangers who may overwhelm your resources, and some who will abuse your kindness.

It is curious, if you imagine Germany has been "under a spell" of its own dark history, and perhaps its low native birth rate might even be a symptom of that dark history, and yet perhaps this experience will change something for the better in the heart of Germany, and WHEN they pass through this new chaos, they will have a higher convidence in their renewed humanity.

At least you never know how these things will turn out.

While whatever chaos is in Germany now, its small compared to the desperation of the people of Syria to risk their children's lives on the promises of smugglers in too small boats passing over large waves and fear.

Perhaps compassion for strangers is bad idea for your own comfort, but it is the Christian way.

David Foster said...

"Perhaps compassion for strangers is bad idea for your own comfort, but it is the Christian way"

Does Christianity require one to prioritize compassion for distant strangers (distant geographically and culturally) over compassion for strangers in your own country and culture, say, the fraulein who would like to be able to walk down the street without being abused and perhaps attacked?

JK Brown said...

A couple years ago, I read a post on one of the higher ed websites where the academic was pointing out that there were only two of "them" leading countries. He meant academics or specifically, PhDs. At that time, the only ones of "them" leading countries was Angela Merkel and Mohamed Morsi.

Yep, the Muslim Brotherhood and overrun of Germany by Muslim immigrants is straight out of the faculty lounge.

A-Bax said...

Anonymous (IAC)

I wonder if part of the reason Trump has so resonated with people is because one gets the sense that he is decidedly NOT of the globo-post-national elite. He is a nationalist, and one gets the sense that he will at least TRY to be a steward of the US.

Trump has his faults, and I don't think I'm an "idolater" - as our host accuses rabid-Trump supporters of being - but much of his appeal, I think, is that it looks like he will unreservedly and unapologetically put American interests first (as he understands them, and of course there's the rub.) So many of our elite put the interests of foreigners, whether the are transnational corporate shareholders or illiterate alien peasants, ahead of the interests of the average US citizen.

¡Jeb! and the Flamingo Kid Rubio certainly will put the interests of the Aztec horde and the Chamber of Commerce / Koch nexus ahead of Americans.

Small "r" republican government and small "d" democratic representation are very unusual historically. So much so, that they even seem unnatural at times. For sure, people more naturally revert to tribalist, big-man social arrangements. (Or, even in more refined cultures like those in the far east, Confucian-tinged despotism.)

As Western civ has drifted away from being primarily Anglo-Germanic-Celtic (with a sprinkling of foreginers), it has also drifted away from the rule-of-law, secure property rights, limits on executive power, and the enforcement of contracts. As we have begun to resemble a polyglot, tower-of-babel style empire, so the citizens/subjects of the US have reverted more towards embracing strongman politicians, if only because the protection of the law feels so tenuous.

I often wonder if the republic truly is dead, and that Tea-Party (who I supported) like efforts to usher back small government and citizen control are rearguard actions. That the game is effectively up. After the floodgates were opened to throngs of non-western aliens in 1965, and after the ascendancy of globalism in the 90s, the republic essentially died. I really, really hope not.

Dennis said...

Nice to read your commentary IAC. Tis why I believe that most of the countries in Europe will cease to exists as independent cultures in 20 years or less. The same thing will happen here 10 years after that. This is dependent upon whether we finally stand up for our own culture. Any culture that could elect and re-elect Obama again is already well on its way to destroying its own culture. Then add to that a democrat party that isn't democratic which is running two socialists, one just a little less virulent than the other and a republican party that has few members that are even conversant with being a republican. Then one has to add a Supreme Court that depends less and less on the Constitution and we have all three branches of government doing their best to destroy the culture that made our freedoms possible. Mostly to feel good about themselves vice serving the interests of the people they were elected to represent. The mere fact that the next president may have the chance to select three new members of the Supreme Court should be causing people who really care about this country to get very very involved for what we are as a culture and a nation truly hangs in the balance.
When looks at the great extinguishment of cultures one notices that it is the people of those civilizations who created their own destruction. Those who do not fight to preserve their rights and freedoms are the first to give them away for security or a number of justifications concerning their own personal benefit. Take the writings of Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) and one is surprised at how well they describe us. As I have stated before people don't change, only the technology available to them does. Sadly, we never seem to learn.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

And it's not just Angela. Look at the cast of characters we have running for President of the United States of America:

Jeb: Former Governor of Florida. Private sector experience: Banking, a number of entrepreneurial ventures. Worked at a Wall Street banks after leaving office, earned $29 million from 2007-14.

Kasich: Governor of Ohio. Private sector experience: Managing director at Lehman Brothers from 2001 until it went bankrupt in 2008. Received $600K in compensation in 2008.

Christie: Governor of New Jersey. Wife works as a managing director at a Wall Street investment banking firm. Private sector law practice: 6 years at private practice law firm.

Cruz: First-term U.S. Senator. Wife (Heidi Cruz) is an investment manager at Goldman Sachs. Private sector experience: one year in private practice law, dealing with political issues

Rand Paul: First-term U.S. Senator. Wife is a freelance writer. Private sector experience: Practicing ophthalmologist since 1988.

Huckabee: Former Governor of Arkansas. Wife is a former teacher and pharmacist's assistant. Private sector experience: Pastor, television personality

Fiorina: Both she and her spouse are accomplished business executives, worth $59 million. Private sector experience: entire career, including CEO of HP.

Trump: Billionaire real estate mogul. Private sector experience: entire career real estate, business, television personality.

Santorum: Former two-term U.S. Senator. Wife was a neonatal nurse. Private sector experience: consultant, private practice attorney.

Rubio: First-term U.S. Senator. Spouse was a bank teller and Miami Dolphins cheerleader. Private sector experience = FAIL

Gilmore: Former Governor of Virginia. Private sector experience = FAIL. No one understands why he is in the race.

Hillary Clinton: Former U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. Senator. Ties to the Clinton Foundation, high speaking fees from... Wall Street investment banks. Private sector experience at a cozy, corrupt law firm in Little Rock.

Sanders: U.S. Senator. Didn't collect a steady paycheck until he was 39 and became the Mayor of Burlington, VT. Been a politician ever since. Private sector experience = FAIL.

O'Malley: Former Governor of Maryland. An "All Lives Matter" denier, O'Malley is a lifelong politician who likes to take his shirt off. Private sector experience = FAIL.

The connections so many candidates have to Wall Street investment banks are most curious. Conspicuously meager experience in the private sector, which helps explain their alternate reality and theoretical universe. The most hilarious aspect of the coverage of the Republican vs. Democratic primaries is that Trump is angry and represents angry people, while Bernie Sanders is angry and "reflects discontent." Rubbish. Lots of people in America are angry, and no one in the Ruling Class is listening. That's why Trump has resonated.

I guess you can say that these candidates are just like all of us! We have so much in common. They understand us, and how life goes for the rest of the country. Right?

So.... who's looking out for YOU and YOUR interests?

Anonymous said...

One last thing...

When you have in the West is leaders who only care about power. The threat of removal is the only thing left they understand. Our power to unseat them.

So while out political parties ruthlessly overpower and sheepishly acquiesce (and both parties do this, in some form), all the while disregarding constitutional government, we inch closer toward civil war.

And a modern civil war would not allow for set-piece, foraging armies in large-scale engagements like that of 150 years ago. Modern civil war would be a chaotic bloodbath, a conflict between small bands of partisans and raiders, more akin to "Bleeding Kansas."

And the complete misunderstanding and miscalculating of our like-minded elites make them oblivious to this horrible possibility -- logical, sensible action based on their choices and non-response to popular will. That, along with their ignorance of the just place of a federal government within a constitutional framework designed expressly to LIMIT that power.

If all is fleeting, and all is this postmodern ethereal wonder where the "brights" rule all, only a bullet will negate it. Cognitive supremacy begs brute force of flesh amidst soaring economic, social and political injustice.

This is the apocalypse our Ruling Class is increasingly making more real across a range of fronts that destroy privacy and anonymity.

I would say "Bring it on" if only its horrors weren't inevitable.

All that lies at the end of our current political trajectory is death -- and the sacrifice of all the civilized constraints we've come to hold dear. Rights are not magical things, true prosperity is not an accident, and peace is not a natural state. We in the West have forgotten this, and the brute force of the otherworld awaits our answer.

Tolerance is not a virtue. Blind tolerance is cowardice, a waving signal of grotesque decadence. What we do not defend, we do not value.

Who will we be in the face of barbarism -- both from the outside, and our own?


Dennis said...


Might I suggest Article 5 of the Constitution as a way to accomplish the goals you are talking about without all the barbarity. One only needs 34 states to create a Constitutional Convention. Tennessee just voted for an Article 5 Convention along with my state of Florida and several others. If people are truly angry this is a way to Constitutional address things like term limits, et al. Just the fear of an Article 5 CC might be enough to change things. We as citizens have the power now do we have the courage to do so.

Theranter said...

Dennis: Agree re Europe, but a few are try to maintain their own cultures. Here is an excellent read (longer, but well worth it) you might enjoy:

Theranter said...

An excerpt from the article I linked above: (emphasis mine)
Q. What do you think of the argument which says that migrants should be welcomed, since they make up for shortfalls in the workforce and they will provide pensions decades from now?

A. I have tried to read through and understand debates and analyses from the ’60s and ’70s: the period of earlier European migration waves. In my view, every single great migration period is characterised by a basic delusion. Host countries expected units of labour, but instead they got people. They are real people: they have souls, cultures and religions. We cannot only take their manpower into consideration, because it is the whole human being we get – together with their own cultural identities, the problems they have living with them, and with the fact that they do not at all consider European attitudes to life as a philosophy to be followed. They consider their own cultures to be more valuable, so they do not want to integrate, but organize their own parallel lives. This is what has happened everywhere; this is the phenomenon of parallel societies, experienced recently in Europe, in countries where there are a large number people who have arrived from elsewhere. Central Europe has not experienced this problem so far. The fact that here in Central Europe we do not have parallel subdivisions within our societies is not a disadvantage, but it will be one of the region’s biggest advantages, one of its biggest attractions and an all-important competitive advantage in the future. This is certainly not a politically correct thought, and therefore it cannot be said out loud. Following the publication of this interview I imagine I will be fiercely criticised for this sentence.

Q. How do you see the future of those countries where the abovementioned parallel societies have already developed?

A. My stance on this phenomenon is not a critical one, but is based on the concept of sovereignty. Every country has the right to decide whether it wants to admit large numbers of people from ethnic groups which are different from the host country’s existing inhabitants; it may live alongside them whilst accepting all the consequences of the development of parallel societies. Such countries are free to make such a decision. If this is what the Germans decided when they admitted Turkish immigrants, so be it. When the French admitted large numbers of Arabs, it was their right to decide so. There is only one thing which they do not have the right to do: to expect us to do the same – because whether we want to do so or not is our sovereign decision. We Hungarians do not want this at all, and we have the right not to want to become just like those other countries. They must accept it, just as we accept their decisions. It is still, of course, true that Europe is our common home: the homeland of our homeland. This is why I am concerned that the proportion of non-European ethnic groups is continuously increasing. It only takes basic mathematics to figure out that, as a matter of course, traditional European societies will become minorities wherever they allow themselves to. We Hungarians shall not.

vanderleun said...

"This shouldn’t even really be an open question. Merkel was derelict in her duty and is unfit for further executive responsibilities."

Get back to me when somebody pours a gallon of petrol on her and burns her in a ditch like the last German maniac.