Monday, January 09, 2017

Germany is Turning Itself in to What it Didn't Want to Be

As the waves upon waves of migrants from the Arab world and Africa started to break in greater and greater numbers across the shores of Europe a few years ago, I warned that if they did not find some way to keep these teeming millions out - and return as many as possible back that were already there - that eventually this would force the European nations to be something that they did not want to be. The mainstream Center-Left and Center-Right parties would have to become more nationalistic or the people would continue to turn to parties and individuals who did not share liberal ideals.

No one, not the indigenous population nor recent legal immigrants would be better for it. All is unfolding with almost mathematical precision.

The problem of growing pockets of unassimilated colonies was already there and growing. Merkel's suicidal decision to look like a great humanitarian by welcoming in over a million military aged unemployable men only threw accelerant on to the swelling discontent of the indigenous population who felt they were losing their nations - which they are.

It is 2017 now, and we find Germany, the heart of Europe, here;
In a guest editorial for the influential daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the federal interior minister surprised his party and the entire country with his concept of a "strong state." At almost the exact same time, Sigmar Gabriel, the head of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Merkel's junior coalition partner, presented a paper with his own ideas for a revamped security policy. Gabriel, who is Merkel's vice chancellor, demanded a tougher approach to potentially violent Salafists. "I am in favor of zero tolerance," he told SPIEGEL in an interview this week.
Germany, de Maizière wrote in his op-ed, is not sufficiently prepared for the crises and catastrophes of our times. The interior minister currently oversees more than 60,000 people working for the Federal Criminal Police Office, the federal police force, the domestic intelligence agency BfV and other agencies, and he believes changes are necessary. The federal government, he now believes, needs greater leverage to control all of the country's security agencies. He says that more video surveillance is needed as is the expanded use of facial recognition technology and beefed-up personnel. The state, he believes, must become stronger.
The image of the gray semi-truck in the middle of an idyllically decorated square marks a turning point for Germany. Islamist terror has arrived in full force. It is no longer merely apparent in the form of arrests and investigations, no longer present in speeches about "abstract threats" and the serious expressions on the faces of security agency heads following the comparatively minor attacks of last summer. Islamist terror has now struck at the heart of German culture -- a Christmas market shortly before Christmas Eve.

And the facts speak for themselves: German security agencies were unable to prevent the attack despite the fact that its perpetrator, Anis Amri, had been known for months to be an Islamist threat. Numerous agencies had files on him, they were aware of his contacts to Islamic State and they knew that he had searched the internet for bomb-building instructions.
Even the Green Party is calling for more security and police presence, something unthinkable just a few years ago. Party co-chair Cem Özdemir has said that his party will play a constructive role in the discussion over Interior Minister de Maizière's proposals.

The shift was also noticeable in the relative lack of criticism aimed at Cologne police for resorting to racial profiling to prevent a repeat of last new year's eve sexual assaults. The debate's paradigm has shifted.
Unlike past terrorist problems in Germany with The Red Army Faction and similar Communist cells that were political in nature - the latest threat is religious and ethnic. It is easier to undermine the Strategic Center of Gravity for political terrorist organizations; you just remove the political underpinnings and people will adopt a new political philosophy with less militant aspects - in this case, the Green Party or Die Linke.

It is a completely different effort to go after religious and ethnic based violence. One is exceptionally difficult to change - the other almost impossible to change inside generations of assimilation - if that.

To one degree or another, this totally avoidable disaster is playing out roughly along the lines expected. The post-war global Western liberal consensus is being torn apart by its own internal contradictions that keep its political mechanisms paralyzed to inaction.

If not for the political and personal cowardice by politicians from both sides of the aisle who were afraid of being called names or not being invited to the right conferences and dinner parties, the present situation would not exist. Sure, certain newspapers and magazines would call them nasty things, paint them as uncaring, and the usual suspects would tut-tut them to try to hurt their feelings  - but the nation they are trusted with would not be subject to a permanent deployment of military forces policing streets from a threat coming from within. Large segments of their major cities would not be "no-go" areas for public services. Rape would not become common.

How can a nation focus on a growing Russia when their own people cannot walk the streets in fear of a self-isolated foreign power holding sway in large parts of their cities?

Why did this come to pass?

Is starts with more than a little willful disregard for human nature and history in the modern era's governing class. In a strange alignment with various socio-political power centers - lessons learned by previous generations' blood and treasure is ignored.

This disregard is driven by three well meaning mental aspirations, and four malignancies.

First of all there is simply a desire not to address uncomfortable questions driven out of "polite conversation" by the same people who caused the discomfort.

Second, we have a certain narcissism in our governing class who feel they are better than those generations that came before. They can shape things better because they are smarter. With just enough money and virtue signaling, they can make it so that we can all live in a rainbow world powered my unicorn poop.

Third, tied in with that narcissism of virtue, is a narcissism of the now. "What are people saying about ME now? What support am I getting NOW." There is little desire to look at 2nd and 3rd order effects - what the compounding in time will do. Even less is a desire to make decisions that will create positive effects for their citizens in the future if it does not help their virtue signaling now.

Indeed, for some, they don't even like their fellow citizens and don't care about those people's future - they want a New Citizen. 

That leads to the malignancies.

Those three aspirations all have to do with a desire for social acceptance and popularity - an adult version of middle school social positioning. There are also reasons that have to do with a darker side of the psyche that lead to the four malignancies.

First, as you have here in the USA, there is the cultural self-loathing from the left and those seduced by the social capital that comes from being on the "good right" (see David Brooks). They want to pull themselves up as separate from their host culture by doing all they can by bring that culture down to a lower level. For whatever reason, they hate the nest they were born to. Unable to find self-worth in themselves, they can only hope to destroy that which they blame for their own inadequacies. All the good of the West is ignored or smeared - every mistake or bad point brought in to focus, exaggerated and used as a club to beat to a pulp all that is good.

Second are the grasping seekers of cheap labor. Squeezing every possible bit of margin to compete against the sweat shops of the world. Industries can gain only so much by automation in the face of a developed society's wage pressures. As such, they use their influence to bring in "guest workers" who will do for low wages what native born will not do. They never leave, and their children won't do that work, so more imports need to come. That is easier to do than attacking unfair trade practices - and is easier to get allies that will support for other reasons than economic ones.

Problem is, these low-cost, unskilled labor come from cultures that are not compatible with their host nations, they do not assimilate, and are not encouraged to. A manageable issue with the 1st generation with a small number, but when that unassimilated mass becomes 10%, 20% and the 50% of cities? Then what? Well, the people who first invited them made their money and are dead. Their children and grandchildren will have to deal with Molenbeek.

Third is something related to cultural self-loathing, and that is compassion pimping. Like those who feed their dog cheap food and lock them in a kennel - yet give money to the ASPCA - the compassion pimps want to show how much they care about others far away, while ignoring those already in their care. Not the poor down the street or in their own family - no that is too close and uncomfortable. Better to show how much you care by inviting in masses of problems that will live in "other people's" neighborhoods, go to school with other people's kids, go to public swimming pools - not in your gated community, not to your private school, not in your personal pool, not dating your daughters and sons.

Fourth and most cynical is voter replacement. One of the best ways to control populations is to keep them distinct. Give them something arbitrary that keeps them in a box, and then have that box as a reliable part of your voting block. If you don't like the fact that the French speaking part of Belgium isn't growing as fast as the Dutch speaking part? Simple fix; import French speakers from North Africa. Keep them isolated, but make them citizens as soon as you can so they can vote. Or, in the USA - like California - issue them drivers' licenses even before the become citizens so they can vote. In all cases, bring them in from cultures that see the government as a source of patronage - and reinforce that fact. Make sure you are seen as the party of government. Make sure they know who is on their side - and who is not.

History shows this never ends well - but if no one is encouraged to look at history and you don't teach in anymore - who is going to warn you? How will you know?

Of course, none of this happens in isolation. Eventually there is a reaction. The original inhabitants will, if ignored by mainstream and responsible politicians long enough, look to other places. They will begin to radicalize if they feel they need to in order to have their concerns addressed. Pressure will build and can only be contained so long.

This has been coming for a long time - that evening of drinks I had with a table full of Scandinavian military officers a decade ago, listening to them discuss what is not discussed openly in polite society, made that clear to me. The migrant crisis has only quickened things.

One little note; a major reason Europe has enjoyed so many decades of peace following WWII is the huge amount of state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing that took place from the Volga to the Rhine. This removed many of the simmering problems related to ethnic minorities stirring up trouble.  Poles were forced at the end of a bayonet to Poland. Germans to Germany. Italians to Italy ... and for the most part that is what happened. Ugly, but effective and probably already saved the lives of tens of millions.

Not content to enjoy the good harvest from the bloody sacrifice of the post-war migrations, the Europeans decided to import an even harder problem.

The solution is not going to be pleasant for anyone - and the bad stuff hasn't even happened yet. Anyone who thinks this has a happy ending is a fool. 

You can have your liberal welfare state, or you can have mass 3rd World immigration. You can't have both.

No comments: