German leader Angela Merkel is facing a new disaster stemming from her embrace last year of over a million migrants from the Middle East: only 1 in every 10,000 refugees who arrived in the country are now employed, according to the UK Express.
Merkel blamed German firms for not hiring enough refugees — a survey by Reuters of the 30 companies in Germany’s stock market index found just 63 hired out of more than a million refugees, and of those 63 hires, 50 are employed by Deutsche Post DHL to sort and deliver letters and packages.
Merkel summoned the bosses of Germany’s biggest companies to Berlin to explain. The companies defended themselves by explaining that refugees “are just not ready” for the job market, lacking German-language skills and proof of qualifications.
A high proportion of refugees are not qualified beyond primary or secondary school level, with many unable to read or write. A spokesman for the German business community said:
“Given that around 80 percent of asylum seekers are not highly qualified and may not yet have a high level of German proficiency, we have primarily offered jobs that do not require technical skills or a considerable amount of interaction in German.”
Airline and financial industries added that many asylum seekers are unable to prove their identities.
Merkel told the business leaders that “everyone will benefit” if more refugees are integrated into the workplace. She also pointed to special migrant job centres set up to help immigrants find jobs, housing and qualification recognition of their previous employment and education.Germany – Europe’s biggest economy – faces a growing skills shortage with a working-age population due to decrease by six million people over the next 15 years. Many had hoped that migrants would boost economic growth and help ease the skills shortage.Wrong. Industrial group ThyssenKrupp’s Chief Executive Heinrich Hiesinger confirmed that “the employment of refugees is no solution for the skills shortage.”
A spokeswoman for Deutsche Telekom said:
“Our experience is that it takes a minimum of 18 months for a well trained refugee to go through the asylum procedure and learn German at an adequate level in order to apply for a job.”
A spokeswoman from the German Federal Agency for Employment said:
“Many refugees need money quickly to send it back to their relatives in their home country or pay their bills and they do not see the advantages of an apprenticeship that starts with less pay.
“We try to convince them that this would be better in the long run and we try to figure out what skills they actually have.
“The problem is that a mechanic from Afghanistan may repair cars, but he never went to a professional school and got a certificate.”
These dire employment figures have come to light as the anti-refugee Alternative für Deutschland party has made significant gains in elections following concerns that Merkel’s suicidal refugee policy was threatening German stability.
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, left, speaks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels on Friday, Feb. 19, 2016. British Prime Minister David Cameron pushed a summit into overtime Friday after a second day of tense talks with weary European Union leaders unwilling to fully meet his demands for a less intrusive EU. (Martin Meissner, Pool)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel finally had admitted that she made serious mistakes in dealing with the refugee crisis.
In an interview published today in a German newspaper, Mutti Merkel explains:
There are political issues that one can see coming but don’t really register with people at that certain moment – and in Germany we ignored both the problem for too long and blocked out the need to find a pan-European solution.
She continues:
We said we would deal with the problem at our airports since we don’t have any other external EU boundaries. But that doesn’t work…We didn’t embrace the problem in an appropriate way. That goes as well for protecting the external border of the Schengen area.
This is downright shocking coming from Merkel. A blind man could see that she mishandled the crisis by opening her welcoming arms to an unlimited number of immigrants from the Middle East — people who do not share German culture and values — but Merkel constantly bragged:“Wir schaffen das,” meaning “We can do this.” Obviously, Germany couldn’t, but it’s mighty kind of her to finally admit her mistakes.
Sadly, that’s where our praise for Merkel has to end.
The reason Merkel admitted that she mishandled the situation isn’t that she’s truly sorry for turning Germany into one big refugee camp; it’s that she feels a rival and new conservative party breathing down her neck. I’m talking, of course, about Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany).
The AfD has a few important ideas: to limit immigration, to reduce spending, and to dismantle the European Union by returning it to the trade bloc it was supposed to be in the first place. If the AfD gets its way, Germans will pay significantly lower taxes while their country gets its sovereignty back. It seems to me that these aren’t bad ideas — which doesn’t mean I also support every single one of their other policy proposals.
This new party is quickly rising in the polls, while polls also show that up to two thirds of German voters want Merkel out at the next elections.
In other words, Merkel is only admitting she made “mistakes” (by the way, they weren’t mistakes as much as conscious policy decisions caused by her firmly held belief in multiculturalism) because she fears she might lose next year’s elections.
Merkel is and will always be a believer in multiculturalism and the Great European™ project. The only way for Germans to take their country (and their taxes!) back is by ousting her.
”What I continue to think is wrong is that some say ‘we generally don’t want Muslims in our country, regardless of whether there’s a humanitarian need or not.’ We’re going to have to keep discussing that.”
It is actually doubtful that she will allow, or participate in, any genuine discussion of that. She is much more likely to content herself with consigning all concerns about Muslim migrants to “racism,” and never engaging in any discussion of Islamic supremacism, the Sharia imperative to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors denied basic rights, the nature of Sharia as political as well as religious, etc.
“Merkel rejects Muslim migrant ban, urges fair distribution,” Associated Press, August 28, 2016:
BERLIN (AP) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday slammed those countries in Europe who say they won’t take in Muslim refugees, a position that several eastern European governments have taken in response to the influx of migrants from the Islamic world.
Merkel said she was hopeful that European Union members would reach an agreement on outstanding questions arising from the migrant crisis, one of which is how to fairly distribute asylum-seekers among all the bloc’s 28 member states.
She told German public broadcaster ARD that “everybody has to do their bit” and didn’t rule out the possibility of letting some countries take in fewer migrants if they contribute more financially instead.
“How the individual components are weighted will have to be seen,” said Merkel.
But she reiterated her stance that blocking refugees based on their religion was misguided.
“What I continue to think is wrong is that some say ‘we generally don’t want Muslims in our country, regardless of whether there’s a humanitarian need or not,’” she said. “We’re going to have to keep discussing that.”
Her comments come almost a year after Merkel’s decision to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants stuck in other European countries to come to Germany.
That move prompted a further wave of migration through the Balkans that culminated in the daily arrival of more than 10,000 asylum-seekers at German borders at one point.
Officials have spoken of more than a million arrivals in 2015, but Germany’s top migration official said the actual figure was likely lower once duplicate registrations and people who traveled on to other countries are excluded.
Frank-Juergen Weise, the head of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, said in an interview in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag that he expects a sharp drop in numbers in 2016 compared with last year.
Weise told German weekly Bild am Sonntag that his agency is planning for between 250,000 and 300,000 new arrivals this year.
The influx prompted countries such as Hungary to sharply criticize Merkel, and even accuse her of threatening Europe’s stability.
In Germany, anti-migrant feeling has increased too. A nationalist party to the right of Merkel’s Christian Democrats has received a surge in support and chancellor, who has stuck by her motto “we will manage,” has seen her popularity ratings fall….
This is the kind of news item that has Angela Merkel in political trouble:
According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.
The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.
While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.
However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.
In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.
But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.
The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.
Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.
“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”
Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.
No comment is really necessary, except perhaps to note that it is folly to design immigration policies with no regard to culture.
With some weeks now past since the event, the Brexit doom and gloom-mongers have taken a well deserved break from conjuring up the imminent demise of the U.K., the EU, and perhaps the world itself. This may be an appropriate opportunity to consider whether or not there might be an even better candidate for such end-of-times prognostications: Germany.
On the face of it, this is surely preposterous. Europe’s largest economy, its most stable government, and the main if not only pillar of the EU and the euro is hardly a destabilizing factor, most would agree. Germany may indeed be all of that, but only in comparison to the rest of the EU, which has been stagnating economically for a decade and is beset by major political instability and terrorism. Since 2007, German labor productivity growth has been close to zero, while GDP growth has averaged a miserable 0.8% per annum, even as Germany’s largest company, Volkswagen, is being prosecuted around the world for cheating, while its very symbol of stability, Deutsche Bank, has been called by the IMF “the biggest contributor to risk in global finance.”
Serious as these are, much more disturbing are unmistakable trends that Germany may be going in directions hardly congenial to European and Western policies vis-à-vis Russia. A case in point is the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, designed to bring up to 80% of the Russian gas supply to Europe while bypassing Ukraine and Eastern Europe. A blatantly political ploy by Mr. Putin and Gazprom, it will guarantee that Moscow can blackmail Eastern Europe at will. Despite that, the project enjoys support not only among companies likely to profit from Nord Stream 2, but also by significant parts of the German establishment, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, who quite disingenuously claims that it is just a commercial project.
To understand why this is now possible in Germany, one must note the rapid growth of pro-Russian, anti-Western, and anti-American sentiments in all segments of German society of late. These attitudes often run counter to the official policies of the Merkel government, which may actually make them even more significant. Mrs. Merkel, for instance, is known as a key supporter and architect of the sanctions regime against Russia following its aggression against Ukraine, yet her government coalition partner, the social-democratic party (SPD), argues ever more forcefully that the sanctions should be lifted or, at the very least, made less onerous. This not only undermines the authority of the Berlin government, but also makes the continuation of the sanctions when they expire at the end of the year unlikely. This will please Germany’s export community, but only at the cost of outraging its partners in Eastern Europe.
Even more striking is the emerging anti-Western consensus among radical parties at both extremes of the political spectrum. The former communist party of East Germany now repackaged as “Die Linke” and the right-wing, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) share essentially identical anti-Western and anti-American platforms that call for disbanding NATO and a new security alliance with Russia. These parties may be extreme, but they are not without influence. Die Linke is currently in power in one German state (Thuringia), while the AfD is supported by 12% of German voters according to the latest polls.
NATO is being undermined from yet another side, and that is the renewed EU discussions of the ostensible need for a European army independent of NATO. Both European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and French president François Hollande have publicly supported the idea, and so have German officials, who cite the limited German-Dutch armed forces integration as a model. The idea is, of course, complete nonsense if for no other reason than because no EU country is even contemplating, let alone seriously considering the massive amounts of money that would have to be spent to bring this about. It is nonetheless a dangerous bit of nonsense, since nothing will deny NATO’s very raison d’être, and with it American commitment to the defense of Europe, faster than a standing European army outside the alliance command structures.
Finally, the most destabilizing German policy by far continues to be immigration policy. Despite signs that it is an abject failure, Mrs. Merkel insists on continuing on the same course, leading to even greater conflict with Eastern Europe and others (Brexit) that reject it wholesale. Poland has already announced that it will refuse to take any migrants, while Czech president Milos Zeman, a socialist, has called for a referendum on EU membership and even urged the Czechs to arm themselves for self-defense.
Merkel government officials have already proclaimed their migrant policies to be a success, but such claims should be taken with a large chunk of salt. Here are the available statistics. In 2015, 1.1 million migrants came to Germany after Merkel essentially invited them in on Sept. 4, 2015. Of those, 476,649 applied for political asylum. The rest neither applied nor left the country, and their whereabouts are not known. According to Eurostat, in the first quarter of 2016, 287,100 migrants, or nearly 100,000 more than in 2015 applied for asylum in the EU, which would mean that even if migrants to Germany have fallen off from the 2015 pace, the EU as a whole will get more than 1 million by the end of the year, and a similar number is expected in 2017.
More important than the sheer numbers is what this massive influx means for society. Even though German authorities try to suppress such information, there is overwhelming evidence that rape and sexual assault by migrants has reached epidemic proportions in all 16 federal states, as documented in this report by the Gatestone Institute. More troubling still is evidence that large numbers of terrorists and jihadists have used the migrant wave to organize “hit squads” in Germany. According to Bavarian intelligence official Manfred Hauser, “irrefutable evidence exists that there is an IS [Islamic State] command structure in place.”
What all of this means for German and European security should not be difficult to foresee. German officials openly acknowledge that the police cannot handle this massive threat and are now openly discussing setting in place a 400,000-strong “national guard” type of organization. Before they do that, it might be useful to first consider changing Mrs. Merkel’s failed policies.
Angela Merkel’s still-unexplained decision to throw open the nation she grew up hating to an invasion force from the Middle East in the guise of “humanitarianism” is now having the all-too-predictable domestic consequences one might expect:
The German government proposed a broad range of measures on Thursday to bolster security and combat terrorism, its strongest official response so far to two recent attacks by terrorists pledging loyalty to the Islamic State and a deadly shooting rampage in Munich.
Many of the measures, which include closer monitoring of refugees and enhanced surveillance, seem likely to win legislative approval but prompted concerns in a country that is deeply protective of privacy and civil liberties.
The package of proposals is the most comprehensive from the German government since Europe became a consistent target of terrorist attacks by the Islamic State, other radical groups and their followers. They were unveiled at a time when Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing accusations that the welcome she gave last year to migrants streaming to the Continent from Syria and other nations in the Middle East has compromised security.
“Accusations”? Four major attacks in six days by Muslims will do that.
Mr. de Maizière reiterated publicly concerns previously voiced privately by senior intelligence officials that Germany — and Europe — does not always know enough about migrants.
He noted that the recent decision to register air travelers in and out of Europe was an improvement, and he urged that all of Germany’s federal and state law enforcement and intelligence officials should have access to that information. “We see in recent months that these offices must know exactly who is coming to Europe, and who is leaving it,” he said.
Other measures he proposed included combing the social media profiles of refugees and other migrants to look out for signs of radicalization, as the authorities in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have done.
In a statement, Mr. de Maizière said that officials could have gleaned more information after a bomb threat at a mall in Dortmund if officials had had access to surveillance footage, which he said had been restricted by data protection officials. “Overall, we must extend and optimize our use of I.T.” he said, referring to information technology.
None of this will work. The correct course is for Europe to admit its soft-headed error, expel most of the “refugees” and try to restore some order to individual national borders. Merkel’s Folly was not simply confined to Germany, because once inside the tent, the North African Arabs and others can roam freely throughout the EU — and they do.
But Germany would rather die than admit error, and so it will. Along the way however, look for a larger police presence, more intrusive snooping, changing cultural mores, xenophobia and all the other attendant ills that Deutschland thought it had thrown off in April of 1945.
DP: I worry the most about the subtle, infiltrating Islamists. When it comes to force, we can easily defeat them. But when it comes to our own institutions – schools, law courts, media, parliaments – we are far less prepared to defend ourselves.
*********************
Daniel Pipes recently gave an interview to Germany’s Global Review. His observations are pithy as always; here are some highlights:
GR: Many people say that Islam is not a religion but a reactionary, totalitarian and repressive ideology comparable to fascism and communism; and that Islam cannot be reformed. Other people say that Islamism had nothing to do with religion and Islam. What do you say about relations between Islam and Islamism?
DP: Both these statements are silly. Of course, Islam is one of the major religions of the world; what is there to argue about? Islamism, a modern movement, however, shares much with fascism and communism. Islamism is a form of Islam. Denying this would be akin to saying that the Jesuits are not Christian.
GR: Some experts compare Islam with Confucianism and Hinduism. They note that in the 1950s, Confucian societies were thought unable to develop economically and socially, and that Confucianism was seen as an obstacle to progress; same with Hinduism in India. Today, however, East Asia and India are economic powerhouses and many people perceive Confucianism and Hinduism as drivers of this success story. Could the same happen with Islam, that it will also reform?
DP: Yes, it is possible that Muslim peoples will recover from today’s predicament and go on to economic and political success. We have no way of predicting such things. And no civilization or religion stays permanently down. …
GR: There is a broad spectrum of Islamists. Al-Qaida, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, which want to occupy territory by military means and create an ever expanding state. And then the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish AK Party and the Iranian Khomeinists. Which of these Islamist groups are the greatest danger for the West and which of these concepts do you think will be the most successful?
DP: I worry the most about the subtle, infiltrating Islamists. When it comes to force, we can easily defeat them. But when it comes to our own institutions – schools, law courts, media, parliaments – we are far less prepared to defend ourselves.
GR: In the Western countries many Islamophobic parties and politicians are on the rise. Do you think this will help the spread of Islamism or will these parties help the counter-jihad? Hillary Clinton said that Trump and his anti-Muslim speeches are the best recruiters for the Islamic State. True?
DP: I do not recognize the term “Islamophobe” and do not know what it means except, in the immortal phrase of Andrew Cummins as a word “created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”
Your question reverses the sequence of events. Islamist ideology breads Islamist violence, which starts the process and in turn inspires anti-Islamic sentiments. Anti-Islamic views might also inspire more Islamist violence, but that is incidental. The real dynamic here is Islamism creating anti-Islam parties. As Norbert Hofer has shown in Austria, they are approaching 50 percent of the vote and with it, political power. …
GR: Besides Islamists, the West has to deal with Russia, China, and North Korea. How can it deal with all these challenges at the same time? Which counter-jihadi strategy do you find most promising?
DP: The strategic environment today is far easier than during the cold war; there is no determined ideological enemy with the tools of a great power at its disposal. The key is for the West not to go to sleep. Electing such leaders as Obama and Merkel, however, means going to sleep. The best counter-jihadi strategy is one that takes ideas seriously.
GR: It took the West two decades to get rid of fascism and 70 years to get rid of communism. How long do you think will it take to get rid of Islamism? Are we facing the zenith of Islamism right now or are we just halfway up the road and will it get even worse?
DP: The battle against Islamism has not yet started. I cannot predict how long it will take. It’s still pre-1945 in communist terms and the 1930s in fascist terms. I see Islamism as having peaked in 2012-13 and showing signs of weakness.
After a week of Islamist attacks by migrants and ‘refugees’, the German Chancellor has admitted terrorists used her open door policy to bring in people to commit violence, but refused to reverse her approach.
Defending her decision to tear up EU asylum rules for Syrian migrants, she said she had “acted in line with my knowledge and conscience” and said Germany would “stick to our principles” and “give shelter to those who deserve it”.
The German Chancellor had rushed back from a holiday and was speaking at a press conference that had been hastily brought forward to address the carnage in her country.
She repeated her “We can do this!” catchphrase, which she first uttered at the same conference last year before welcoming 1.5 million mainly young, male, Middle Eastern migrants to Germany.
(Video at the link. — DM)
“As chancellor, I am responsible for, by far, most decisions. I always have to weigh up if a decision meets our values — which does not mean that there are no risks,” she said.
Adding: “The basic principle that Germany stands by [is that] its humanitarian responsibility is the right thing.”
She did, however, say that “we will have to redouble efforts to deport people” who commit crimes and pledged that weapons laws across Europe would be sharpened.
She also claimed that terrorists wanted Germany to take in fewer migrants, and said she would not bow to their wishes.
“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 said.
Adding: “They see hatred and fear between cultures and they see hatred and fear between religions. We stand decisively against that.”
In the past ten days, Germany has been rocked by four violent attacks – three of which were committed by migrants, and two had links to Islamic State.
One Syrian “refugee” hacked a pregnant woman to death on the street. Another Syrian, who came from Bulgaria, blew himself up outside a music festival injuring 15, and a “refugee” attacked multiple people on a train just over a week ago.
Western civilization has defended us for centuries. Isn’t it about time we defended it?
***************************
The latest Muslim atrocity in Nice will have far-reaching international consequences, and not just for the countries of Europe. After promising a “pitiless” war against Islamic aggression, the Hollande government in France effectively came to an end last night on the Promenade des Anglais and will soon enough be replaced by the Marine Le Pen government. The British, having voted themselves out of the European Union, are effectively under siege by hordes of invaders gathered in Calais, preparing to storm the Chunnel in order to bring their unique brand of vibrant diversity to perfidious Albion’s shores. Meanwhile, in Germany, the charmless Mutti Merkel mutters to herself as she plots to import even more “refugees” in order to destroy the Bundesrepublik she grew up learning to hate as a child in communist East Germany.
It will also affect the course of the American election. The utter bankruptcy of the Obama administration’s deliberately feckless, see-no-evil approach to Muslim terrorism is now on plain display for all the world to see. It is written in blood on the bodies of the children who died for the crime of celebrating France’s national day on a fine summer night along a sea that used to protect them from the north African Arabs, but now no longer does. It will be impossible for Hillary Clinton, whose charmless bovinity becomes more apparent to the electorate every day, to disassociate herself from what she herself has, in part, wrought, and her punishment at the polls should be spectacular.
Finally, it will set off a chain of events that will result in a serious sorting-out of the Arab world, the Muslim ummah, and its hostile intentions toward Christendom and the West. Although the secular liberals and cultural Marxist want to convince you that the West is no longer Christian, that’s a lie. The atheists in government — starting with the self-worshipping, Muslim-sympathizing man in the White House — want you to believe that freedom of religion now means “freedom of worship” (the use of the Islamic-favored word “worship” is telling), but the fact is that almost everything about the West is Christian, from the late Roman empire on through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and into our own time. Some of our history may have been anti-clerical (the French Revolution comes to mind) but even the attacks on sect and dogma have derived from the rational principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Confronted with its own overwhelming cultural, moral, physical and spiritual inferiority, the raging death cult that swept out of the north African desert and slaughtered its way across Asia Minor, the Indian subcontinent and all the way to Indonesia did its best to erase all traces of the captive lands’ pre-Islamic past. Zoroastrian Persia fell to these barbarians, as did much of Hindu civilization. Although the Arabs soon lost control of their empire to those even more savage than they (the Turks, Mamelukes, and the Mongols, for example), the religion bound them all together in a shared hatred for the West.
One of the western bulwarks against Islam had been the Byzantine empire, the old, Greek-dominated eastern half of the Roman empire. While never militarily strong enough to defeat the Muslims, it was for hundreds of years strong enough to keep them at bay; meanwhile Byzantine diplomacy (every bit as Byzantine as it sounds) did the rest. The fall of Constantinople (“Istanbul” is merely a corruption of the city’s real name) in 1453 left much of eastern Europe open to Islamic conquest, including Albania, which remains largely Muslim to this day, Bulgaria and Hungary, where memories of Muslim rule are as fresh today as they were in half a millennium ago.
What’s past is prologue. From time to time, the Western powers undertook punitive expeditions against fanatical Muslim irruptions, such as Kitchener’s demolition of the Mahdi’s forces at Omdurman in 1898, in revenge for the sack of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon 13 years before. Gordon, one of Britain’s greatest heroes, had earlier been instrumental in stopping the Arab trade in black African slaves, and was tasked with helping Khartoum’s garrison of Egyptian Ottoman Muslims return to Cairo at the time of his death.
Islamic military prowess is long in the past; the West has not suffered a major defeat in any confrontation with Islam on the battlefield since Saladin expelled the Crusaders from Jerusalem in 1187. But pitched battles between great armies are no longer the confrontation of choice. As Nice, Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino and everywhere else a “holy warrior” has self-detonated have shown, the war has come to the streets of western cities, unpredictable in its timing and ferocity. And yet still the West refuses to take even the most rudimentary steps to protect itself against a known, sworn enemy. Why?
Lots of reasons: ennui, cultural Marxism, the mutation of the Left into a suicide cult that wants to take the rest of us with it. A loss of faith in organized religion (some of it brought on by the faiths themselves, or rather the imperfect men who represent and administer them). The transformation of government schools into babysitting services for subsections of the populace with severe cultural learning disabilities, no matter the skin color of the pupil. The marginalization of the very notion of excellence. And a political class that is little more than a collection of criminals, throne-sniffers, pantywaists and bum-kissers, all dedicated to their own enrichment.
As I argued in The Devil’s Pleasure Palace — and will expand upon in the forthcoming companion volume, The Fiery Angel — the antidote to this is a return to our cultural roots, including the pre-Christian principles of Aristotle (passed down via St. Thomas Aquinas, among others) and the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Those roots are neither race- nor faith-specific and in fact the genius of Western civilization is that its principles — not “conservative” principles but civilizational principles — have proven so successful that they resulted in the United States of America, the very embodiment of those ideas.
Which is, of course, why Islam and its ally of convenience, the Left, hate America so. We and our cultural heritage are the refutation of every satanic principle they hold so vengefully dear.
Western civilization has defended us for centuries. Isn’t it about time we defended it?
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments