Why the once-durable Merkel may not last much longer

The chancellor’s need to win back far-right voters is hard to square with her previous embrace of open borders

Angela Merkel’s New Year address on German television has acquired all the familiarity of the Queen’s Christmas speech. So much so that one newspaper ran a front page showing the chancellor’s 12 years in shiny-jacket attire under the headline, “Can the Social Democrats put up with another one of these?”

The needling of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), for preparing to support Merkel’s fourth term in office, highlights a more irreverent tone towards “Mutti”, as she restarts stalled talks to hammer out a new coalition.

The chancellor has been attacked by some of her own former supporters for her unwillingness to be more open about the practical implications of absorbing the 2015 wave of refugees, and for allegedly failing to identify warmly enough with the victims of the Christmas terror attack in Berlin in 2016. In other words, she is being treated like any other long-stay politician showing signs of fatigue. On a road trip through Germany I heard grumbles and frustration about a chancellor who only a year ago was hailed as virtually superhuman.

Read more

What is it that European women want from migration?

The lefter sex

Europe’s far right is not such a hit with the ladies

IF WOMEN’S votes had not counted (as was the case until 1918), Norbert Hofer, the far-right candidate, would have won a landslide victory in Austria’s presidential election on May 22nd. According to exit polls, 60% of men supported him. But female voters favoured the Green Party candidate, Alexander Van der Bellen, by a similar margin. The ladies’ affections proved more valuable than the men’s: Mr Van der Bellen won by a sliver, 50.3% to 49.7%.

In many countries women are more likely than men to lean left, and the gap may be widening. In America, Barack Obama had a 12-point margin among female voters in 2012, but lost men to Mitt Romney by eight. This year 60% of women view Donald Trump unfavourably; only 48% feel that way about Hillary Clinton.

Read more

Germany says women at risk outside ‘safe zones’ instead of preventing attacks – former MI5 officer

Germany says women at risk outside ‘safe zones’ instead of preventing attacks – former MI5 officer

Beware European PC liberal politicians! The situation of Angela Merkel is the fate awaiting you!

The legislation called the Dublin Protocol was designed to stop migrants traveling through Europe to countries with favorable regimes before claiming asylum. If people need asylum, the argument ran, they should be claiming it straight away—and the state in which they do so should remain responsible for processing it.

However, it was on September 13, 2015 that the German government decided not to close the border with Austria and stop hundreds of thousands from entering Germany. Although border controls were in place, asylum-seekers were not turned away, sending a clear signal that Germany remained open for refugees.

According to an article in Der Spiegel:

Chancellor Merkel bided her time before addressing the problem — until she had no other choice. Refugee policy, after all, is a losing issue. Standing firm is viewed as having no mercy, particularly when the next ship goes down in the Mediterranean. Generosity, by contrast, is seen as naiveté, especially when the German tabloid newspaper Bild prints stories on asylum fraud.


The truth is that the system had long since collapsed — at the German border. By May 2015, the flow of refugees had become so large that the federal police were no longer able to take all 10 fingerprints from each refugee. Thousands were entering the country, but the authorities didn’t even know who they were or where they were going.

The second bitter truth is that Germany, with its “false incentives,” as Interior Minister de Maizière put it, had turned itself into a dream destination for the desperate. In Berlin, clothing allowances for six months and spending money for six weeks were being paid to refugees in advance. According to de Maizière, the news of this largesse spread quickly in an era when refugees with smartphones can report their experiences in real-time to friends and relatives back home. They would also learn that in Germany, the asylum process can take longer than a year, and that a “no” doesn’t necessarily mean no in the end, with the government cancelling many more deportation orders than it carries out.


Merkel did react emotionally, but not in the face of suffering … Heidenau made all the difference, the moment when Merkel was confronted by hate.

On August 26, the chancellor paid a visit to a refugee hostel in Heidenau in the eastern state of Saxony. It was the first time during her time in the Chancellery that Merkel had made such a visit and as she returned to her car, a hysterical woman in the crowd shouted: “You miserable cunt, you stupid slut, you traitor.” Merkel had already been called a Nazi in Greek newspapers, but no one had ever insulted her in such vulgar, lowbrow and abysmal terms. “That really hit her,” [a German] official says. “And she wanted to show them.” After that, the official says, her behavior became personal — and irrational.

Merkel would utter her now famous sentence on August 31: “We can do it.” And on September 15, she would say: “If we now start to apologize for showing a friendly face in emergency situations, then this is no longer my country,” but rather the country of the mob. The 14 days between those two statements changed the country.

Now, fast forward to today and Angela Merkel is, politically, in a totally different position – weakened and unpopular with a large majority of the German electorate, many of whom voted for the anti-immigrant AfD. The Guardian (20.11.2017) newspaper reports:

Exploratory talks to form Germany’s next coalition government collapsed shortly before midnight on Sunday when the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out of marathon negotiations.

“The four discussion partners have no common vision for modernisation of the country or common basis of trust,” the FDP leader, Christian Lindner, announced after the four parties involved missed several self-prescribed deadlines to resolve differences on migration and energy policy. “It is better not to govern than to govern badly.”


In a month of talks, Merkel has often cut a passive figure as party representatives found themselves at loggerheads over issues such as the question of how many of the migrants who found their way to Germany in 2015 and 2016 would be allowed to be reunited with their families.

Migration emerged as a contentious political issue in Germany following the refugee crisis, when 1.2 million migrants entered the country in 2015-16. The backlash against Merkel’s decision to keep open Germany’s borders has resulted in a far-right party entering the German parliament for the first time in more than 50 years.


While the debate in Germany over the past few weeks has mainly focused on policy differences between the parties, it is likely to soon shift to the chancellor, and the question of whether or not she still commands sufficient power to hold together a strong government.

According to an article published in The Sun newspaper (August 3, 2017), ‘Leaked phone call transcripts reveal that Donald Trump claimed to Aussie PM Malcolm Turnbull that Angela Merkel said she regrets letting migrants into Germany’. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. However, it now seems very likely that Angela Dorothea Merkel may truly be regetting her fateful decision to welcome in 1.2 million migrants.

European Green Parties and their disastrous vote-losing pro-migration policies

This blog was prompted by the on-going negotiations between Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and Green Party. Although I am a strong supporter of environmental initiatives, particularly those on climate change, I do not want to see Green Parties in government now owing to their pro-immigration stance. Here is an extract from a DW article on the Green Party’s policies:

Green Party

Upper limit for asylum seekers: The Green Party is opposed to an upper limit for refugees, saying that it endorses “an unlimited preservation of the individual fundamental and human right.”

Family reunifications: The Greens want to resume family reunifications for those with subsidiary protection immediately.

Deportations: Greens believe that the past two years have seen an “inhumane tightening of asylum laws.” In their party program, they state that they want to focus on increasing voluntary returns. They believe Afghanistan is not safe enough to deport rejected asylum seekers to Kabul.

Immigration law: Like the SPD, the Greens want to introduce a point-based immigration law, similar to the Canadian immigration policy.

The Greens want the children of legal migrants or refugees born in Germany to automatically be granted citizenship. They also want those whose asylum in Germany has run out to be able to shift their status from “refugee” to “migrant” without having to leave the country and file for a visa if they would qualify for a visa under the point system, as does the FDP.

Now, compare this to Alternative for Germany (AfD) that was resurgent in this year’s general election:

Alternative for Germany (AfD)

Upper limit for asylum seekers: The AfD wants to go beyond an annual upper limit on asylum seekers. It wants a “zero immigration” policy — a cap on all immigration unless deportations of rejected asylum seekers result in a net immigration of zero or lower. They also want to close the German border to stop what they view as “unregulated mass migration.”

Family reunifications: The AfD is against all types of family reunification, regardless of protection status.

Deportations: The AfD seeks to radically increase the number of deportations of rejected asylum seekers, as well as reform the current asylum law laid out in the German constitution to ensure a smaller number of people are granted asylum.

Immigration law: “That [the state itself] can determine quality and quantity of migration to be key characteristics of state sovereignty,” is one of the few statements the AfD makes on how legal migration could be regulated in its party program, focusing largely on what it perceives are faults in the current migration system. Many AfD members view migrants from Muslim-majority countries and Africa in particular as a potential threat to the security or stability of Germany.

While searching the Internet on this issue, I came across this Politico article that completely amazed me:

‘Germans should learn Arabic, says Green MP’

He said that Germans who feel insecure in their neighborhood should learn Arabic or Turkish to fit in, and also said Germans shouldn’t worry about migrants speaking their own language.

Volker Beck, the Green party’s spokesman on migration issues, told the broadcaster n-tv on Friday that Germans shouldn’t be worried about neighborhoods where people speak different languages. “Other countries are more relaxed about the fact that in some areas a community with a migration background speaks another language,” Beck said, citing Mexican and Chinese communities in the U.S.

The situation is also similar in Sweden where the Green Party is also in the government. Currently there is a disagreement between the Social Democrats and the Green Party. The Local newspaper in Sweden reports that the Social Democrats want to expel Afghan refugees whose asylum applications have been rejected, whereas the Green Party want to offer them an amnesty:

Hundreds of young refugees watched from the gallery as a debate was held in the Riksdag on Wednesday over the situation for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Sweden. It follows a sit-down protest by young asylum seekers in Stockholm that started in August, where demonstrators argue that deportations to Afghanistan should be stopped because the country is not safe.

Among the speakers at the debate were Migration Minister Heléne Fritzon, who dismissed calls for an amnesty.

“Those who have an asylum application rejected must of course leave,” she said, insisting that Sweden has one of the most legally sound asylum systems and offers strong rights for asylum seekers.

The Green Party’s migration spokesperson Maria Ferm argued however that a legal solution should be found so that the young Afghans who came as unaccompanied asylum seekers in 2015 can stay:

“Afghanistan is one of the world’s most dangerous countries, and there are very few opportunities to start any kind of normal life for those who return there without a network”.

The Swedish Migration Agency’s official stance on Afghanistan is that safety varies between the country’s different provinces and that “it is still possible to return to several areas”.

Now, as a result of their pro-migration stance, the Swedish Green Party are facing an exit from parliament in the upcoming 2018 general election, according to a Reuters report:

Sweden’s Greens, the junior party in the ruling coalition, would not get into parliament if a vote were held now, a poll showed on Friday, underlining the fragile position of the minority government led by the centre-left Social Democrats.

The Green Party got 3.2 percent in the poll by Inizio for daily Aftonbladet, below the 4 percent threshold needed for seats in parliament and well down on the 6.9 percent they scored in the 2014 general election.


The centre-left coalition has struggled since taking power in 2014 as a result of surging support for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, who hold the balance of power in parliament.

So, as long as the Greens continue this pro-migration stance that will not extend their political support beyond their core supporters. Many voters like myself are strongly pro-environment but anti-immigration and this a dichotomy Green politicians will need to resolve.

BBC Our World – Welcome to Germany

This was shown recently and followed two families with young children who had moved to a town in eastern Germany. This has a population of 90,000 and 2,000 migrants were assigned to live there.

The former East German population is not used to immigrants and the majority has a similar attitude to that of the Visegrad countries. During the programme the Syrian father manages to get a job as an electrician and is given a 3-year visa. His wife and 3 children are flown over to join him, but have to renew their visas every 4 months.

The German family are relatively open to helping asylum seekers but by the end of the first year are both AfD voters. The husband says they are struggling financially and resents the financial resources being given to migrants that are financed by German taxpayers like himself.

I believe the BBC should have focused on a young single Syrian man, as it is young men who constitute the majority of migrants allowed access into Germany. By choosing a family – a much smaller representative percentage of migrants – the programme was appealing to the viewer’s sympathies. The Syrian family, despite already having 3 young children, went ahead and had a baby, which seems to be completely irresponsible given the uncertainty of their circumstances, although it did lead to them being allocated a larger apartment.

So, in my opinion this programme was yet another symbol of the BBC’s subjective bias towards tacitly supporting migration into Europe. The Governing Board need to be called to account so that a much more ‘objective’ perspective can be given on this issue, where both the pro and anti stances are given equal air time and subject matter.

Link (BBC iPlayer required for viewing the programme): https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09b6s1x/our-world-welcome-to-germany





Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author who has published this fascinating article for The Gatestone Institute.

The article refers to “increasingly permanent chain of ‘suspended communities’ nesting within nations throughout the West”, as described by the American historian Andrew Michta. “The emergence of these enclaves, reinforced by elite policies of multiculturalism, group identity politics, and the deconstruction of Western heritage, has contributed to the fracturing of Western European nations”.

Giulio Meotti goes on to give an example of this by referring to the suburbs of Gennevilliers in France, where the Charlie Hebdo attackers came from, and the Birmingham suburb of Sparkbrook  that has ‘produced one tenth of England’s jihadists’ and continues:

‘There, Burqas and beards mean something. Dressing has always symbolized loyalty to a lifestyle, a civilization. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate in Turkey, he forbade beards for men and veils for women. The proliferation of Islamic symbols in Europe’s ghettos now demarcates the separation of these suburbs. The new leader of England’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), Henry Bolton, recently said that the Britain is “buried” by Islam and “swamped” by multiculturalism.’

An interesting phenomenon has been the upsurge in support of political figures like Geert Wilders in The Netherlands and the AfD party – Alternative for Germany. Meotti makes specific reference to the huge unpopularity of Angela Merkel’s  fatal decision to open the doors to over a million refugees and migrants:

‘Beatrix von Storch, an AfD leader, said to the BBC that “Islam does not belong in Germany”. She explained that it is one thing to allow Muslims privately to preach their Islamic faith, but another to appease political Islam, which is trying to change German democracy and society.

The article can be viewed in full here: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11118/multiculturalism-separation-secession


The deaths of innocent civilians can be laid squarely at the feet of the liberal pc elites

There have been two incidents recently that have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians – one in Marseille, France during which two young women were knifed to death by an attacker who police described as of North African appearance and aged about 30. Witnesses said he shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest). The so-called Islamic State (IS) said the attacker was one of its “soldiers”. This seems to fit with a steady pattern of recent attacks in France, carried out by individuals who seem to have a deep hatred of French authority, aggravated by exposure to Islamist ideas.

The second attack took place in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada) in which a Somali-born refugee stabbed a policeman and injured four pedestrians on Saturday. Edmonton officials stated “he had been known to police for believing in extremist ideology”. According to broadcasters CBC and CTV, a flag belonging to so-called Islamic State was found inside the vehicle that hit the police officer.

Now, my question is why are these people dead and their families mourning their losses? It is quite simply because these Islamic extremist killers were allowed to immigrate to France and Canada by the liberal PC elites pursuing a policy of multiculturalism and diversity. The politicians who decided on these immigration policies are still alive whilst these victims of their unwanted top-down imposed policies are dead.

Is it surprising, one might ask, that more and more people are showing intense frustration at this state of affairs, which is being vented through support of political parties like the AfD in Germany. European citizens, of which I am one, are sickened by the growing number of deaths at the hands of so-called refugees and are are now demanding action be taken against a rising tide of immigrants on European territories.


According to a BBC report published today, below is a list of attacks that have taken place in France in which innocent European civilians have been murdered by Islamic extremists.

  • 7-9 Jan 2015 – Two Islamist gunmen storm the Paris offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 17 people. Another Islamist militant kills a policewoman the next day and takes hostages at a Jewish supermarket in Paris. Four hostages are killed before police shoot the gunman dead. The other two gunmen are cornered and killed by police in a siege
  • 13 Nov 2015 – IS jihadists armed with bombs and assault rifles attack Paris, targeting the national stadium, cafes and Bataclan concert hall. The co-ordinated assault leaves 130 people dead, and more than 350 wounded
  • 13 Jun 2016 – A knife-wielding jihadist kills a police officer and his partner at their home in Magnanville, west of Paris. He declares allegiance to IS, and police later kill him
  • 14 Jul 2016 – A huge lorry mows down a crowd of people on the Nice beachfront during Bastille Day celebrations, killing 86. IS claims the attack – by a Tunisian-born driver, later shot dead by police
  • 26 Jul 2016 – Two attackers slits the throat of a priest at his church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, in Normandy. They are shot dead by police
  • 3 Feb 2017 – A machete-wielding Egyptian man shouting “Allahu akbar” attacks French soldiers at Paris’s Louvre Museum – he is shot and wounded
  • 20 Apr 2017 – A known terror suspect opens fire at police on the Champs Elysees in Paris, killing one and wounding two. He is shot dead – and the assault is claimed by IS


In 2014, gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed a soldier guarding a war memorial in Ottawa before driving to parliament, where he was eventually killed.

A few days before, two soldiers were rammed by a car in Quebec province. The suspect was later killed by police. But one soldier was killed and another injured in what was described as an apparent act of home-grown terrorism.