The Merkel Case : Part III

Frames of reference

They, the Volk, kept her in power for ten years. They voted, then went back to sleep. Under dim lighting, Mutti was in charge of the ward. At last, the alarms went off. The price of freedom was eternal vigilance after all.

What was she thinking of? Opening the borders, or rather keeping them open, put her in the company of SOS Racisme and the anarchist, anti-white racist groups now exerting a strong political undertow in Western Europe. Was she upholding an ethical principle at all costs? Or simply preserving, with insufferable narcissism, her unimpeachable social standing with the International Community? The two are in any case merely aspects of the same mountainous arrogance.

Merkel’s autocratic decision to superimpose a Syrian-Iraqi-Afghan tsunami onto the already progressive inundation of Europe, is hallucinatory. It defies most attempts to discuss it, because in order to do so rationally, the protagonists must share the same broad frame of reference: that of European history, culture, and ethnic identity. Alas, this framework is now familiar and accessible only to the conservative mind. Three generations of lobotomizing public education, based on the fatuous concepts of equality and non-discrimination, have ‘put beyond use’ the deep cultural resources and values of the European nations. European high culture is no longer taught to Europeans, because of the ascendency of a vulgar elite’s self-hatred, not to mention its class-embarrassment. Education is the thread of cultural continuity, and it has been severed.

Merkel-Faustus, Brussels-Baghdad

Merkel’s declarations of September 2015 qualify as a Faustian bargain, a futures contract with truly stupefying consequences: German national redemption in the eyes of the geopolitical elite, in return for the irreversible Islamization of Europe. Do you want total compassion? Ja, ja! Do you want total truth? Nein, nein!

Six months after the bargain was sealed, postmodern progressive liberalism resembles a tattered doll, dragged disconsolately behind them by the bien-pensants who had spent a lifetime cooing over it, and whose September euphoria has now faded into aching, perpetual fear.

Merkel: The Ethics

Complex ethical issues can never be ‘settled’. Ethics is immersed in life and is not useful as abstraction. Systems of ethics can be tested in the abstract, but only for self-consistency. To test them for their operating limits, they must be observed struggling to gain traction in society. Angela Merkel, in September 2015, was acting on the world stage when she kept open the borders to refugees. That same action deemed ethical at the personal level, becomes self-defeating at best, and immoral at worst, at the social level — even returning to ethical territory at the geopolitical.

Ethical systems have within them the capacity to become unethical, immoral, or evil in operation, when pushed beyond their elastic limits to the point where they become self-defeating. ‘Compassion’ cannot in practice be scaled up to industrial strength. In both aggravating the refugee crisis and triggering the larger migrant crisis outright, Angela Merkel has amply demonstrated Adam Smith’s bitter dictum: “Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.

Direct evidence of the harm done by ‘ethical’ behaviour must be allowed to speak for itself. The discounting, explaining-away, or outright denial of evidence can never be justified by the perceived need to preserve an ethical position at all costs. To do so would put doctrinaire liberalism in very bad company. Cover-ups are routinely used to protect political and commercial interests. Princes of the Church deny evidence in order to protect the hierarchy. If the trend-line of the evidence points to catastrophe in the long term, what value can then be attached to the original act of compassion? The trend-line of climate change is an example where the sceptics’ act of compassion is bestowed upon the vested interests of the coal and oil industries.

Does the future of Europe matter? Is this an ethical or moral question at all? What is a Human Right? Could it just be something—anything—that can be defended only for so long as it remains defensible in practice? Is it ethical to defend some Human Rights at the expense of other, countervailing rights? Is there such a thing as a market in Human Rights? If Europeans are too lazy to defend the countervailing right to their ancient identities, to ‘cultural continuity’, the right not to be deracinated in situ, then they will ultimately cease to exist, except as a filigreed ethnic rump, like the Balkan Muslims or West Bank Palestinians today.

From all the hard, uncompromising evidence emerging in those European countries most affected by rapid, mass immigration, it is at best deracination for all that is the social destination, and at worst, surrender of political independence to ruthless movements, such as that of the Salafists.