Author: Maitra (Page 3 of 16)

Migrants and Crime: Latest Data from Germany

Few days back, I wrote about Dr Cheryl Benard’s excellent article on Afghans unleashed on Europe, and why it’s not a migration, but an invasion. It was accused of xenophobia. Facts are not xenophobic, even though xenophobes often usurp facts to their nefarious purposes. Nonetheless, it is the duty of an academic to seek truth, rather than be subservient to any ideology.

I have previously written about why the argument of Jews fleeing Nazis and Syrian refugees being similar is flawed. I have also written why Europe is undergoing an insurgency, which includes a fifth column within European society. Paper by Thomas Hegghammer supports my view. I have also written in 2015, how it will invite justifiable ethno-nationalist backlash, especially from insular East Europe.

Today, new data, spotted by my fellow blogger Ben Sixsmith, came into sight and the implications are horrifying.

Here are the graphs from Germany. Foreigners (in orange) here mean European Non-Germans, as opposed to Asylum Seekers (in red) who are from Middle East and Africa. 

Read More

The curse of geography

This is not a blog post. More like a record.

Joy Reid, MSNBC host, and prominent “Resistance” leader tweeted this.

When corrected, she doubled down, and made a pig’s breakfast out of it.

Not only is this a colossal mistake, historically and geographically wrong, it’s borderline xenophobic. Only tweeted to her rabidly ignorant followers in a modern version of 2017 red baiting. It doesn’t matter where Trump’s wives are from, but hey ho.

Read More

Call it what it is, an invasion

A recent important essay by Dr Cheryl Benard cannot come at a more appropriate time. She writes for The National Interest in a must read essay, where she highlights something so obvious that it barely needs any debate. Europe is undergoing a categorical invasion, in the form of unarmed, military aged men, looking to destroy the society from within. A few highlights from this essay:

If there’s one thing you need to read, it is this essay.

Dr Benard is no right wing nutty Islamophobe. She’s married to an Afghan American diplomat, Dr Zalmay Khalilzad, and has a stellar record of working with refugees for over a decade, and producing scholarship on the concept of Honour in Islam.

Unfortunately, I have been saying this for quite a while.

Read More

The (Liberal) Empire strikes back

Cathy Young analyses Trump’s pivotal Warsaw speech, and critiques, alongside many others, my Quillette piece.

Here’s my original.

For the sake of balance you should read both, and I applaud Quillete, and my editor Claire for being so balanced, which is rare in these days of hyper-partisanship, and of course Cathy, who I admire, exceptionally passionate as she is, for the spirited response.

This debate is crucial, for the future direction of US (and UK/Western) FP.

And I hope it continues.

 

 

Will Trump and Merkel clash in G20?

Radio Sputnik, Scotland, interviewed me.

Most of you know that I am not very optimistic about a German-led EU in the long run.

That said, it’s more complicated than a simple yes or no answer.

Here are my thoughts, have a listen.

 

Will the real conservative please stand up?

Who is a conservative? Burke or Buckley? Is Bill Kristol a conservative or Victor Davis Hanson? David Cameron or Peter Hitchens? Or are they all conservatives? Will Narendra Modi of India be considered a conservative? Is Vladimir Putin’s vision of a society conservative, or Rodrigo Duterte’s forceful authoritarian law and order imposition against deviant drug addicts a conservative approach? In that case what is conservative? How can it be defined and charted for this new young century?

For those of you paying attention, two of my colleagues recently started this topical and timely debate. Ben Sixsmith, critiquing Noah Rothman’s Commentary piece, stated that #NeverTrumpers are pseudo-conservatives. Mitch Blatt countered that they are indeed conservatives, because there isn’t any fixed definition of conservatism.

For a non-European/non-American reader of politics, the arguments of both sides might seem odd. Both are correct, both are circular and axiomatic. Both, in some ways, logically contradictory. And both, never tries to define what it tries to critique. Without summarising the aforementioned pieces, (readers can read them, in their due time) let me highlight the contradictions.

Read More

Modi’s newfound pragmatism towards China

A month back, Indian hyper sensationalized news media was jingoistically pointing out how much Indian government is correct in not taking part in the OBOR initiative, while every serious political commentator with half a brain was saying, how terrible a mistake that was. From boycotting a summit on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in May, to being hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO) summit it looks like a total 180 turn for Indian foreign policy.

This is not baffling. Here’s what is happening.

Read More

Climate leadership passes to China?

Questions about the rift between liberal institutionalism and sovereignty became deeper with US President Donald Trump unilaterally announcing withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate agreement. Trump’s argument is that the deal wasn’t fair, and disadvantages US businesses and workers. Trump also mentioned that this deal throws a spanner in American oil and coal industries, even when the world is cutting down on coal. The opposition to this move has been global so far. The Paris agreement commits US and other countries to keep global temperature rising to pre industrial level. While there are valid questions about the implementation of the deal, it is widely accepted as a necessity for the planet by every country and every major powers of the globe. US now stands essentially against the entire world when it comes to climate change.

Trump stated that his goal was to renegotiate the treaty. It is understood that’s an impossible task, to have 193 different bilateral treaties and then ass them with Senate. Already, Italy, Germany, and France, the big three have jointly stated that this decision was regrettable. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni stated in a joint statement. Japan hasn’t signed the statement, but has echoed similar sentiment, while May of UK said that while it is regrettable it’s a decision by Washington and not London. Canada’s Trudeau has also regretted the decision. “The US decision can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet” the chancellor added. Her counterpart, Macron of France, went on even further, stating there’s no Plan B, as there’s no Planet B. And invited US businesses to France, potentially starting a small scale trade war initiation.

According to Daily Mail reports, a planned U.S. pullout from the Paris climate deal would be a further 0.3-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures by 2100. However, Deon Terblanche maintained that due to other factors, that might not happen. However, hidden in all the outrage, a simple thing is lost. This is not about climate. Trump’s withdrawal was purely geopolitics. 

Read More

Where (rarely) even Jeremy Corbyn is right…

With British politics reaching its crescendo and the Labour party narrowing Tory lead to five points, it is time for some home truth. Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech where he alleged to have claimed that terrorism in Britain is a direct response to British foreign policy. The result was as you expect from liberal media. From false accusations to blatant lying, to character assassination, Corbyn was portrayed as a combination of Gandhi and Laden. As pacifist and apologist as Gandhi, as vicious and Islamist as Laden. He was portrayed as being incompetent and conniving and dangerous at the same time.

 

Except, none of that is even remotely true. I am no great fan of either Corbyn or May, and I find both of them disingenuous, but for the sake of balance, Corbyn deserves credit where he is right. His claim that his words were twisted and misrepresented makes sense. And frankly, I have never seen two points, which in recent days, I have found myself quietly agreeing with the Labour party and Corbyn himself. For all his faults, let’s hear him out and let’s have the truth out in public. 

Read More

What’s more important to you? Your country or your ideology?

With the entire EU/Germany versus Trump thing happening, which was sort of predicted by Peter Hitchens, focus is on what historical patterns might emerge in the West.

As Financial Times, the most Pro-EU broadsheet pointed out, the patterns are not comforting.

DA_4wK1XUAQnT2u

With Germany quietly re-arming herself, Conservative Poland railing against Liberal Germany created Atlantic rift, and France openly balancing against Russia, European Great power peace is looking precarious.

But there’s something else at stake. 

Read More

Page 3 of 16

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Get the most important and interesting articles right at your inbox. Sign up for B+D periodic emails.