“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
Nothing like a German ex-communist to just come right out and say it. The cat leaps out of the bag:
No this wasn’t something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told attendants at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won’t seek re-election in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands down.
“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:
“There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.
“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.
Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic, saying “That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations”.
Sovereignty was much overrated back then, too. No one took it seriously Angela.
Reader Charles adds a comment:
Brave New World could be our reality.
Trump is our last best hope. He does not have many friends, even in his own party. The thing that gives me hope is the quote from Franklin Graham after the election, “It wasn’t the Russians that interfered in the election. It was God.” I may not have that completely right but that is the gist of it.
It may then be asked, “Why would God pick Trump, a billionaire playboy?” Then, why did God pick Saul? It is not for us to figure what God does.
Anti-government protesters turned out in Paris and other French cities for the seventh Saturday running, as activists called for direct democracy — to take power out of the hands of political elite — and protested against the mainstream media.
As in previous weeks, many protestors carried placards with the abbreviation ‘R.I.C.’ — “Citizens’ Initiative Referendum”, a demand for popular referendums that would be automatically triggered by any referendum calling for a change in government policy getting 700,000 signatures.
If enacted, the introduction of referendums triggered by the public rather than given as a gift by politicians would likely see a massive reorientation of political power in France away from the political elite and even traditional political parties, a clear desire of the Yellow Vest movement which has reacted strongly against Emmanuel Macron’s globalist government.
The route of Saturday’s march took hundreds of protestors to the doors of mainstream French television stations, which the Yellow Vests accuse of having aligned themselves with President Macron against the French people.
Demonstrators shouted “Journalists — collaborationists!” and threw stones reports the Associated Press.
I would say that there is little fear of Gilets Jaunes being taken over by the loony-left now.
IF this report by Breitbart is correct, then the demand has coalesced from a rather wafty protest against ‘this and that’, to a demand for an end to top-down rule. An end to Le Roi Emmanuel (and his ilk) and a return to genuine democracy in other words. It is a seismic demand.
I am riveted by this — even more than the Brexit imbroglio.
It has long occurred to Joanne and me that the most effective place to hold a protest in Australia — on climate change stupidity for example — is outside the ABC HQ in your capital city. Go directly to the heart of PC. Other news organizations will find it fascinating.
Interesting to see that the yellow jackets are now employing that tactic, in a French context.
The Great Boomer Deception, by Devon Stack at Black Pilled. Culture is upstream of politics, and this tackles the cultural evolution of the last 50 years. Dissecting the propaganda. Highly recommended, if you have half an hour.
A reader notes:
It’s long, but I watched the whole thing and found it fascinating.
It explains a lot, especially about how the post WWII generation blew the West up. But it carried on long enough for them to enjoy what centuries of wealth building had made possible economically, by the western culture they set out to overturn — just in time to be taken care of in hospitals and nursing homes, that can’t in fact be afforded, and then die, leaving the ruins to us. Thanks.
Scott of the Pacific:
Watched the entire video…..sad. Change was needed and necessary, but like many things, it went way to far. Projection indeed.
Save Queensland Rural Colleges: Priorities for the Bush, by Viv Forbes.
The executive director of the Saltbush Club, Mr Viv Forbes, said that for too long tax payers have watched federal agencies like CSIRO waste money on climate models that do not work, on carbon accounting that is not needed, on never-ending climate jamborees and on re-invention of “carbon farming”.
“They also watched in disbelief as then-PM Turnbull in one afternoon found $444 M to donate to a small charity living off the Great Barrier Reef.
“Our great rural industries need trade-skilled people with relevant academic knowledge. They do not need urban academics in green uniforms who are hostile to rural industry.
“Farmers and graziers would prefer their taxes were spent on local colleges educating their sons and daughters in practical skills rather than sending them to the coast to learn how to smoke pot, drink beer, buy ice and follow the green religion.
A reader chimes in:
To me, the climate change issue feels much more likely to become a cause célèbre for the Left.
Maybe it’s me, but the over-riding impression I get is of Western societies fragmenting with very divergent views about what matters, let alone what action to take to improve things. Look at the USA and Trump’s fight with Democrats and some Republicans about the border with Mexico.
Democrats love to lecture on the morality of walls — But they ALL have big walls around their huge mansions.
In May 2017 former President met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and took a potshot at President Trump. Obama told his German audience: “In this new world that we live in we can’t isolate ourselves. We can’t hide behind a wall.”
Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, workers were completing work on Barack Obama’s wall around his home [in Washington DC]:
Way back in the before times, when you got news and opinion from TV, newspapers and magazines, you just accepted the authority of the source. If you were a liberal, you were required to swear oaths about the objectivity and integrity of the news media. If you were a normal person you understood that all of it was biased. Alternative sources of information, however, were thin on the ground. …
The thing is though, the columnists were always people who had spent a long apprenticeship in the news business. They started out as local reporters for local papers and then advanced onto bigger stories at bigger outlets. The typical newspaper columnist was a middle-aged man who had been a reporter for a couple of decades. Every city paper had a columnist who used to cover city hall, until he got bumped up to writing polemics about the people in city hall. That was his expertise.
Even the TV people had been in the business for a long time. Eleanor Clift would argue with Pat Buchanan about politics. Both had served as reporters covering campaigns, until they got columns. Their TV persona was as a columnist with expertise covering politics as a reporter for decades. They would salt their opinions with references to events they covered. That was their basis of authority. Their expertise was from long experience reporting on politics at all levels. They were professional reporters.
Whatever one wants to say for the old model of the journalism career, there was a winnowing process to filter out the extremely stupid and dishonest. The Der Spiegel scandal is mostly due to hiring a charismatic greenhorn into a prominent position, without having put him through an apprenticeship. Odds are, the people who hired him had never been local reporters or had to edit copy for a small publication. Like Claas Relotius, they popped out of good schools and the right families into elite media. …
The puzzle is how the mass media has evolved into a weird playground for the stupid children of rich people. …
What seems to be happening is the modern mass media selects for the ability to ingratiate oneself with the powerful. Ezra Klein has a reputation for being a world-class rumpswab, but also a ruthless courtier, who would stab his mother in the neck to gain favor with the boss. That’s how he rose so quickly in the Washington media ranks and why he is now installed in a seven figure job at a media outlet with no customers.
The Australian media is dutifully following the same trends. Hired from the PC class only, the people saying the “right” things go into the prominent positions even if they have little experience. Unprecedented levels of bias follow, mainly just arguments and attitude dressed up as news, and lying by omission.
The wealth of the middle class is now being siphoned into the upper class while its people are being drained into the lower class. These trends are troubling because their consequences are not hard to foresee. If they continue, our society will be stratified between many poor and few rich. At some point our middle class will become too weak to reconcile their mutual animosities. As these animosities grow, our society will be increasingly divided by a contest between the rich and the poor. This contest will be conducted by the popular leaders, or demagogues. …
The middle class is the only thing standing between democracy and class warfare. Demagogues agitate for the redistribution of wealth wherever they exist. … Demagogues operate by purchasing the loyalty of the poor with the property of others. No voice will oppose the plunder of the rich if the middle class is diluted into oblivion. There will also be nothing left to plunder but the property of the rich.
Anacyclosis has run its full course when some form of monarchy arises from demagarchy, thus restarting the sequence of evolution. The early stages are common. The later stages are rare. The complete cycle is not everywhere seen because most places in most times do not advance as far as democracy. Oligarchy is the most persistent condition of mankind. Where democracy becomes entrenched, however, the full cycle will run its course.
Democracy is created by an independent middle class. Democracy follows the middle class. Democracy does not long survive without it.
The emergence of democracy has been historically rare because the development of an independent middle class has been historically rare. Once they have established their own security, citizens of the middle class will establish democracy. They will do this by conditioning an indispensable contribution to the community upon the right to participate in its government.
Where democratic customs and procedures become entrenched, or universally celebrated, the right to participate will be extended even to the lower classes. But later, after the dilution, dissolution, or dependency of the middle class, the rights to participate will survive. After this happens, there will be a great political struggle. There must be a struggle, because there will be many who are dependent or poor, few who are rich, and all having an equal, or at least, nominal claim to participate in government. Ambitious leaders will see and exploit this state of affairs.
Demagogues, or popular leaders, will compete for the affection and loyalty of the people. Some will obtain it through their promises to intercede against the rich on behalf of the people and to look after their livelihood. Other demagogues will obtain power not by exploiting the dependency of the people, but by exploiting their animosities. …
Human nature is spring-loaded for this process. Given enough wealth, people, and time, Anacyclosis will run its full course over and over again.
With the current rapid decline of the middle class, this sadly grim picture is all too obvious. Read it all.
Democracy arises as a form of power sharing. Competent people are granted a share of political power, in return for applying their full productivity towards advancing society.
If you are going to deny me a say in what’s going on, take my stuff and order me about, then I’m not going to help you and your society much — a lesson recently relearned in the Soviet Union. We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.
But with all the productive people happily producing as much they can, and a society that is organized to assist production, living standards soar — a lesson learned from the capitalist West in the last two centuries. The greatest increase in human welfare ever, throwing off the Malthusian yoke by harnessing the productive energies of huge western middle and lower-middle classes.
Therefore, the way to keep a democracy functioning is presumably not to share political power with people who do not produce enough.
But where does one draw the line? How productive does one have to be in order that society is better off sharing political power with you, by giving you the vote?
Worse, by giving the vote to non-productive people, we are giving political power to those who would favor giving the non-productive more and more stuff. Now in western democracies, we are at the point where about half the population gets more in direct personal welfare from government than they pay in taxes.
It is well documented that society moved left once women got the vote, and women vote left more.
The ancient Greek city states had long experience with democracies, over hundreds of years. They learned that a democracy lasts until the population learned to vote themselves the contents of the treasury, then chaos ensued until a strong man took over. Then gradually power became shared more widely, and so on all over again. The cycle.
Now in the West, the new left is committed to a strategy of greatly increasing the proportion of low-productivity and non-productive people in society, organizing them into an electoral majority via identity politics, and redistributing stuff made by the more productive people — aka socialism. Hence they are utterly insistent about open borders. What else can a poor parasite do?
A reader comments:
That is a very good article and, unfortunately, I think it’s all true. My view is that ordinary people like us need to get out of the way, i.e. move our $$ out of the western financial systems where it can be plundered (by the ALP, in the case of Australia). It’s like being a Jew and needing to get out of Germany in the mid 1930s, before it got too late.
“A great man once said, everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power.” …
The Woody Allen example:
I was reading a Hollywood Reporter article about Woody Allen’s sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl back [Christina Engelhardt] in the ’70s when he was 41.
The young woman was dining out at the same upscale restaurant as Allen. She was an aspiring model, dining out with a male acquaintance. When she came back from the bathroom, she dropped a note with her phone number on Woody Allen’s table.
Now, she still resists revising her own history to fit the norms of the times. She initiated contact. She was a voluntary and eager participant. And the relationship actually lasted 8 years, until she was 24 years old. Any past relationship will have some bitterness to it, but she still described it generally as formative and positive.
And then the Hollywood Reporter article throws in a line in parenthesis, “(Most experts would contend that such an uneven power dynamic is inherently exploitative.)”
I get it, here is a non-famous 16-year-old girl and a famous, rich, 41-year-old man. Clearly, the power dynamic is not equal. But inherently exploitative?
Wouldn’t that mean that any billionaire can only date other billionaires?
Or perhaps a supermodel is the one exploiting an ugly old suitor, with such an uneven attractiveness dynamic? …
Who is exploiting who? The young woman who just wants money, or the old man who just wants sex? …
At what age or level of success would it have been appropriate for Woody Allen to pursue a woman who dropped her number on his table?
What about education level? Is a PhD allowed to date a high school drop out?
Is a world traveler exploiting someone who has never left their hometown?
Can a body-builder ever have consensual sex with someone so physically weak in comparison?
If you live in a $5 million penthouse, is it inherently exploitative to invite anyone making less than $200,000 a year back for a drink? …
Male-female relationships are not symmetric:
“At core, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them.”
That was Gavin Debecker in his book, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence.
Men are a much greater physical threat to women than vice versa. And that is the part the #MeToo movement got right. A woman blocking the doorway, seductively smiling, and not allowing a man to pass is not the same as the exact reverse. …
Both males and females have inbuilt desires and mechanisms to create offspring and pass their genes on. …
Are men exploiting women for sex? Or are women exploiting men for commitment? …
Ancient Greece (notably pre-Christian, not Jewish):
In ancient Greece, it was common custom for men in their twenties or thirties to court young teenagers going through puberty, from about 12-17 years old.
The teens would play hard to get to make sure the older men didn’t just want sex. They were relying on the older men to be a mentor and protector… To teach the teen about life, politics, work, and what it means to be a man.
This was seen as a highly beneficial — even crucial — relationship for the young man, not exploitative at all. In fact, many parents worried that no older male suitor would be interested in their son. And there would go his chances of raising to prominent heights in Greek society.
The relationship would generally last until the teen grew a certain amount of body hair. And after that, he was a man, and the coming of age relationship ended.
Clearly, this type of relationship would appall most normal people today. And there is no reason to think it should be acceptable today. …
“Exploitative” is just a power grab by some ideologue:
My point is that when it comes to sex and power dynamics in relationships, there is no such thing as equality. No one is equal in everything: wealth, brain power, age, education level, sex, fame, talents, athleticism.
And anything could be used as the basis to claim that a relationship was exploitative.
An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.” …
When a Mizzou official was questioned regarding a case where a black male Ph.D. candidate at the school asked out a white female fitness trainer, she bizarrely suggested that the fact that the male student was larger than the female student gave him “power over her” and violated school policy.
-Americans don't like illegal immigration -"Illegal immigration is wrong" -People illegally in the U.S. are "illegal aliens," not "undocumented" -Border fence made the southern border "far more secure…created a significant barrier to illegal immigration" pic.twitter.com/zoVyEgdrTC
Democrats have drastically changed their stances since President Donald Trump entered the political scene as a presidential candidate in 2015.
In 2013, all 54 Democrats in the Senate voted to pass “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, And Immigration Modernization Act,” which provided $46 billion for border security, which included hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers.
Many of their electoral victories were had by skipping the established line, so they’re wired to approach governing in the same rebellious way. And their sizable followings on social media provide them with an imposing arsenal of support that can be converted into raw political power as fast as one can upload an Instagram.
“The freshman class as an aggregate will have more power than the leadership,” says Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat about to start his second term. “The balance of power is shifting in the House. Leadership doesn’t matter nearly as much. Ordinary members of Congress have a much bigger platform. The size of your Twitter following and the size of your external base makes a huge difference.” …
Get with the program, comrades:
They not only look different than your father’s stodgy, old, whitebread Congress, they’re making moves both substantive and symbolic that break with protocol and tradition. And they aren’t doing it quietly.
Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, who at 42 years old is the first Palestinian-American woman elected to the House, raised eyebrows when she announced she would lead a delegation to her mother’s native West Bank rather than partake in the traditional freshman trip to Israel. She said she hoped to humanize the plight of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territory and show new members a part of the story that’s not been included in the usual voyage sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. She’s also a vocal supporter of the “BDS” movement, which advocates for boycotting, divesting and sanctioning Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. …
Does the US already have “Islamic” electorates, where a Muslim will always be elected?
Ilhan Omar, a 36-year-old Democrat from Minnesota, will become the first U.S. lawmaker to wear a headscarf or hijab on the House floor. With her November victory, Omar becomes the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in Congress as well as the first Muslim refugee and first Somali-American.
When a conservative talk radio host complained that Omar would now make Congress “look like an Islamic republic,” she took him on directly.
“Well sir, the floor of Congress is going to look like America,” she wrote. “And you’re gonna have to just deal.”
Next month … Prime Minister Theresa May is expected to lose the decisive parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal.
If and when this defeat happens, May will face two unpalatable options. She could preside over a “No Deal” rupture with Europe — tantamount to a declaration of economic war against the EU — and risk a 2008-level economic crisis accompanied by a border upheaval in Ireland that could reignite the “Troubles.” Or she could break her extravagant promises to honor the “people’s instruction” from the 2016 referendum and allow a new popular vote that might cancel Brexit. …
With the options thus narrowed, the risks and sacrifices of the “horror,” as Britain’s main business lobbies now publicly describe No Deal, will quickly come into focus, and a bipartisan parliamentary majority will surely converge to block this outcome. …
Soon the sense of inevitability may swing in favor of a new referendum. This shift has already started in the British media. Having spent the past two years denouncing anyone who challenged Brexit as “enemies of the people” and a traitor to democracy, the BBC, The Times and other influential media organs have suddenly remembered that an essential principle of democracy is that voters have the right to change their minds. …
In the first detailed poll of all three Brexit options, conducted by YouGov in early December, a standard first-past-the-post vote would result in Remain winning a huge 54% absolute majority, against 28% support for No Deal and 18% for May’s Deal. In a simple choice against May’s deal, the majority for Remain would be even bigger, at 62%. And in a preferential vote count that redistributed the second preferences of May’s supporters, Remain would still win by a decisive margin of 57% to 43%.
With the mainstream propaganda machine constantly playing up the vague but wildly exaggerated horror of a no-deal exit, presumably the public is being set up to choose anything except that. The power to choose Britain’s course therefore goes to whoever chooses the alternative to a no-deal exit.
A bit like global warming. We have been inundated for two decades with vague but exaggerated horror stories to condition us to accept whatever alternative is offered, no matter how preposterous and expensive (go back to windmills for power) or politically revolutionary (massive transfers of wealth to the third world, world government). Criticism of the carbon dioxide theory of global warming — there is no empirical evidence for it, it is just a theory based on models extrapolated from laboratory physics, observed warming is much less than the warming predicted by the models, the theory is wrong (yes we’ve found the error, book soon) — is suppressed.
Q. Is IQ really all that important in understanding how the world works?
A. In an absolute sense, no. Human behavior is incredibly complicated, and no single factor explains more than a small fraction of it.
In a relative sense, yes. Compared to all the countless other factors that influence the human world, IQ ranks up near the top of the list. …
Q. So, if IQ isn’t all that accurate for making predictions about an individual, why even think of using it to compare groups, which are much more complicated?
A. That sounds sensible, but it’s exactly backwards. The larger the sample size, the more the statistical noise washes out. …
Q. So, you’re saying that IQ testing can tell us more about group differences than about individual differences?
A. If the sample sizes are big enough and all else is equal, a higher IQ group will virtually always outperform a lower IQ group on any behavioral metric.
One of the very few positive traits not correlated with IQ is musical rhythm — which is a reason high IQ rock stars like Mick Jagger, Pete Townshend, and David Bowie tell Drummer Jokes.
Of course, everything else is seldom equal. A more conscientious group may well outperform a higher IQ group. On the other hand, conscientiousness, like many virtues, is positively correlated with IQ, so IQ tests work surprisingly well.
Q. Can one number adequately describe a person’s intelligence?
A. Sort of.
Q. “Sort of”?!? What the heck kind of answer is that?
A. A realistic one.
Q. How can something be true and not true at the same time?
A. How can the glass be half-full and half-empty at the same time? Most things about IQ testing are partly true and partly false at the same time. That’s the nature of anything inherently statistical, which is most of reality.
Humans are used to legalistic reasoning that attempts to draw bright lines between exclusive categories. For example, you are either old enough to vote or you aren’t. There’s no gray area. But the law is artificial and unlike most of reality. Many people have a hard time dealing with that fact, especially when it comes to thinking about IQ. …
Q. Are there differences in average SAT scores among racial groups?
A. Yes. Ashkenazi (European) Jews appear to average the highest—maybe around 110-112—followed by Northeast Asians (105), and then by gentile white Europeans and North Americans (100). The world mean is around 90, Hispanic-Americans are at 89. African-Americans traditionally average around 85 and Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa around 70.
Q. Aren’t all IQ researchers white supremacists who just want to show their race has the highest IQ?
A. If they are, they’re doing an awfully lousy job of it. (See above.)
Q. How can anybody talk about race and IQ when race doesn’t exist?
A. It’s funny how these objections don’t come up in regard to affirmative action. Scientists gather race-related data the same way colleges and bureaucrats hand out affirmative action goodies. They let people self-identify. …
Q. Why is all this important? Shouldn’t we just think of people as individuals?
A. That sounds good to me, but we don’t. We’re social and political animals, and many of our government policies are based on group membership: not just explicit affirmative action programs, but most anti-discrimination cases as well are based not on evidence of actual discrimination but on “disparate impact,” a legal theory that’s built on the big assumption that different groups are identical in IQ and other traits.
People often ask whether IQ is due to nature or nurture, genes or environment. The question is ill-formed, because it does not specify which environments are involved.
Suppose all children were brought up in a binary world, where half were kept in cupboards and given no mental stimulation but only food and water, while the other half were given the best possible education and were brilliantly fed. Then the environment — whether cupboard or paradise — would correlate very highly with adult IQ: it would be the governing factor. Environment would rule.
Now suppose all kids were brought up in an identical environment of good nutrition and the best possible school. There being no significant environmental differences, differences in adult IQs would be almost solely due to genes.
In our current western world, all kids are well fed (at least in terms of calories) and get at least a well-resourced education at government schools (though not necessarily a good education, because of the other students). The environments are roughly leveled out, so most of the difference in adult IQs in today’s world is from genes.
As was advertised everywhere, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin tells the investment world he is going to call on the Plunge Protection Team. Miraculously, two days later, the DOW posts its biggest gain in history. And then the next day, the DOW pulls about as big a late dramatic reversal as any in history … the sort of late reversals (same time) we used to see when our stock market was recovering from the financial crisis.
So here are two days following the PPT doing exactly what Mnuchin said they were going to do, and nary a word is mentioned of the Plunge Protection Team. It as if what he declared has vanished into thin air.
The mainstream reporting is determinedly clueless, for example:
The week’s sharp moves were attributed mostly to light holiday trading volume and computer-driven trading. But the ups and downs during a usually calm period are no doubt stoking investor anxiety about what’s to come.
What sort of world do we live in that the media will not report the obvious, or at least talk abut it? Something is deeply wrong.
Erdogan is America’ s enemy. As far back as 2003, he forbade use of Turkish ground and airspace for U.S. operations in Iraq, including the U.S. Air Force base at Incirlik. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he has turned Turkey from a NATO ally into an Islamist dictatorship.
Neither wise nor competent, he aims to resurrect something like the Caliphate, with Ottoman Turkey its seat and himself as the Sultan in all but name. To this end, he supported the Brotherhood’s attempted takeover of Egypt, supports Hamas in Gaza, and a host of Sunni terrorist groups, in Syria as well. Only with Turkey’s active help was ISIS able to market the oil it got from Iraqi and Syrian fields, buy arms, receive recruits from abroad, etc. ISIS became more than a minor nuisance only because Erdogan provided it with a hinterland.
Erdogan meant to use ISIS as the head of the Sunni spear to overthrow Syria’s Alawite (a version of Shia) regime. However, Erdogan also opposes Sunni Saudi Arabia, mainly because he is financed largely by Qatar, which is in a very bitter quarrel with Saudi Arabia. In part because of Qatar, he believes he has some kind of understanding with Iran, though it is on the opposite side of the great Sunni-Shia war. He welcomed Russia’s intervention in Syria, though it brought Iranian influence to his southern as well as to his eastern border. Passionately anti-American and in disregard of Turkey’s secular geopolitical adversary relationship with Russia, he seems to be satisfied with Vladimir Putin’s de facto overlordship of the Middle East.
Making war on the Kurds at home and abroad, however, seems to be Erdogan’s consuming passion. He revived restrictions on the Kurdish language, and renewed military raids on majority Kurdish areas. This runs against demography: Kurds are some 20 percent of Turkey’s population, concentrated in the Southeast. While ethnic Turks are declining in number, the Kurds are prolific. Twenty years hence, the majority of Turkey’s military-age men will be Kurds. All around Turkey’s southern and Eastern borders, in Syria, Iraq, and Iran are some 15 million Kurds who feel kinship with their Turkish brethren. …
Putin’s Russia does not share Erdogan’s animus against the Kurds. One may safely suppose that Russia’s Putin would prefer to see Turkey’s borders continue to be occupied by forces that make Turkey uncomfortable. Moreover, Russia now being in charge of the Middle East’s zoo, Putin’s interest lies in opposing any party therein getting any bigger in its britches, and in the continuation of as much balance as possible. In short, no one would have to encourage Putin to warn Erdogan not to strike the Syrian Kurds.