One will be forgiven for thinking that a Bret Stephens column will enlighten a foreign policy issue. After all, New York Times columnists are an array of mediocrities, so there must be at least one who is worth reading. But then, it does not take two full Stephens paragraphs to read something that is so stupid that it might have been written by Tommy Friedman.
Can Europe be saved? Right now, it looks like the answer is "No". Most European nations haven't yet realized that admitting enormous numbers of people who cannot and WILL NOT assimilate won't end well. Because those Muslim "immigrants" are actually INVADERS, who are already fighting and terrorizing the populace.
Which of them is willing to send the Army to herd out the immigrants and force them back to Libya or Syria? Which nation will cut off the welfare spigots? Which of them will SHOOT them when they inevitably turn to crime to survive? No. Europe is past saving. In Britain, Muslims have been elected to some of the highest offices. Will Britain survive? Not if they don't start sinking the immigrant ships and deporting them.
It is abundantly clear that decades of feminist propaganda has eviscerated the leadership, so called of Europe. Perhaps the precursor was the utter devastation visited upon the continent by World Wars I and II (actually a single conflict, merely bifurcated by passage of a single generation). Manly leadership was blamed for the conflict and so, the alternative--the "kinder, gentler" type of feminine or maternal leadership--was substituted. Certainly understandable, but nonetheless misguided. What better examples of this than Churchill's replacement by the British people immediately post-war, or the more recent elevation of the execrable Mutti Merkle by the Germans. Jacinda Ardern and Sanna Marin are also prime contemporary examples. Women have both admirable and necessary qualities, but national leadership is usually not among them. Notable exceptions come to mind, like The Iron Lady Thatcher or Golda Meier, but they are truly the exceptions that prove the rule. Observe the successful leadership of Reagan and Trump, whose masculinity is of a more crude, less thoughtful variety, but masculine nonetheless. The left is dominated by male and female feminists, whose style of leadership is both maternalistic and, when unrestrained, ultimately destructive of any society in which they dominate. Leftists are the political version of "Mommie Dearest," who can not rationally deal with opposition nor respond in legitimate debate, so they hate, reject, vilify and, when given the opportunity, punish anyone or anything that fails to utterly bow and scrape to their demands. Clearly, nations can be seen simply as families writ large, and demand the same type of leadership that makes for successful families. A strong, masculine leader/protector/provider who is supported by a feminine--not feminist--caregiver/nurturer who together provide a synthesis of ideal leadership for the offspring--the citizens--under their loving, sacrificial headship. If that balance does not exist--when leadership is excessively skewed in either the masculine or feminine spheres--the result is ultimately disasterous. Obviously, my comparison is not perfect, since no analogies are ever perfect, but I think it is helpful in understanding the dynamics of successful family and national life. Eliminating the necessary masculine component in leadership, as has been in fashion of late, will always ultimately fail and result in the dissolution and atomization of any society in which it is allowed to occur, whether on a family or national level.
Can Europe be saved? Right now, it looks like the answer is "No". Most European nations haven't yet realized that admitting enormous numbers of people who cannot and WILL NOT assimilate won't end well. Because those Muslim "immigrants" are actually INVADERS, who are already fighting and terrorizing the populace.
Which of them is willing to send the Army to herd out the immigrants and force them back to Libya or Syria? Which nation will cut off the welfare spigots? Which of them will SHOOT them when they inevitably turn to crime to survive? No. Europe is past saving. In Britain, Muslims have been elected to some of the highest offices. Will Britain survive? Not if they don't start sinking the immigrant ships and deporting them.
Should Europe be saved (again)?
It is abundantly clear that decades of feminist propaganda has eviscerated the leadership, so called of Europe. Perhaps the precursor was the utter devastation visited upon the continent by World Wars I and II (actually a single conflict, merely bifurcated by passage of a single generation). Manly leadership was blamed for the conflict and so, the alternative--the "kinder, gentler" type of feminine or maternal leadership--was substituted. Certainly understandable, but nonetheless misguided. What better examples of this than Churchill's replacement by the British people immediately post-war, or the more recent elevation of the execrable Mutti Merkle by the Germans. Jacinda Ardern and Sanna Marin are also prime contemporary examples. Women have both admirable and necessary qualities, but national leadership is usually not among them. Notable exceptions come to mind, like The Iron Lady Thatcher or Golda Meier, but they are truly the exceptions that prove the rule. Observe the successful leadership of Reagan and Trump, whose masculinity is of a more crude, less thoughtful variety, but masculine nonetheless. The left is dominated by male and female feminists, whose style of leadership is both maternalistic and, when unrestrained, ultimately destructive of any society in which they dominate. Leftists are the political version of "Mommie Dearest," who can not rationally deal with opposition nor respond in legitimate debate, so they hate, reject, vilify and, when given the opportunity, punish anyone or anything that fails to utterly bow and scrape to their demands. Clearly, nations can be seen simply as families writ large, and demand the same type of leadership that makes for successful families. A strong, masculine leader/protector/provider who is supported by a feminine--not feminist--caregiver/nurturer who together provide a synthesis of ideal leadership for the offspring--the citizens--under their loving, sacrificial headship. If that balance does not exist--when leadership is excessively skewed in either the masculine or feminine spheres--the result is ultimately disasterous. Obviously, my comparison is not perfect, since no analogies are ever perfect, but I think it is helpful in understanding the dynamics of successful family and national life. Eliminating the necessary masculine component in leadership, as has been in fashion of late, will always ultimately fail and result in the dissolution and atomization of any society in which it is allowed to occur, whether on a family or national level.