Monday, 26 September 2016
Here's a few questions for American Thinker readers:
“Do you take an interest in the way society functions?
“Are you angry or upset about injustice, exploitation and oppression?
“Are you interested in political ideas and theories, even if you don’t yet know much about them?
“Do you want to get involved in contributing to positive social change, if only in small ways at first?
“Lastly, no experience of activism is necessary to attend Demand the Impossible, but some experience should not prevent you applying.”
Does all that sound appealing? Then Demand the Impossible is for you.
So just in case you thought that schools and universities weren't already left-wing enough, here's a school explicitly for radicals. It's called Demand the Impossible and it will take part in London on October the 3rd.
The school is the brainchild of Global Justice Now. Global Justice Now
“is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world... We need to make really big changes in the world. But this won’t happen overnight because power is rarely relinquished easily by those who possess it....”
This is how the school sells itself:
“Demand the Impossible is an evening course for young people about political ideas and activism, starting October 2016. Organised by Global Justice Now and the Critical Education Project.”
And here's a list of some of the goodies on offer at this school for radicals: “Brexit Britain, London's housing crisis, migration and its causes, capitalism and alternative systems, mental health, Trump vs Clinton and more.”
The agitation/propaganda (agitprop) itself will take the form of “interactive role-plays, talks from activists, film screenings and performance, as well as special excursions, talks, exhibitions and walks in London and elsewhere”.
Finally, do you also want to earn money from your radicalism; as well as forge a career? Of course you do! Thus this school for radicals offers you the “possibility of an additional four-week activism placement with a campaigning organisation such as Global Justice Now, Take Back the City or Momentum”. (Momentum, incidentally, is the far-left group right at the heart of Jeremy Corbyn's attempt to turn the UK into a dreary and depressing socialist utopia.)
And like any business (this is in the business of “radical change”) which advertises itself on the Internet, this school for radicals quotes the words of various previously satisfied customers. Take this example:
“I feel more developed socially and mentally. I have gained new friends, insights and perspectives and I feel like a person ready to take on the world.”
This school also tells us that it has “heard from speakers like the radical academics Doreen Massey, Jeremy Gilbert and Danny Dorling”. (Interestingly enough, yet another left-wing professor - as well as an ex-terrorist and now simply a supporter of terrorism - Bill Ayers, wrote a book called Demand the Impossible!)
Demand the Impossible!
What do the words “demand the impossible” actually mean? Well, that phrase became a well-known piece of graffiti written on various walls during the French “student uprisings” of 1968. The full quote is: “Be realistic, demand the impossible!”
Basically, Leftists demands the impossible – from the state/government – knowing full well that it can't deliver. Thus it's not the demands that these “radicals” really want. For example, if the UK minimum wage were to be increased to £100 an hour, such people would still demand more. Similarly, if an extra 10 billion each year were to be spent on overseas aid, then, yes, you guessed it, Social Justice Warriors would still be up in arms.
The thing is that by demanding the impossible you create a “revolutionary situation” in which the state/government can't deliver. Then, it's hoped, “the people” will rebel or revolt. So, again, if the British government allowed an extra million immigrants a year into the UK, there would still be middle-class revolutionary unrest.
Don't take my word for all this, take to the words of “the greatest philosopher in the world today”, Slavoj Žižek! In a section of Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, entitled Soyons Réalistes, Demandons L’Impossible!, he writes:
“The only 'realistic' prospect is to ground a new political universality by opting for the impossible, fully assuming the place of the exception, with no taboos, no a priori norms ('human rights', 'democracy'), respect for which would prevent us also from 're-signifying' terror, the ruthless exercise of power...” (326)
Why do we need another school for radicals when almost every university in the UK and US (more so in the US) is already a school for radicals? (That's if you choose the right departments.)
Well, the “world is in crisis” - that's why. The world has been in crisis since the mid-to-late 19th century, according to Marxists. In addition, each year, from the 1960s onwards, the UK Socialist Workers Party has proclaimed a “capitalist crisis”. (Sometimes “the final crisis”!) Capitalism, of course, has survived these make-believe crises primarily because it's not a rigid body of theory, as Marxism is.
Firstly we get the oh-so-classic Marxist theory of racism. Or, in the words of this school for radicals, “division and instability are boosting racists and fanatics from the Middle East to the US and Europe”. Yes, “divisions and instability” which are almost exclusively the fault of the Left and of Liberals.
Demand the Impossible (DI) also has a predictable go at the evil rich. Apparently, the “rich, the white and the middle-aged have used the financial crisis of 2008 to strengthen their power at the expense of the powerless and the planet itself”.
Then even Brexit gets a mention. Apparently, “[a]fter Brexit” it's the case that “Britain risks being taken over by the most conservative forces in society”. That's strange because DI appears to be having a go at the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKip). In many ways UKip is far from being “conservative”. The status quo before Brexit included our membership of the European Union. UKip helped us get out of that bureaucratic and anti-democratic setup. UKip is also radical in its various attempts to replace the politically-correct hegemony which rules the roost in the UK today. UKip wants to take power away from the universities and the law and give it to the people; such as the seventeen-and-a-half million who voted for Brexit.
Leftism is now conservative (with a small 'c'). It's a solid block of political correctness and conformity which stretches from the BBC to the schools to the law and to the universities – and it has done, to greater or lesser degree, since the 1960s. However, this PC/Leftist onslaught got really heavy in the 1980s when a chasm developed between the Conservative government of the time and various Leftist institutions.
Make no mistake, this school is a revolutionary outfit which wants to destroy capitalist democracy. Or, as the school itself puts it, DI wants to destroy the “old order of cut-throat capitalism, inherited privilege, sexism and racism”; which, in any case, “is crumbling”. As I said earlier, saying that “capitalism is crumbling” is designed to be some kind of self-fulfilling prophesy. Yet even though capitalism is far from crumbing (or in crisis), if members of the middle-class Left say that it is often enough, the hope is that this “revolutionary crisis” may well come about.
*) This article was also published by American Thinker (see here). See article for people's comments.
Wednesday, 21 September 2016
There was a well-publicised (by the BBC, etc.) demonstration in London on Saturday. The theme of the demo, “Refugees are welcome here.” (Interestingly enough, the last “refugees welcome here” demo in London was on the 12th of September; only five days before!)
Various Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) and/or charities attended. They included Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council and the Stop the War Coalition. The actual demo was organised by a “charity coalition” called Solidarity with Refugees.
The protestors pointed their fingers at the British Prime Minister, Theresa May. They chanted: "Theresa May, you will say, refugees are welcome here". Various refugees, celebrities and religious leaders also spoke at the rally in Parliament Square.
The end result of protests like this is that the UK is now going to accommodate another 20,000 refugees. This will need financing. By the evil rich? Well, not entirely.
According to the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, local authority housing departments have promised to house - under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme - the said 20,000 refugees,
In terms of each refugee, the government will spend £8,500 on each one of them. That will include housing, health care, etc. So that's £8,500 times 20,000; which is £170 million.
But all that, apparently, is not good enough. It's never good enough. You attack the state at every opportunity. You even “demand the impossible” in order to create instability and radicalisation. Thus Solidarity with Refugees director, Ros Ereira, has complained about the state of things regarding refugees. She seems to see this in geopolitical terms. That means that she wants the UK PM to play "an important role on the global stage" (at next week's UN Summit for refugees and migrants in New York) by helping as many refugees as possible.
On the charities or NGOs which “collaborated on the demo”, such institutions can be deeply political entities. Don't let talk of 'charity' or 'humanity” fool you. Helping refugees isn't always an act of moral selflessness: it can be a action carried out to bring about certain political results. In addition, as the revolutionary Left puts it: “political activity and conflict radicalises”. Amnesty International, specifically, is well-known for letting left-wing politics pollute its actions and statements.
It was also interesting to see the many Socialist Workers Party banners on this protest. At least one in three was trademarked with the 'Socialist Workers Party' logo. You see, “tapping into the revolutionary potential” of refugees is almost as good as tapping into the revolutionary potential of Muslims. In fact it's often the very same thing.
It is no surprise that the SWP was there is large numbers – even the BBC tells us that “Stop the War Coalition collaborated for the demonstration”. The StWC is a child of the SWP. Nonetheless, it has made a pathetic attempt to hide its true revolutionary nature simply by pretending to be a “single-issue group”: a group which simply wants to “stop war”. But the facade is ridiculous. The StWC and the SWP are run by similar types of people, politically. Sometimes they're literally the same people! As I said, major instability - caused by refugees and mass immigration - will be a godsend to StWC and the SWP. After all, “the worse it is, the better it is” for the revolution.
“Actor and campaigner” Vanessa Redgrave was there too. She's been a lifelong revolutionary Marxist and she was a well-known activist in the Workers Revolutionary Party in the 1970/80s. She's another upper-middle-class individual hooked on Trotskyism and the idea of transforming the working class – and others - into better, more revolutionary people.
What did she have to say? Something predictably political; but with a hint of lawfare thrown in. Thus:
"The present government and previous governments, both Labour, coalition and Conservative, have been breaking international human rights law. We must hold them to account."
Let's analyse that phrase “refugees are welcome here”.
The demonstrators - made up almost exclusively of students, professors, those with a charity to sell (not forgetting a few refugees/immigrants) - don't look like the sort of people who would “welcome refugees here” – if 'here' means in their own homes. No, they want “the state” to deal with the problem. And that means putting them in homes which have often been taken from working-class English families and which are in areas in which mainly poorer people live. In other words, this is helping refugees at a distance.
Will members of the middle-class Left want their taxes to rise in order to pay for all this? Of course not! They want the platonic “the rich” to pay for it. The rich are sometimes only marginally better off than they are, but without the Stop the War t-shirts and jeans.
Finally, it may seem heartless and cruel not to care about refugees. But we should also care about our own people and the conflicts – even civil wars – which will happen in the future. These are the very high prices to pay for grandstanding piety and being self-indulgently nice. This isn't to say that the said charities never do any good. They no doubt do. However, this fusion of charities/NGOs and revolutionary Leftism can only be a bad thing for the working class and the indigenous English generally.
Thursday, 15 September 2016
Jeremy Corbyn - who could possibly become British Prime Minister at the next election - felt obliged to write something about the anniversary of 9/11 on Sunday. What he said is outrageous. At least it's outrageous on a certain reading. The problem is, I don't know how else to take it. Indeed many people have taken it in exactly the same way I've taken it.
Here's Corbyn's short tweet:
“My thoughts are with those whose lives were shattered on 9/11/2001 - and in the wars and terror unleashed across the globe in its aftermath.”
It's crystal clear that Corbyn felt a strong need to politicise these commemorations. And he did so in a particular way.
Let's be clear about that interpretation.
i) Corbyn states that his “thoughts are with those whose lives were shattered on 9/11/2001”.
ii) He then says: “and in the wars and terror unleashed across the globe in its aftermath”.
What connects the first clause with the second? They must have some kind of connection otherwise the whole sentence would be a non sequitur.
Why would a terrorist attack which was “the victims' blow to the motherland” (as Chomsky once put it) - and after which tens of thousands of Muslims celebrated on the streets - have “unleashed war and terror across the globe”? After all, this was a successful act of terror for al-Qaeda and tens of millions of other Muslims.
That must mean that what followed 9/11 - not 9/11 itself! - “unleashed terror and war across the globe”. What followed 9/11? The intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001 and the Iraq War in 2003. Thus in a tweet seemingly to commemorate the victims of 9/11, Corbyn couldn't stop himself from pointing the finger at Blair and Bush (plus another 23 states!) and indeed at all “Western capitalist powers”.
Not surprisingly, many people responded to Corbyn on his own Twitter page. An Andrew HK, for example, said:
“Why not just leave it at those mourning victims on 9/11 today? Awful political point scoring, you should be ashamed.”
Jonny Will Chambers also wrote:
“The real terror was unleashed on New York on that very day. Something you seem to have forgotten. Shameful.”
It's not in the least bit surprising that Corbyn said what he said. He's on the extreme edge of the socialist Left. Even many in his own party, the Labour Party, think this and that's precisely why they've tried so very hard to get rid of him.
Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition (StWC)
His most recent role was as Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition.
Jeremy Corbyn MP was the Chairman of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) from 2011 until September 2015. A week after his election as leader of the UK Labour Party (in September 2015), he announced that he was stepping down from the role. Nonetheless, he also said that he'd continue to support Stop the War.
First things first.
The StWC is not against “war” - it's against “capitalist wars” fought by “Western imperialist powers”. Wars fought by Islamists, Muslims, communists, African states, etc. are never condemned unless – yes, you guessed it – they can be linked to Western dirty deeds.
Thus Jeremy Corbyn himself is not – repeat not – a pacifist! (It's a disgrace that certain tabloids and commentators have described him in that way.) Instead, he's a self-described "anti-imperialist campaigner" who's working within the system he ultimately wants to destroy.
The founders of Corbyn's StWC were all members (or former members) of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). (It was only the other day that I saw Corbyn share a platform with SWP and Unite Against Fascism leader Weyman Bennett, who was once charged with 'conspiracy to commit violent disorder’.)
Since we're on the subject of the StWC, it's also worth mentioning the strong connections between its leaders and activists and the Iranian theocratic state. Various StWC leaders have presented programmes for Iran's Press TV channel; along with other Islamist outlets. George Galloway, for example, is also an important leader of the Stop the War Coalition.
One other leader - and a founder - of the StWC (its 'national officer') is John Rees. (He's also a founder and leader of the very recent Trotskyist front-group – The People's Assembly.) Rees also effectively works for the Iranian state and does its propaganda business via Press TV and the Islam Channel. (Here's a link on John Rees's work for the Islam Channel.) Indeed recently John Rees took part in the infamous press conference held by the Islamist group CAGE in which Britain's 'Jihadi John' was both defended and supported.
Stop the War and Jeremy Corbyn are against military intervention in Syria for two main reasons:
i) They are strong supporters of Iran. Iran is a strong supporter of Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. (Here is John Rees saying “Don't Attack Iran!''.)
ii) “Western capitalist states” would be carrying out the military intervention in Syria. Therefore that's automatically wrong because, according to Marxist logic, it will be exclusively driven by the “inevitable laws of capitalist accumulation and imperialism”.
Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition aren't against military intervention in Syria because they're against war or against violence. They're certainly not pacifists. Indeed they are Trotskyists and communists who have a strong commitment to what they themselves call “revolutionary violence”. What's worse, this also partly explains their tacit defence - and sometimes support - of Islamic terror.
Monday, 12 September 2016
Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein - a Jordanian of the Hashemite tribe (which traces itself back to Muhammed) - has just called various right-wing Western politicians "demagogues and political fantasists". Mr Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.
Here's a few words on the Prince himself.
Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He's the son of Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid, the former Lord Chamberlain of Jordan. Hussein himself was once Jordan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
A Jordanian as a UN human rights chief? That's the same Jordan that doesn't allow a single Jew to become a citizen and which is a specialist administrator of torture. (Jordan does allow Israelis and Jewish tourists.) This also squares well with all those Saudis at the United Nations who preach to the rest of the world about interfaith, terrorism and, believe it or not, human rights.
Here's Wikipedia on Jordan's current record:
“ - limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully;
- cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, poor prison conditions, impunity, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention, and prolonged detention;
- breaches of fair trial standards and external interference in judicial decisions;
- infringements on privacy rights;
- limited freedoms of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention that encourage self-censorship;
- restricted freedoms of assembly and association...
- legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern...
- legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;
- loss of Jordanian nationality by some citizens of Palestinian origin;
- restricted labor rights; and
- cases of abuse of foreign domestic workers.”
Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage in his broad generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.
Then Trump and Farage came in for an attack. Apparently they use the same tactics as the Islamic State. Yes, you read that correctly.
Well, if Geert Wilders is a “demagogue and political fantasist”, so too are very many people in the Netherlands because opinion polls have just told us that Wilders' party - the Freedom Party (PVV) - is leading the polls in that part of the world.
Wilders, like Nigel Farage, has also recently addressed the American people. More precisely, Wilders addressed the US Republican Party National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, last month.
Prince al-Hussein went into more detail when he spoke at the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.
Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed he was speaking to all the populists, demagogues and political fantasists who inhabit Europe and America.
Prince Hussein continued:
"I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab. And I am angry, too, because of Mr Wilders' lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear."
Isn't it strange when European political/economic elites and Arab princes (in this case) cast disparaging remarks about “populists” and populism? It's as if populism is as culpable as racism is nowadays. It's also interesting to hear Hussein say that because he's white, this ends up being “confusing to racists”. Really? But, Prince Hussein, Islam is not a race and neither do Muslims constitute a single race. So why should patriots and counter-jihadists be confused by Hussein's whiteness? Is he mixing-up patriots and counter-jihadists with those very many Leftists who see everything in terms of race? Or, instead, is he confusing them with the very many Muslims who use the “race card” to quell all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims)?
Prince Hussein returned to his themes of populism and Mr Wilders. His said that the PVV's (Wilders' party) manifesto is “grotesque” and that Wilders has much in common with Donald Trump, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, France's National Front leader Marine Le Pen, and UKip's Nigel Farage. Moreover, he called for decisive political action to be taken against populism and patriotism. (Whatever could he mean by that?)
In one news piece I read, Prince Hussein talked about “half-truths” and “oversimplification” when it comes to Islam. In detail, he said:
“But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists."
That's strange really because Hussein, at least here, seems not to have given any examples of such “half-truths” or “oversimplifications”. However, since Hussein pretends to believe that all the critics of Islam think that there can be no such thing as a white or a yellow Muslim, perhaps he's mistaking Islam's critics for other people.
I said earlier that International Socialists (i.e., Leftists) see everything in terms of race (as National Socialists also do), and that Muslims use the charge of racism to help them install sharia blasphemy law, so here's Hussein elaborating on this. He said that "humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders" had become official policy in some countries.
Mr Hussein also warned that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. The only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays are Muslim countries. These Muslims, however, aren't the victims of white racism or populism: they are victims of Muslim-on-Muslim “hate”. As for Europe and the United States, it will almost a certainty be the case that most of the violence which happens in the future in these countries will be the responsibility of Muslims. And Prince Hussein himself will bear some of the responsibility for that.
Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:
"Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?"
Sorry Mr Hussein, I see much more bigotry and violence coming from the Muslim quarter than I do from anywhere else in the world. And, in a certain sense, such violence is partly a result of what Hussein and his United Nations are attempting to bring about in European and American – i.e., sharia blasphemy law.
Thursday, 8 September 2016
According to some, and rather predictably, it's the ubiquitous “far-right” which has increased its vote-share in Germany recently. In parallel with this, Chancellor Angela Merkel suffered a serious defeat in her own home state.
Polls in the Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania region have shown that Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) took second place to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. (The “Christian” in “Christian Democratic Union” is by now - after over 70 years - a mere nominal description.)
The AfD got 22% of the votes; and that means that it now has seats in 11 regional parliaments.
The obvious result of all this is that it is unlikely that Merkel will win Germany's general election next year.
The interesting thing is, though, that despite all this gush about “the far Right”, many supporters of AfD have moved over from the traditional German parties, including the 23,000 from Merkel's very own CDU! Having said that, there are still many supporters of Merkel who won't go down without some kind of fight.
AfD sees itself as an “alternative” party – and one can see why. It's nationalist, populist and anti-mass migration.
The AfD has been classed as both “far-Right” and “hardline”, yet it would be difficult (in a manner of speaking) not to be hardline (or even far Right) after your own country's political/economic elite has imported one million immigrants and refugees in a single year. (With the resultant Cologne mass sexual-abuse scandal and so much else as a result.)
The British Labour Party similarly imported up to five million immigrants between 2000 and 2010. (Note: lowest estimate, 3.5 million. Highest estimate, 6.5 million.) What did they think the consequences of this would be? A huge national party of diversity – all smiles and unbounded love?
As I said, Angela Merkel imported one million immigrations in just a single year. Likewise, what did she expect – a national tea dance of community cohesion? In addition, because of the disastrous mass immigration policy of Merkel, even some socialists have suggested a points-based system (which the UK government has also just considered, if in a half-hearted way).
Thus it's unsurprising to hear Merkel's view on this matter. She said:
“We took nothing away from people here. We are still achieving our big goal of maintaining and improving the quality of life in Germany.”
She also said:
“We did not reduce benefits for anyone in Germany as a result of the aid for refugees. In fact, we actually saw social improvements in some areas.”
This is pure Marxist “economism”. Even if it's true that Germany has an endless pot of gold for both refugees and native Germans, she conspicuously ignores the Cologne mass-abuse case, Islamic terrorism, the support for ISIS in German cities, Germany's many Muslim ghettoes, etc. Again, it's much easier to rely on Marxist economism than it is to face the cultural clashes (between Muslims and non-Muslims, for example) which often result in violence and sometimes death.
(Most Marxists/Leftists will tell you that they've moved beyond economism into, for example, Gramscianism and the realms of “superstructure”. However, when the political need arises, or when there's a pressing cause to fight for, economism creeps back in again.)
On the other hand, economics always has some impact on voting-patterns – and that's obviously so. It's just that anyone – no matter what class – can be affronted by Islamic supremacism and mass immigration. Or as Frauke Petry (of the AfD) put it:
“Angela Merkel defeats herself. Merkel and the SPD deceive the citizens, whether it be on the financial crisis or the migrant crisis. They are destroying this country and that’s why people are voting for AfD.”
One newspaper stressed the poverty of the Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania area (where the AfD did well) and in doing so also tapped into the Marxists' seemingly necessary link between being poor/unemployed and voting for fascists. Needless to say, Marxist theory, traditionally, has also emphasised the fascist/Nazi voting habits of both the “bourgeoisie” and the “petite-bourgeoisie”. In addition, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKip) is also said to appeal primarily to “small businessmen” and their “bigotry towards immigrants”.
Yes, Marxists love to generalise and they do so through the prism of theory. (Non-Marxists often unknowingly adopt Marxist theories to analyse current political and economic situations and thus end up at various philosophical and political dead-ends.)
One thing we can happily accept is that the move to the Right has indeed been a part-response to Germany's open-door policy. This, however, has nothing to do with class; save in the obvious sense that it's the case that poorer whites often live closer to immigrant ghettoes than the better off – certainly closely to them than Europe's political elites.
It's almost as if members of the Left (not only the Revolutionary Left) have deliberately fuelled the political fires (e.g., by massively increasing immigration, Islamisation, etc.) in order to bring about what they call a “revolutionary situation”. Though whenever and wherever you bring about a revolutionary situation which will benefit the Far Left, it will just as likely benefit the Far Right too – perhaps more so.
As for the term “far Right”, perhaps we should embrace it! If all it takes to be designated “far Right” is to be against mass unvetted immigration and the Islamisation of Europe and the United States, then so be it. However, if the term “far Right” is simply a synonym for “fascist” or “Nazi”, then that's a different matter entirely. In the end the terms don't matter. It's what you believe that matters.
Finally, Hans-Herman Tiedje (a former policy adviser to Helmut Kohl and fiend of Merkel), expressed the problem perfectly when he said the following:
“The good people of this world will maybe give [Merkel] the Nobel Peace Prize – but domestically her politics are devastating.”