The most dangerous form of tyranny is weakness

The most dangerous form of tyranny is weakness

By: Rachel Marsden

It isn’t easy to be a strong leader in an era of progressives hell-bent on societal destruction. Refusing to compromise when faced with the tyranny of so-called “progressive” reform is difficult at a time when so many leaders are allowing their countries to slip into oblivion under the guise of some greater leftist “good.”

Following the recent Islamic State terrorist attacks in Belgium that killed at least 35 people and injured more than 300, Belgian police blasted a water cannon at about 200 anti-immigrant protestors gathered near a makeshift memorial in Brussels. The mayor of Brussels, Yvan Mayeur, said he was “appalled ... that such thugs have come to provoke residents at the site of their memorial.”

Mayeur apparently has difficulty wrapping his head around the fact that people in Belgium and throughout Europe are fed up with the jihadism that has festered under the watch of diversity-pushing public officials who have overseen the increased fractioning of society. The Brussels protesters are simply the noisy tip of a much deeper iceberg within the general population. How can the more reserved masses express their displeasure democratically when their electoral options are limited to parties that would uphold the status quo of progressive disintegration because anyone else is marginalized as an extremist?

Now consider Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who has been described as dangerous for saying that he’d build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent undocumented immigrants from flooding into America. Trump also released a statement last December calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The policy position is clear: America under a Trump presidency would know who’s coming into the country and would refuse to play Russian roulette with domestic security.
And speaking of “Russian,” the Syrian army has just driven the Islamic State out of the city of Palmyra thanks largely to Russian air support and the assistance of Russian special forces. But the world has a funny way of showing gratitude toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for their efforts to exterminate murderous terrorists, applying the unflattering “strongman” label to both men.

Some are blaming Assad for allowing terrorism to take root in his country — which might make Assad the only world leader truly being held to account for letting Islamic terrorists into his country. The U.S. and its Persian Gulf allies wanted Assad out of power so they could move in and claim a prime geo-economic chess piece, so they armed and trained so-called “rebels” to fight and disable Assad and his army. But the campaign against Assad allowed the Islamic State to sprout like a field of weeds, since Assad was preoccupied with his own survival.

So which is it: Is Assad a ruthless dictator or a useless wimp? Neither label is very becoming, no matter that Assad is doing his best to eradicate the Islamic State.

Critics are also now trying to peddle the notion that Putin was stoking war against the Islamic State in Syria in order to drive migrants into Europe. But Putin is hardly responsible for a conflict that had been raging in the region for a few years before Russia showed up late last year with the goal of putting a lid on it. Nor is it Putin’s fault that the European Union allowed migrants to flood into member countries in massive numbers. Still, it’s easier to blame the “strongman” — even when he’s playing a critical role in trying to defeat the Islamic State — than to accept responsibility for your own failed leftist policies.

It’s easy for leaders to dodge criticism by being weak and controllable. Meanwhile, it’s open season on the strong leaders who resist and denounce “progressive” backroom schemes designed to shake up the status quo, regardless of how the citizenry feels about it.

Tyranny doesn’t come in the form of a strongman these days. Rather, it can be found in the sort of weakness that guarantees the rapid and undemocratic transformation of a society against the will of the people.