Is the “open borders” movement coming to an end in Europe because of Islamic terrorism?
Germans appear to be losing faith in the idea of a borderless Europe, as the results of a poll published on Tuesday showed that two-thirds would prefer the government to end the Schengen free-movement zone.
The survey by French pollsters Ifop found that while 60 percent of Italians were against Schengen – an agreement which allows people to travel within the EU without showing a passport – across the Rhine the number of French people wanting borders closed was as high as 72 percent.
The apparent “thank you for allowing us in” from the Brussels bombers has helped pour cold water on the idea that borders between countries in Europe should be uncontrolled. And:
With 79 percent of Germans now believing that some migrants may be potential terrorists, numbers are similar to those in France (80 percent) and a little behind those in Italy (84 percent).
My goodness, who knew so many “Islamaphobic” people lived in … Europe? I thought that was strictly a “right-wing” American problem.
A “New Red Guard” update. This time at Dartmouth where protesters got a sorority to cancel its “Kentucky Derby Party” because it was … “racist and elitist.” Yes, that’s right friends, the NRG thought it was elitist because it was a private party (apparently, in The New Red Guard’s world, those are verboten) and racist because it reminded certain special snowflakes of the ‘Old South’ and gave them the vapors.
“We realized that if anyone on campus felt uncomfortable or upset with the theme, then we obviously shouldn’t have it,” said KDE social chair Jehanna Axelrod.
KDE vice president Nikol Oydanich said house members were convinced by critics that the party was racially offensive because it evoked the aesthetics of the plantation-era South.
“[It is] related to pre-war Southern culture,” she said. “Derby was a party that had the power to upset a lot of our classmates.”
As the article notes, the first Kentucky Derby was run in 1875 and had, therefore, no relation to the “plantation era” South, but was instead a post war sporting event that became a tradition.
But, hey, those are facts and we all know that the historically illiterate who populate our colleges and universities anymore aren’t interested in facts. It’s all about feelings and perception. What it’s not about, at least for the NRG, is anyone’s feelings or perceptions but their own. And they’re they’re certainly not going to let facts stand in the way of those!
Big article in The Guardian about how the rest of them have to halt the “far right” in Europe, because …! Yeah, that’s the part that never gets fully explained, but there were some laugh-out-loud paragraphs that simplicity explain why the “far-right” are making gains there.
Citizens’ lack of trust in the capacity of governments to get on top of problems is what fuels the growth of far-right parties. These, in turn, threaten Europe’s democratic fabric and social cohesion. If these movements continue proliferating, they will spell the end of the EU as a project, and possibly the end of stability and peace in our region.
Citizen’s lack that trust because government has consistently failed over decades to get on top of the “problems” in question. It is the same reason Trump is so popular here (although I’d hardly call him “far-right). None of the politicians on either side of the pond seem to get this. And that causes what?
European citizens will migrate to political extremes in even higher numbers if EU institutions and governments don’t manage to build trust in the system. Right now, that can be done only if decisive steps are taken both against terrorism and uncontrolled migration. It may sound cynical, but lofty idealism simply won’t do the trick.
And we all know that’s not the prescription the leadership of various European nations are pushing is it? As usual, both here and in Europe, the voice of the people is being ignored for those “lofty ideals” which lead precisely down the road now being traveled.
Tolerance was once described by Merkel as “the heart and soul of Europe”. The painful paradox today is that halting the advance of parties that promote intolerance, want to bury the EU, and feel empowered by recent tragic events, may require some maximalist moral postures to be abandoned.
Speaking of progressives and history, you have to wonder how in the world that movement has been so successful in redefining itself over the years that it has apparently hidden its very nasty roots:
You don’t have to take my word for it. Read the excellent new book by Princeton’s Thomas Leonard, Illiberal Reformers: Race Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era. Under the banner of a “New Nationalism,” progressives called for a centralized administrative state manned by expert managers and planners, who would use “scientific methods” to enhance human welfare.
Believing that social progress “required the individual to be controlled, liberated and expanded by collective actions,” progressive intellectuals perceived human persons as “lumps of human dough” to be formed on the “social kneading board.”
That molding, Leonard points out, was to be done “by the best and the brightest, those who, uniquely, ignored profit and power to serve the common good – which is to say, the progressives themselves.”
These experts denied inalienable rights. Their hero, Woodrow Wilson, called them “nonsense.” The editors of the progressive journal, The New Republic, spoke for the movement when it ridiculed individual liberties as “quaint and retrograde.” The leading progressive legal scholar, Roscoe Pound (1879-1964) author of Social Control Through Law, argued the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights “were not needed in the [founders time] and they are not desired in our own.”
Believing that the State superseded even God, progressives encouraged government officials to embrace eugenics – “the social control of human breeding” to rid the nation of perceived undesirables.
Progressive-era eugenics, Leonard writes, “required agreement upon three things only – the primacy of heredity, human hierarchy rather than human equality, and the necessary illiberal idea that human heredity must be socially controlled rather than left to individual choice.”
In 1911, N.J. governor, Woodrow Wilson, signed into forcible sterilization legislation aimed at “the hopelessly defective and criminal classes.” Numerous states and municipalities followed Wilson’s lead.
Read the whole article. How they are able to maintain the veneer of freedom loving individuals who are there to right wrongs when their history is a litany of subjugation, class warfare, elitism, social control and discrimination based on race is beyond me, but – aided and abetted by the media – they have. They pushed eugenics, for heaven sake! Government sponsored eugenics. Remind you of anyone?
Bill Clinton tangled with the Black Live Matter gang and frankly came out on top.
Oh, no, no, no … he can’t do that, say various progressives, because they’re one of the protected minorities. Or so the implication goes. In fact one writer at Slate, after this particular episode, called on Hillary to fire him:
It was a mess, but it’s not the first mess he’s caused for his wife’s campaign. Just a couple of weeks ago, he decried “the awful legacy of the last eight years,” which sounded a lot like a condemnation of the Obama presidency—a presidency that Hillary Clinton is doing her best to tie herself to. And in February, Clinton said that if the system is rigged, it’s because Americans “don’t have a president that’s a changemaker.”
One might attribute this repeated clumsiness to the fact that Bill Clinton is getting old; his hearing is bad, and on the trail he looks frail and wan. Perhaps he’s simply slipping, mentally. But let’s remember that Clinton caused similar problems for Hillary in 2008. There was the time he tried to diminish Obama’s victory in South Carolina by noting that Jesse Jackson won there as well. The time he described the idea that Obama had gotten the Iraq war right as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” The time—it hurts to remember it—when he complained that the Obama campaign “played the race card on me.”
And yet, after all that, once Hillary had lost and Bill Clinton was supporting Obama, the sloppiness ceased and he was back to performing superbly. (Witness, for example, his celebrated speech at the 2008 Democratic convention.) It is somehow only when he is working on his wife’s behalf that he veers into sabotage. What is needed here is probably a shrink, not a neurologist. Either he doesn’t want her to overtake him, or he doesn’t want her to repudiate him. Regardless, Hillary should shut him down. She can’t divorce him, but she can fire him.
Yup … can’t be talkin’ truth to stupidity now, can we? Especially when the black vote is once again important. Give it a year, black folks … they’ll go right back to forgetting about you as they always have in the past. Meanwhile, Bill, the old codger, is apparently shaking up the myth by telling more truth than he has in his life. Ain’t old age wonderful?
Have a great weekend!