EU • Europe • Political Parties • Post

Reflections on the Revolution in London

Perhaps my political palette has sophisticated of late. Like that of the helpless addict, more and stronger product is needed to attain that first cotton-wrapped high.

After the election of Boris Johnson as prime minister of Great Britain this week, it seems nobody, except a few tiresome Londoners, has noticed.

Absent is the exquisite progressive meltdown that greeted President Trump’s ascent to the Oval Office. Boris, for all the lazy often soporific comparisons to Trump, hasn’t inspired such an entertaining tantrum.

Indeed, there was just a glimmer. Greenpeace activists, exercising their remarkably generous working hours, tried to block Boris’s motorcade en route to his new home at 10 Downing Street. That was before a police officer skittled three of them from the road.

Of course, the professional fabulists of news media had their customary whinge. Protestors wailed something about “white supremacy.” But such missionary whining is small-beer to a quenchless wino.

Perhaps American resisters are made of sterner stuff. They’ve been exercising a Pripyat-level meltdown since Trump took office. You, dear reader, are swimming in a political junkie’s dreamscape. The supply of vivifying grief ceaseless.

Although, my tolerance for political narcotics might succumb to a giddy overdose in fewer than 100 days. I might just catch that dragon I’m busily chasing.

Because on October 31, “no ifs, no buts,” according to our new prime minister, we leave the European Union. Which, unless you’ve enjoyed a three-year coma, is all this country thinks, cares, or talks about.

That date, one hopes, will induce a speedball of progressive meltdown, one that tingles dreamily through each ventricle. That might sound unhinged. Because it is.

Brexit was not just a vote, but a steel toe-cap into the bollocks of those whom, by and large, ruined almost everything.

Tony Blair, the erstwhile Labour prime minister who whittles his days away demanding we press rewind back to 2015, is the grand architect of Brexit. He may not want to raise the child, but he’s on the hook for the bill.

But Blair isn’t prime minister now. Boris Johnson is. And Prime Minister Johnson (how refreshing to type) set quickly to fumigate government of Remainer holdouts who’ve wasted the last three years lashing us against our will to the sinking European Union.

His Cabinet, remarkably described as “alt-right” by one of our more intellectually hilarious lawmakers, hosts a Muslim chancellor. It is the most “diverse” ever. As a friend of greater melanin-density than me decreed while rolling his eyes: white people.

These cosmetic indulgences are all well and good. But the work starts here.

After all, Boris nurses a majority of just three. After Theresa May’s impressively awful premiership, in which she squandered a majority and sanctified the man-child Jeremy Corbyn as a viable prime minister, the Conservative Party shuffles around shoeless like a chemically coshed psychiatric patient.

And within the ranks lies a significant cabal of Remainer Conservatives—the deep state—ready to kamikaze efforts to leave the EU.

What should have induced a Reactor 4-level meltdown is the appointment of Dominic Cummings. Cummings masterminded Vote Leave—the campaign to leave the European Union.

At once brilliant and belligerent, Cummings’ inclusion is a warning shot to the EU. We are ready to leave without a deal.

A notion, it was revealed, never once threatened by Theresa May, despite her rhetoric.

Of course, to leave without a deal is the desire of few. But to threaten such is our leverage.

Theresa May, effectively, walked on to the forecourt and said: “I have $100,000. I must, legally, leave with a car, today.” The car dealer, as is human nature, offered a 2003 Toyota Prius with three good wheels, for the full sum.

But, like Trump, Boris won’t enjoy a honeymoon. He’ll have to call an election sooner or later.

Given the Tories’ hemorrhaging of votes to the Brexit Party, any election before Brexit would be folly. Current polls show a four-way dance, with the likely winner changing daily.

Which Boris surely knows. But that all changes after October 31. If we leave, of course. To box off Brexit would dissolve the Brexit Party and rewild Boris Johnson’s party with their 20 percent share of the vote.

Meanwhile, the once-serious Labour Party, helmed by an anti-Semitic resentment-monger with an IQ similar to that of a walnut, seems determined to destroy itself. A recent poll placed Labour dead last.

An election post-Brexit, I’d hazard, would see Boris return to Number 10 with a majority unheard of in my lifetime. And, along the way, it would neuter the social-justice rabble which calls itself “progressive.”

But what excites most is Boris’s championship of conservative means, witnessed in intellectual brutality, here.

Because Boris is right. And the Left, including America’s “squad” and our Corbynistas, are wrong. And always will be. Socialism doesn’t work. It never has. Never will.

Perhaps it is too early to say: conservatives who are willing to fight are conservatives who win. Finally, like Trump, we have a leader eager to brawl with the loud-but-lame Left.

Boris’ first appearance at the despatch box was just a taste. “We are the party of the people,” he said, in a line which perhaps heralded a new national conservatism, “They are the party of the few.”

He’s not wrong.

Photo Credit: Giannis Alexopoulos/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Administrative State • EU • Europe • Post

Boris and the Crybullies

There is little more gorgeous than the enunciated subtle rage of the middle-class English blonde. Such spectacle is well worth the very occasional stoke.

After spilling red wine upon his girlfriend’s sofa, Boris Johnson’s bid to become our next prime minister lay almost in ruins. The two briefly flounced into raised voices. She called Boris “spoilt.”

You would think such a kerfuffle unworthy of top billing on every front page for an entire week. This country has other, far more serious matters to attend to.

But two neighborly good Samaritans decided to record that lover’s squabble. And, in what they called the “public interest” swiftly sent the recording to the left-wing and reliably hilarious Guardian.

This was despite visiting police officers having assured them that no crime had taken place. And that both occupants were fine.

Of course, the staunch Remainers Eve Leigh, 34, and Tom Penn, 30, claimed they called the police because they were “frightened and concerned.”

They were so concerned they knocked on the door three times to no answer. And then scurried into their apartment, and recorded through the walls, the verbal skirmish.

This act of benevolence then pumped through that familiar ventricle of “compassion” that left-wing crybullies employ so often. What renders their account inconceivable is Leigh’s now-deleted Twitter account, which teems with anti-Brexit diatribes and her puerile boast of having recently given her neighbor, Boris, “the finger.” So brave! Stunning.

One can assume this pair could not quite believe their luck—their “concern” centering upon stitching-up the next prime minister as a woman-beater and thwarting his commitment to leave their beloved EU.

That same apartment is now besieged by aging, unduly tragic anarchists who terrify Boris’ girlfriend so much she refuses to go back there. Outside, they ramble on, having peppered the locality with anti-Boris posters.

You’d think such anarchists were of the bootstrap mentality, given their fantasies of no government.

Not this rabble. Although “Class War” advocates a total withering of the state, their members, strangely, seem wholly reliant upon it. They proudly refuse the injustice of working for a living. They’re all about fighting “the rich parasites who ruin our lives,” according to their website.

Perhaps tattooing one’s face and lounging around in a noisome air of self-cultured grievance is what actually ruins one’s life? Just a suggestion.

Some of them seemingly spend their days agitating for dissolution of a state that feeds, houses, and enlivens them with enough of other people’s money to drink gut-rot cider and beseech the apparent “fascists” with whom their adolescent keening disagrees.

The desperation creeps like a fine gas. Progressives, from the anarchists to the metropolitan woke, must stop Boris.

They know we leave the European Union on October 31, “come what may,” according to the man they have driven from their pissing ground.

At least with Jeremy Hunt, the other candidate for the job, they’d enjoy another measureless bout of delay and denial akin to the last three years of Theresa May.

What the nosy neighbors hoped was that their amateur sleuthing would convince Conservative Party members to bunk Boris and shunt Hunt.

They haven’t fallen for it. Like President Trump’s voters, most see past their man’s personal indiscretions. They are keen to elect someone of whom the progressive crybullies are terrified.

Like Trump, Boris hasn’t bowed to their demands for explanation. There has been no struggle session—the progressives’ ritualistic shaming of the victim.

Three years of delay, guilt-tripping, and political Munchausen Syndrome means we want our own Trump. Yes, his mouth invites trouble and he shags around. But Boris, like Trump, will move fast and break things.

But the fight doesn’t end when Boris is elected. As we see in America, the progressive employment of such venal tactics only thickens in its luridity once they are handed a defeat.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a case in point. This week revealed her anguished presence at the Mexican border, in what later was shown to be a fence and an empty parking lot, and they were taken 12 months before the crisis she now decries and refuses to soothe with congressional dollars.

As if delivering a masterclass in beclowning oneself, AOC—queen of the crybullies—uses those stage-managed photos to continue her project of manipulating the emotions of Americans.

Much like the harrowing photo of a father and daughter who drowned while crossing the Rio Grande are used for those purposes. Of course, this is all Trump’s fault, and not the tragic human cost of lawlessness stoked by Democratic refusal to plug the border and stymie at once its grand magnetism.

Because it is Democrats who would much rather allow the chaos to continue unabated, in glib disregard for those they claim to care about most.

After all, a border wall, and stringent immigration enforcement would stop all but the most determined in making that often perilous journey.

Democrats won’t stop it. They cannot afford to stop it.

They need the chaos. They’ve lost the Midwest, forfeited the Rust Belt, their victim-farming is eroding in Black America. Their future depends largely upon the votes of those illegally crossing the border: those tacitly promised amnesty in exchange for their voting souls.

The crybullies don’t care. Their compassion, like that of the nosy neighbors, is a blunt instrument aimed at the skulls of those who disagree. That much is obvious.

Photo Credit: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

EU • Europe • Israel • NATO • Post

Greece Finds New Footing as a Player on the World Stage

ATHENS—After Greece temporarily hosted a pair of U.S. military drones, Greek Defense Minister Panagiotis Kammenos said last fall that, “It’s very important for Greece that the United States deploy military assets in Greece on a more permanent base.”

Indeed, Greece just took delivery of some 70 military helicopters that it had purchased from the U.S., and there have been discussions about basing American drones, air tankers and other military aircraft on Greek soil.

COSCO, a state-owned Chinese shipping and logistics services company, has invested more than 3.5 billion euros in renovating the historic Greek port of Piraeus, which is now the second-largest port in the Mediterranean. The Chinese brag that it will soon become the busiest. The massive renovation is part of China’s 35-year lease of two of the port’s container terminals and the Chinese purchase of a majority stake in Piraeus’ port authority.

Despite recent spats, Vladimir Putin’s Russia remains a supposed ally of Greece, given historic religious ties and the envisioned completion of a natural-gas pipeline that will supply Russian gas to energy-starved Greece.

Greece has a complicated relationship with its European Union partners after its catastrophic financial meltdown and the often Dickensian terms of reform and repayment demanded by German bankers. Yet Greece appreciates that more European Union money goes into the country than goes out, even if many Greeks resent bitterly high-handed German dictates—and being manipulated as the frontline transit center for hundreds of thousands of migrants swarming into Europe from Africa and the Middle East.

New Greek freeways are less congested and more impressive than California’s, despite the fact that Greek GDP is less than one-twelfth that of California.

During the 1970s and 1980s Greece was more or less anti-Israel (like much of Europe). Not any longer. The two countries are becoming fast friends.

Greece’s new multifaceted foreign policy might be best summed up by 19th-century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston’s famous dictum: “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

Greece seems to have found lots of semi-permanent interests.

In other words, relatively small and vulnerable but strategically located Greece lives in a tough neighborhood with historic enemies such as Turkey and radical Islamic groups. As a window on the Mediterranean and three continents, Greece sits at the intersection of great-power rivalries between Europe, America, China and Russia.

In the old days, Greece, a member of both NATO and the EU, grumbled that its European and American big brothers took it for granted as either an insignificant subordinate or a whiny nuisance—despite its key location and its iconic status as the birthplace of Western civilization.

Now, things have changed—and often to Greek advantage.

Greece has gone from its traditionally defiant (if not insecure) role as an outlier to that of a crafty insider. There are lots of reasons for the new Greek realpolitik, besides learning from the vulnerability of its past dependencies.

The rise of a neo-Ottoman Turkey, with a population seven times that of Greece, a territory six times as large and renewed territorial ambitions in the Greek Aegean, has made Greece turn to the U.S. military for protection. America, too, is increasingly wary of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist, anti-American and Mediterranean agendas.

Instead of trusting fellow EU members, Greece has merely found them useful in scheduling its debt repayments and providing critical tourist dollars.

Doing business with China is dangerous, given Chinese neo-imperial schemes that occasionally have led to blatant Chinese blackmail and bullying of its vulnerable clients. But the Chinese presence has pumped billions of euros into the ailing Greek economy while reminding the EU that Greece has other options when it comes to foreign investment, infrastructure and trade.

Few nations trust the reptilian Putin. But when the Russian president poses as a defender of Orthodox Christianity and as a protector of Eastern Europe and the Balkans from German bullying and Islamic troublemaking, the Greeks may find him useful in supplying energy and in foreign-policy triangulation.

Israel has also been recalibrated as a useful asset for democratic Greece. Like other traditionally persecuted peoples, the Greeks and Israelis share a mistrust of great powers. Israel now plans to build a massive underwater pipeline to link its natural gas supplies with Greece and Cyprus.

Both Greece and Israel have resentments against the European Union. Both have given up on detente with Erdogan’s bellicose Turkey. Both count on U.S. military aid. Both no longer are so dependent on unstable Arab countries for imported gas and oil.

Greece is, of course, walking a tightrope. By balancing between rivals and finding new friendly interests, Greece magnifies its own importance. As it does, it also becomes an even greater focal point of big-power rivalries and global commercial jostling.

We should not be too surprised by Greek realpolitik. After all, Greece gave the world Themistocles, the fifth-century B.C. wheeler-dealer politician and general who increased ancient Athenian power by being interested in everyone—and permanently allied to no one.

Photo Credit: Giorgos Zachos/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

(C) 2019 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

America • Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • EU • Europe • Post

Boris Johnson Is Not the Ally Donald Trump Needs

Often called the “British Donald Trump,” former London Mayor Boris Johnson appears to be the frontrunner in the race for 10 Downing Street following the resignation last week of Prime Minister Theresa May.

But Boris is no Donald Trump. He is, in fact, the continuity candidate for a British Conservative Party long at odds with its base.

Conservative Party activists balked last week when given the opportunity to vote for the once-great party of Thatcher and Churchill. The appeal of May and Johnson was not enough to keep them from voting for the Brexit Party en masse—an amazing six-week-old outfit run by “Mr. Brexit,” Nigel Farage.

Speaking on his trip to London in 2018, President Trump said Johnson, the member of Parliament for Uxbridge (West London), “would be a great prime minister.” But he wasn’t a good mayor, he wasn’t a good foreign secretary, and he wasn’t a good advocate for the Leave campaign during Britain’s 2016 European Union membership referendum. What makes the president think he would a decent prime minister, let alone an ally of the United States?

After all, Boris has not been as kind to the president as the president has been to him.

Speaking ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Johnson said: “Crime has been falling steadily in both London and New York—and the only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”

It gets worse.

He has called Trump “out of his mind” and “stupefyingly ignorant.”

It gets worse, yet.

Speaking to ITN news, Johnson said candidate Trump was “frankly unfit to hold the office of president of the United States.”

Now Boris wants to meet with Trump next week in London. Trump should put the kibosh on that meeting because the two have almost nothing in common.

Boris completely underestimates the threat from China, and would try to derail Trump’s efforts on the international stage to bring the Communist regime to heel. He was recorded telling a meeting of the progressive “Conservative Way Forward” group: “We need to engage with China diplomatically, treat China as our friend and our partner, but also recognize that they are our commercial rivals. And they will try to stiff us.”

Johnson voted for the Iraq war, for gay marriage, for big government climate change solutions, and called migration “fantastic for the economy.” Just last year the former foreign secretary called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants living in Britain for 10 years or more.

You really think this guy would be an ally for Trump on the world stage?

But he’s currently the favorite, mostly because the Conservative Party in Britain has little else to offer and because the party establishment has already decided, much like they decided on May. And we all know how well she did on Brexit.

Boris will be no better. Having already been revealed to have written two letters—one backing remaining in the European Union and one backing leave—Boris is the ultimate political chameleon. America needs a more reliable ally than that.

Meanwhile, in the European Parliament, Farage and his Brexit Party will be pushing for a “hard Brexit”—which means leaving the European Union at the end of October without a deal and reverting to World Trade Organization terms. This is what Britain voted for, and something Boris Johnson rejected when he voted for Prime Minister May’s bodged withdrawal agreement a few months back.

All that’s left is for Boris to support a second referendum for his position to become as incomprehensible as that of Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. And frankly, it already seems to be in his cards. While Boris spins in the wind, Trump should send a signal to the British establishment next week and have dinner with Nigel instead: it might be only a matter of time until Nigel is PM, anyway.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Luke Dray/Getty Images

Elections • EU • Europe • Post

Nigel Farage: Britain’s Prime Minister-in-Waiting?

Since at least 2014, the most powerful man in the United Kingdom has been someone who holds no noble or royal title, and has never occupied a domestic political office. He is a former commodities broker who took up the cause of reasserting British sovereignty and terminating the country’s membership in the elitist, internationalist, and vaguely socialist European Union. He has earned the unremitting scorn of Britain’s political, cultural, and economic elite in return—and a place in history as the man who upended the two-party system and breathed new life into the world’s oldest and most venerable democracy.

Nigel Farage is the man of the hour in Britain and Europe. Three years ago, he led the successful campaign to convince British voters to embrace “Brexit”: Britain’s departure from the European Union. Believing his work largely done, he retired from political life, only to watch with horror as the British parliamentary elite obfuscated and delayed in the implementation of the people’s will.

Two postponements of Brexit later, Farage took himself out of mothballs and launched the Brexit Party in order to contest the EU parliamentary elections. That was just six weeks ago. And now after last Sunday’s vote, we know that Farage and his Brexit Party were the big winners, taking over 30 percent of the vote and the lion’s share of Britain’s delegation to the European Parliament.

Once again, Britain’s crusty old grandees look to be foundering on the adamantine rock that is Nigel Farage.

Farage beat the establishment in 2014. He beat them again in 2016. Now he has beaten them for a third time in 2019.

It seems incredible, but we have to ask: has the Farage Factor played itself out, or are his mightiest triumphs yet to come?

Consider that by mid-July, Britain will have a new prime minister from the ruling Conservative Party. Thanks to the scare that the Brexit Party just put into the Conservatives, that prime minister likely will be Boris Johnson, i.e. someone who has said he supports Brexit and even reserves the right to take the United Kingdom out of the EU without a deal. That means, in other words, a near total break with the European Union.

Trouble is, while most Conservative voters may support a no-deal Brexit, large numbers of Conservative MPs do not. A Conservative prime minister who was a confirmed Brexiteer, therefore, would face the very real possibility, even the likelihood, that some of his own members would support a no-confidence motion against him. That would produce the fall of the government and a fresh general election.

Anti-Brexit forces seem to hope that a such an election would lead, by hook or by crook, to the cancellation of Brexit. That is indeed one potential outcome.

The other possible outcome, however, is that British politicos have miscalculated once again, underestimating both the British electorate and Nigel Farage. Instead of confirming the domination of establishment, anti-Brexit forces, a general election could lead to a result similar to the one we just saw in the EU parliamentary elections: a fractured contest in which Farage and his Brexiteers command the most votes.

Since Britain’s Parliament is elected in single-member districts, according to a first-past-the-post voting system, the party that gets the most votes generally gets the most MPs. In the recent EU elections, Britain’s two major parties, Labour and the Conservatives, saw their support wither, while the Brexit Party beat its nearest competitor, the Liberal Democrats, by more than 10 points. If that were to happen again in a general election there would be a clear majority in Parliament for the Brexit Party. The leader of the Brexit Party would then become prime minister—none other than Nigel Farage.

There are ways, of course, in which Britain’s current rulers can avoid this sequence of events and can keep Farage far away from 10 Downing Street. The easiest way? Give the British people what they want, and what they voted for in 2016 and 2019: Brexit!

That would mean the establishment would have to swallow its pride and accept the fact that Britain is a sovereign country that can, and should, govern itself. Perhaps they will see reason and make this choice.

The only other alternatives available to the powers-that-be are to co-opt Farage and his Brexiteers via some kind of coalition, or to beat him fair and square at the polls—something that has proven next to impossible up to now.

The smart bet, for those who study and learn from recent history, is that the British ruling class will continue to drift towards self-immolation.

Farage, therefore, had better start thinking of some pleasantries to exchange with the Queen. She may soon be inviting him to Buckingham Palace to offer him the job of prime minister.

A laughable, impossible scenario, you say? That sounds a lot like what people claimed when Donald Trump rode down the escalator in Trump Tower to declare his candidacy in June 2015.

Never say never, especially when history is in flux, as it so clearly is today.

Photo Credit: Peter Summers/Getty Images

2016 Election • Center for American Greatness • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • EU • Europe • Post • The Left

‘Remain’ Wins! ‘Leave’ Loses! And Other Upside-Down Tales

You would be forgiven for thinking that handily winning the vote share over your rivals meant you had won an election.

But in the Current Year, such logic is a bunk currency—the winning ticket of the Zimbabwe National Lottery.

As predicted, Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party pillaged last weekend’s European Parliament elections. Just six weeks old, and with the fervency of more than 120,000 members, the Brexit Party scooped 31 percent of the British vote.

That translates to winning nine of the United Kingdom’s 12 regions. And 29 seats of 72 in the new European Parliament.

Farage’s nearest rivals, the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who are neither liberal nor democratic, settled on just under 20 percent. Britain’s two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, scraped up just under a quarter of the vote combined.

The Brexit Party did even better in the Brexit-voting Labour heartlands, consigning once dominant Labour to also-rans among the swathes most committed to leaving the EU—swathes where they used to weigh, not count, the Labour vote.

The Brexit Party topped the Labour-voting Northeast, Northwest, East of England, Wales, West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humber, and cleaned through the Conservative Southwest and Southeast.

Upon winning, Farage insisted that Great Britain leave the EU on October 31—the new deadline—or he and his Brexit Party bombardiers would upend both Labour and the Conservatives at the next general election. The polls suggest his threat is not empty.

But none of that matters. Some mental yoga from Britain’s progressive wing decided that this de-facto second referendum meant the people actually voted to reverse Brexit and remain ensconced within their besotted EU.

Honestly. One columnist, Polly Toynbee, took to The Guardian to announce that Remain had indeed won. And that the proles should down their pitchforks, pull up a seat, and plough into some sashimi.

By Toynbee’s lights, if one counted all the votes which were not for the Brexit Party, and conveniently disregarded Tory votes, that actually means that Remain parties won the election. Or something.

It’s like taking all the points garnered by teams not called the New England Patriots, combining those, and then claiming the Patriots, therefore, didn’t deserve their place in the Super Bowl, let alone win the damn thing.

It makes sense. No? It does to those suffering with a turbulence of mind upon which vulturous therapists engorge their wallets.

Since 2016, progressives on both sides of the Atlantic have tussled with reality, denying with vim and vigor what actually happened. Brexit won an “impossible” vote. Hillary Clinton lost the “most winnable” election.

It has been three years. The day after the Brexit vote, we learned of a phenomenon known as “Bregret.” Millions, they insisted, had changed their minds. They were just joking!

How those self-convinced of this folly canvassed the views of millions within 24 or so hours of the result is beyond rational comprehension. Perhaps because they made it up.

Then they asked us to vote again. We just did. Brexit won.

It remains the wrong answer. Now, they insist the only way to break this “impasse” is through another vote.

At least they’ve stopped calling it a second referendum. That’s too undemocratic. Now, their latest wheeze is a “confirmatory vote.”

Because they’d definitely win this time. And they believe that. Those bludgeoned by Brexit believe all this would go away if only they had another chance. Their world would simmer neatly. The proles would assume their place.

Doubtless, Americans are familiar with this lamentable circus.

Ever since President Trump’s election, the forces of tolerance have wailed and whined and warped reality.

Robert Mueller’s statement this week is a case in point. Mueller said he couldn’t definitively prove Donald Trump did not commit a crime related to the fatuous Russia inquiry.

Like a weary adult beset upon all sides by inconsolable infants, Mueller felt forced to mollify the mental children with a soothing statement.

“We found no evidence that the moon is made of cheese,” Mueller might has well have said. “But, that doesn’t mean we can definitively confirm the moon is not made of cheese.”

Upon hearing this, progressives now believe the moon is, in fact, made of cheese. They were right all along.

For democracy to function properly, the losing side must accept it has lost.

Half of the political sphere is now motored via adolescent rage. Like spoiled children to whom “no” has never been uttered, they are convinced they are always right.

And they’re also encouraged by the beleaguered forces who know, deep down, that the game is up.

By insisting that President Trump was in fact a Russian agent; by insisting that Brexit voters had little grasp of what they were voting for, the jilted have unleashed a measureless contempt against half of the people. All to bolster their own privilege atop a game they rigged long ago.

What follows is not pretty. But I know the score-line. It’s two-nil. Best of seven?

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Vernon Yuen/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Administrative State • America • Center for American Greatness • Defense of the West • EU • Europe • Post

The Surprising Internationalism of the Nationalists

Globalism is the ideology of the ruling class. It is the stuff of the World Economic Forum, Paris Climate Treaty, multinational banks pushing transsexuals, payment processors excluding conservative activists, social media giants deciding what is permissible speech, the movement of Third World peoples to the First World, the abolition of tariffs that protect local industries and traditions, and the elevation of global economic efficiency above all other concerns.

Until now, globalism had substantial support. For starters, rulers from diverse nations believed in it. They each allowed the logic of globalism to overrule parochial concerns for their particular nations in the name of the greater good. Globalism also benefited from substantial propaganda support in the news, movies, and television. Today the stodgiest banks and technology companies’ advertising looks like a Benetton ad from the early 1990s. And, finally, globalism’s support derived from its claim to raise the prosperity for people everywhere.

Nationalism Rising
Today, nationalism is on the rise. Nationalist parties have won in Italy, Hungary, Brazil, and in the United States, where Trump won largely through nationalist politics and rhetoric. Nearly one third of the seats in the European parliament were recently taken by nationalist parties.

We also see dissident nationalist movements in France, in the form of the Yellow Vests, and in the United Kingdom, where Theresa May lost the support of her Conservative Party by clinging to the European Union long after the will of the people and her party had been made manifest in the Brexit referendum.

While nationalism, by its nature, varies in its particulars based on the nation to which it is attached, nationalists everywhere emphasize common themes, all rooted in the elevation of culture and national unity above mere economic efficiency. Globalists support the strengthening of the United Nations and other global enterprises like the EU, because the rules these institutions promulgate are, by their nature, uniform and universal. By contrast nationalists seek to elevate the authority and rights of particular peoples and their respective states.

With nationalism, diversity is at the level of the group and includes a diversity of laws and policy approaches emphasizing the interests of the people in the nation, not the pseudo-diversity that would make Sweden, Brazil, Japan, and the United States all contain, essentially, the same disunited and diverse populations living under the same uniform rules. Thus, nationalists in many nations emphasize the importance of national independence, skepticism of mass immigration, the preservation of language and culture, and the subordination of global and financial institutions to local control.

Why the Controversy?
Nationalism has something of a bad rap. In addition to the economic arguments, the association of nationalism with the atrocities of the hypernationalist Nazi Germany has caused some to equate the term with other views deemed retrograde and illiberal, such as racism and sexism. For critics, it is a short road from nationalism, to racism, to eliminationist violence.

This view, however, is as uncharitable as it is selective of the historical record. German nationalism emerged from the ashes of World War I and the Weimar era to become an aggressive, imperialist, and racist ideology that ran roughshod over the competing nationalisms of Germany’s neighbors. Yet more prosaic national movements also emerged from World War I, including Czech, Hungarian, and Polish nationalism. The Polish nation re-emerged from World War I as a small nation-state made up largely of an ethnically homogeneous people living within its historical borders, along with various well-established national minorities. Where Germany sought to expand and to impose its will on its neighbors and rid itself of its minorities—in particular the Jews—Poland sought to reestablish its national rule in land previously ruled over by multinational empires and accommodated its large Jewish population with a strong degree of autonomy, as exemplified by the persistence of the Yiddish language.

While imperfect, the model of Polish nationalism was limited, historical, nonimperialist, and nonaggressive towards its neighbors. It was certainly less violent to minorities and neighbors than the German alternative. And this model is not so different from the model of nationalism prevalent today, which does not chiefly seek to create empires or fight wars against neighbors, but rather to create a flourishing nation-state where the national culture, leaders, language, and character of the rulers derive from and benefit a particular nation.

Both variants of nationalism, of course, create the potential for conflict and oppression of local, historical minorities, but the ambitions of ordinary nationalism are far less damaging than the alternatives, including the expansionist ideologies of the German and Soviet Empires of the mid-20th century. Nationalist ideologies are limited in scope precisely because they do not seek to impose a universal way on all mankind, and their territorial ambitions are limited by the historical land of a particular people.

Critics tend to group these two very different types of nationalism together in order to discredit all nationalism with the crimes of the Nazi regime, even though the more tragic, valiant, and just nationalism of the Polish style is predominant today. This type of nationalism is compatible with the mutual flourishing of various nations each expressing their own nationalist views, each within their respective boundaries, and each aiming not to expand or impose upon others, nor to acquire new territory.

Nationalism International
The defensive nationalism of today has fostered a surprisingly “international” movement whereby nationalist groups in various European nations, as well as Brazil, India, and Japan, find common cause in opposing globalism. Globalism, being a universalist and single ideology, has the same agenda for various nations, whether Sweden, Brazil, or the United States. Thus, nationalist movements in these various countries find much common ground for cooperation, as they face a common enemy with a common agenda.

The particular expressions of nationalism may vary from country to country, but the concern for sovereignty, preservation of one’s people and their culture, and the need to subordinate the economic power of multinational corporations is universal. Nigel Farage of the British Brexit movement, for example, was a prominent Trump supporter. Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán, in Brazil and Hungary, also each have many international and American admirers. Conferences of European nationalists, each seeking to foster their respective nations’ flourishing, are fairly common, and members of the American dissident nationalist movements have begun to forge ties with these groups, as well.

In this sense, the international movement of nationalists is analogous to movements for regional autonomy or federalism here at home. The content of federalism likely would differ widely from Texas to Florida to Vermont. But in each case a meta-principle of self-rule, regionalism, and ultimately freedom is at stake.

By contrast, a universal rule falls more heavily on some than on others, as it deviates more or less from the local traditions and preferences. This is as true for the one-size-fits-all decrees of the United Nations, the EU, or the American federal government with regard to their respective and subordinate political units. A strong preference for local control can unite Greek nationalists who seek to preserve their local olive farmers, Frenchman who value their language and Catholic religion, and Swedes who do not want to be set upon by angry hordes of Somalis.

The Failure of Globalism
Globalism is a failing ideology. The increasing turn to censorship and suppression of dissident movements is as much an indicator of this as any economic figures. The largest failure of globalism is that it has failed to deliver on its own terms. Globalism fundamentally elevates economic concerns above all others and promises to raise all boats. But mobile global capital has instead transformed the entire globe into winner-take-all competition, where the largest share of the dividends are delivered to the managerial class and investors rather than to ordinary workers, who must now compete with Chinese laborers working for a pittance. Economic security has not increased with global competition, particularly among nations that were already quite content, such as Sweden or the United States.

More important, globalism—and particular its feature of unsustainable mass immigration from extremely dissimilar populations—has done much to undermine various nations’ quality of life. As with other failed ideologies, it errs by misunderstanding human nature. People are not merely economic actors. They are also fathers, sons, mothers, neighbors, members of communities, and the like. The value of cohesion and communication are natural byproducts of homogenous communities. These fragile goods, however, are given little consideration by the globalists, who proclaim, contra all the evidence, that diversity is our strength.

In real life, diversity often leads, as often as not, to higher crime, lower trust, neighbors with whom one cannot communicate, and a vague sense of not being at home in the country of one’s birth. Very few people really like this, outside of the small, self-selected globalist managerial class. In our lives, we reveal our true preferences by substituting other goods—cohesion, trust, stability, closeness of friends and family—for mere efficiency. Even capitalism itself recognizes that market-based efficiency is not always everything, as competing organizations are not themselves organized on market principles, but instead on bonds of culture, trust, and command and control relationships of various kinds.

Nationalism is compatible with freedom, free markets, peace, alliances, and much else. It is in fact the most natural mode of political organization, as Yoram Hazony argues. It is not compatible, however, with the single-minded focus on efficiency and uniformity that characterizes globalism. Much of the nationalist resurgence is about the rights, not just of individuals, but of communities to live among the people they’ve always known, with whom they share blood and history, and to continue to live as they have in peace.

Nationalism is no more an aggressive threat to others than having one’s own home, own religion, and own family is hostile to the homes, religions, and families of others. But those who claim in Orwellian fashion than “diversity is our strength” would permit no such diversity. After all, there is a global GDP to worry about.

Normal people everywhere emphasize different priorities when given the choice. And nationalists, to their credit, have recognized that there is some value in cooperating and building truly international ties among one another—ties that are only possible in a community of real, vital, and distinct nations. The globalists may find that they unite the various nations of the world, just not in the manner they expected.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Matthew Horwood/Getty Images

Elections • EU • Europe • Post

What Part of ‘Leave’ Don’t They Understand?

To prove one’s progressive credentials, one could do worse than to purchase a milkshake from an ostensibly detested fast-food corporation, douse a politician deemed a threat to the cause, and applaud oneself via the gleeful approval of Burger King.

This week, British progressives have underlined their helpless vacuity by doing just that.

Paul Crowther, 32, whose internet history I suspect would wilt steel, drenched Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage in milkshake because he doesn’t quite agree with Farage’s views.

Crowther, according to the media, is a progressive and voted for the Adderall child and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He is confused. Corbyn, like all proper left-wingers, is a Brexiteer.

Yet, other progressives lauded Crowther’s efforts.

One kindred spirit, however, expressed her dismay at the act of milkshaking.

Ruth Townsley, of Happy City UK, a charity which campaigns to bolster happiness and wellbeing, wasn’t too pleased with Crowther’s assault.

“I prefer acid, but, milkshakes will do, for now,” she tweeted.

That’s right. Dousing people with whom one disagrees with disfiguring acid is to dip one’s feet in the still waters of Arūpa-loka.

What will do for now is the welfare line. Townsley was fired soon after deleting her tweet. Shame.

One elderly gentleman, with 22 years’ service in the elite Parachute Regiment, got the milkshake treatment en route to the polling booth to vote for democracy’s preservation. To be tolerant and progressive means attacking elderly veterans because they hold a different opinion. Or something.

Nigel Farage’s own crime is to lead the Brexit Party. Just five weeks old, the organization has vacuumed over £2.5 million (roughly $3.16 million) in small donations and burgeoned to 120,000 members. And the party is likely to win this week’s European Parliament elections, stomping the Conservatives into fifth place.

The new party’s appeal is ruthlessly simple: We voted to leave the European Union. We have not left. Tell them again.

It’s working. The Brexit Party will best Labour and the Tories combined, and likely decapitate the leaders of both. One of which has hours, rather than days, left in office.

We are here because of the folly threading our hapless government. Prime Minister Theresa May, in office but not in power, spent the best part of three years cooking up a deal to leave the EU in word but not in deed. Lawmakers marmalized that deal, three times.

She fancied a fourth vote. But her “New Brexit Deal” unveiled this week was not new, nor Brexit. That gloop of pity was dead before the details warped her tongue. She is currently holed-up in Number 10. The worst Tinder date in history.

So, here we are, fighting European elections three years after voting to leave Europe.

In honesty, we haven’t had this much fun since the referendum. There’s something vivifying about it all. Those shrill desperate wails from people who claim tolerance and understanding. They know it’s over.

“We must stop the extremists!” cry the actual extremists. After all, their views are held by a dissolving few inhabitants of an upmarket London itsu.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party steam ahead.

They’ll be joined by like-minds. One-third of the new European Parliament will fall to parties skeptical of the European Union. The establishment is rightly terrified.

A Brexit Party win all but vaporizes the notion of a second referendum. We are already having one. And it is two-nil to Brexit.

Desperate people do desperate things. Upon realization that Brexiteers have not changed their minds, progressives resort to violence and antics reserved for infants.

Which is indeed strange behavior from those who claim to be tolerant, those who haughtily denounce the rest as fascists.

And fascist is what this is. It is “only a milkshake.” But imagine, for a second, the reaction if right-wing Brexiteers targeted and attacked pro-EU politicians, and Remain voters, denying their right to speak freely or place their vote.

It would be “proof” of the lurid spirits released by the referendum. Tiresome celebrities would soak themselves in tearful swellings of grief. They’d cry “fascist!” They’d be half-right.

Sadly, this was inevitable. Since the referendum, the mask of compassion apparently exclusive to our open-minded friends has slipped, revealing an unfiltered contempt for anyone not like them.

Those who voted Leave were parochial, racist, uneducated, stupid, deplorable. They didn’t know what they were voting for. Their vote demonstrated ignorance. Their voices deserved to drown. All rather fascist, no?

Historically, such rhetoric has justified all manner of grotesqueries.

When one is convinced those who disagree are not just wrong, but evil, violence is a natural remedy.

After all, progressives claim to occupy the “right side of history.” Everything they want is apparently inevitable. To attack, and de-platform, and deny the acceleration of “evil” is then morally essential.

But that “right side of history” leads to a mirage. Take a look.

All across Europe, in the United States, and now Australia, rebooted “conservative” parties are cleaning up.

Shorn of vote-killing 1980s economics, the radical majority swells with the progressives’ abandoned former base.

Branded extremist, they’re actually the radical majority.

As I have mentioned, most voters in Great Britain and America are socially conservative, and economically moderate. Parties adhering to this formula are winning. And they’ll keep winning. Which is a notion the GOP cannot quite swallow, lest it be revealed that Current Year is not 1980.

Now they’ve purged their own base of the right’s newest voters, the stunted teenagers of the Democratic Party will adopt the milkshaking tactics of their demented cousins across the pond. They’re just as desperate. And jilted.

But reality is a troublesome mistress. It’ll take more than a milkshake to convince her otherwise.

Photo Credit: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

Administrative State • Defense of the West • Donald Trump • EU • Europe • Post

The Virtues of Patriotism

The elections to the European Parliament underway now through Sunday present a major war of ideas between the “Europe of Nations” and the “Europe of Brussels”—between national democratic sovereignty and supranational authority.

On May 13, I participated in a conference in London organized by the White House Writers Group and attended by leading conservative intellectuals and political figures, including Yoram Hazony, Daniel Hannan, Roger Scruton, John O’Sullivan, Nile Gardiner, and Polish cabinet minister Anna Maria Anders, among others. The conference, “Europe at a Crossroads: The Virtue of Nationalism,” for the most part echoed Margaret Thatcher’s famous Bruges speech advocating a Europe of “independent sovereign states” in opposition to a democracy-deficient supranational EU that would “try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the center of a European conglomerate.”

Two days before, on May 11, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed the Claremont Institute’s 40th anniversary gala dinner with a spirited defense of the universal principle of democratic sovereignty as central to the new Trump doctrine in American foreign policy. Pompeo declared:

This new pride in taking America’s interests seriously is not just an American phenomenon. Countries all over the world are rediscovering their national identities, and we are supporting them. We are asking them to do what’s best for their people as well. The wave of electoral surprises has swept from Britain to the United States all the way to Brazil.

Pompeo also noted, “President Trump has helped put the world back on track to a nation-first trajectory,” and warned  “democratic leaders” who “are not responsive to the jolts of patriotism which are sweeping the world . . . won’t be leaders for long.”

For more than a half a century, the United States automatically has supported more European integration and opposed efforts to reassert national sovereignty. As recently as 2016, President Obama traveled to the United Kingdom to warn the British that as far as America was concerned, they would be sent to the “back of the queue,” if they dared to approve Brexit. In contrast, then-private citizen John Bolton remarked,“Americans should welcome Britain’s coming Declaration of Independence.”

With the advent of the Trump Administration, automatic support for continued EU centralization and reflexive opposition to national sovereignty has ended. Pompeo, speaking directly to the Europeans in Brussels, forthrightly declared: “Our mission is to reassert sovereignty, reform the liberal international order, and we want our friends to help us assert their sovereignty as well.”

President Trump in his official speeches, informal remarks, and tweets has made no secret of his support for democratic sovereignty in general, and his sympathy for Brexit in particular. As Trump told the U.N. in 2018, “Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, [and] democracy has ever endured.”

Interestingly, the pro-Brussels forces link supporters of democratic sovereignty in Europe with the Trump Administration. In a European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) paper titled “How Anti-Europeans Plan to Wreck Europe and What Can Be Done to Stop It,” European integrationists complained:

Like Trump or his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro, European nationalists are usually critical of “political correctness”—to the extent that they present their opposition to women’s rights, LGBT rights, other cultures, or measures to mitigate climate change as a crucial part of a pluralist political debate. They are particularly suspicious of multilateralism, as expressed in the Paris climate agreement and the Marrakesh migration pact.

In other words, for the pro-Brussels elite it appears that some retrograde “anti-Europeans” do not endorse political correctness, the green-socialist global agenda of the climate change regulators, and mass migration from the developing world. Imagine that!

The core argument, of course, is not between “pro-Europeans” and “anti-Europeans,” but between two different visions of Europe. It’s an old conflict. During the 1960s French President Charles de Gaulle advocated a “Europe of States” and strongly opposed European Commission President Walter Hallstein’s push for more centralization. Twenty years later, in the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher battled with then-European Commission President Jacques Delors over the same general argument of democratic sovereignty versus undemocratic supranationalism.

In recent years, the vision of a “Europe of Nations” embraced by de Gaulle and Thatcher is re-emerging both intellectually and politically.

In 2017, a group of leading European intellectuals, including Pierre Manent, Roger Scruton, Ryszard Legutko, Chantal Delsol, Remi Brague and others issued “The Paris Statement: A Europe We Can Believe In,” in which they declared: “The True Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions, and borders, yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another.”

The Paris Statement uses the term “oligarchy” to describe the current status of the EU regime. The choice of oligarchy versus democracy, cuts to the heart of the matter. The political renaissance of the “Europe of Nations” is manifest in support for Brexit and for a range of political forces endorsing democratic sovereignty in the European Parliamentary elections.

These forces are not always in agreement on economics, on foreign policy, or other issues. Some are Thatcherite, some are Gaullist, some are sophisticated, some are not, some are traditional and classically liberal, some are given the nebulous label of “populist,” which is meant as a derogatory epithet.

Interestingly, the Paris Statement declared “we have our reservations” about “populism” because “Europe needs to draw on the deep wisdom of her traditions.” Nevertheless, the statement continued: “We acknowledge that much in this new political phenomenon can represent a healthy rebellion against the tyranny of the false Europe, which labels as ‘anti-democratic’ any threat to its monopoly on moral legitimacy.”

Clearly, the core moral question is who rules: self-governing democratic peoples or undemocratic supranational authorities? This is the same argument for democratic sovereignty constantly repeated by President Trump and his chief foreign policy lieutenants Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.

And, indeed, 27 years ago, Daniel Hannan noted, that in a radio broadcast to the French people, Charles de Gaulle emphatically declared, “democracy and national sovereignty are the same thing.”

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Pierre Suu/Getty Images

America • Donald Trump • EU • Europe • Podcast

The Chris Buskirk Show: Episode 5—Trump Meets Hungary’s Orban, and More

President Trump met Viktor Orban of Hungary. The liberal establishment went crazy but should they have? What’s going on with populist nationalist movement in Europe from Brexit in the UK to Salvini in Italy, Orban in Hungary and others. Iran: Do some of Trump’s advisers want to start a war with Iran? Tune into The Chris Buskirk show below for the latest.
Photo Credit: Stringer/AFP/Getty Images
Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • EU • Europe • Foreign Policy • Post

What’s the Matter With Europe?

For all the flak President Trump gets for insufficient deference to America’s allies, Americans should be aware of the parlous condition of Europe, which long was regarded as the co-equal half of the Western alliance to the United States and Canada.

It does not require a geriatric to recall the piping days when it was commonplace to hear someone announce the coming supremacy of a united Europe. This was a fantasy wedged between the imminent economic surpassing of America by Japan, and then by China. The United States has potential rivals, some less cordial than others, and complacency is always unwise. But the decline of Europe, not its rise, is now the threat that should worry foreign policy specialists.

The United Kingdom, renowned throughout the world and for more than 300 years for good government with continuous though gradually self-reforming institutions since the Magna Carta in 1215, is suffering its worst failure of government since the American Revolution. Britain, in addition to having voted to leave the European Union, and now having failed to negotiate a soft exit and Parliament having declared that it does not want what the people voted for, is stretched between a narrowly pro-exit population and an anti-exit Parliament. The performance of Theresa May’s government has been so incompetent that the normal solution to such an impasse—a general election—probably would elevate the Labour Party now led by a Marxist anti-Semite, Jeremy Corbyn. That would lead to the implosion of the country into a state of ignominy and political degradation not seen since Richard III strangled the princes in the tower, and Corbyn would do nothing to clarify Britain’s position with the European Union.

Disappointing Germany
The whole Western world has been waiting decades for Germany, which has been the most powerful country in Europe since it was first united by Bismarck in 1871, to behave responsibly in that role. It did so until 1890, when the tempestuous adolescent-minded Emperor William II sacked Bismarck and eventually led the world into the inferno of World War I. Germany was very responsible from 1923 to 1933, having been defeated in the Great War and reduced to a state of disarmed quasi-servitude. It reinstated itself as Europe’s greatest power under Hitler from 1933 until 1945, with infamous results. After starting and losing another world war, Germany has behaved with exemplary responsibility for 74 years—a model democracy, economy, and ally.

By the force of its persuasion and prosperity and generosity, Germany’s immediate smaller neighbors, the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Poles, small Baltic countries, Czechs, and Austrians all seem happy to be politically integrated with Germany with a common currency and effectively, except in local matters, a common government. This is an astounding achievement by Germany, and by the United States, which was the only one of the victorious major powers who really favored and worked for the reunification of Germany (the British, French, and Russians were all tacitly opposed). President Truman defended West Germany, and West Berlin in particular, and President Eisenhower brought Germany fully into NATO, (over French and even British misgivings).

Instead of putting the horrors of the Third Reich and the difficult Cold War years of a divided Germany into the past and stepping out as one of the world’s great powers, with allies all around it, Germany—with the world’s fourth-largest economy—has stalled. It’s two main political parties have slowly eroded, and a coalition between them can barely agree on anything, let alone command a Bundestag majority. There are four other parties, the far left—a detritus of the old Communist East Germany—the Greens (relatively extreme eco-warriors), the Alternative—half reasonable, half-far right, and somewhat xenophobic—and the worthy Free Democrats, who are sensible, small business-oriented, and bourgeois.

Angela Merkel is an agile leader but terribly cautious; she is about pass Konrad Adenauer as the third longest serving German chancellor, after Bismarck and Helmut Kohl. But she has frittered away the preeminence of her party and is leaving it to an unprepossessing successor facing the likelihood of more voter fragmentation and multi-party coalitions. Chancellor Merkel shut down the entire nuclear power system to appease the Greens, (although nuclear power is the safest of all economically viable energy sources), and has committed Germany to dependence on Russian natural gas.

Perfect Goal, Absurd Result in France
France is floundering. From the French Revolution in 1789 to the ascension of Charles de Gaulle in 1958, France had an absolute monarchy, three constitutional monarchies, a directory, a consulate, two empires with one restoration, four republics, two provisional governments, a government in exile, and the hobnailed jackboot of Nazi occupation: 17 distinct regimes in 169 years.

De Gaulle, with his Fifth Republic, appeared to have settled the ancient argument between the monarchists and the republicans by creating a monarchy and calling it a republic. But the presidents of that republic—de Gaulle, Pompidou, Giscard d’Estaing, Mitterand, Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande—have been a downward sequence. Each was at least slightly, and sometimes sharply, less talented than his predecessor.

In 2017, in utter exasperation, France embraced a 39-year old former banker and senior financial civil servant who had no more sought elective office than had Donald Trump before running for president, Emmanuel Macron. He achieved the office not by gaining control of a political party; French political parties are very fluid and rise and disappear and change their names every few years, but by standing as an independent and setting up a new party of rank political amateurs as legislators. It was magnificent in the country of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other triumphant theorists. It ran on a euphoric platform: a green revolution, lower taxes, a better social benefit system, completed unification of Europe, stronger armed forces, everything that was desirable and the quick elimination of all that was not.

The predictable happened and Macron is now diminished by the incoherent rioting every weekend of mobs of angry bourgeois crabbing about taxes, reinforced by outright hooligans, all wearing the silly yellow vests all French drivers are required to have in their automobiles so they can put them on to signify an emergency. It is that splendid French combination of the perfect goal and the absurd result.

Europe’s Incoherence
President Trump has been much criticized, but he told Theresa May she would have trouble leaving the European Union and negotiating to continue in it, and he was correct.

He has criticized Merkel for contributing 1 percent of GDP to defense and leaving the real defense of Germany to the United States and others, while failing to support the sale of defensive weapons to Ukraine and making Germany 70 percent dependent on Russia for energy. He is correct.

Trump advised Macron that he was trying for everything at once and he was correct. Perhaps the U.S. president should have been more discreet and more subtle, but the former presidents with whom he is compared, were generally dealing with more competent European leaders: from Churchill to Thatcher and even Tony Blair, Adenauer to Kohl, de Gaulle to Chirac.

Europe has abdicated. It has no coherence, no leadership, no influence. The president of the United States has cut America loose from the nonsense of the Paris climate and Iran nuclear agreements, popular with the Europeans, and is making direct arrangements with the other major powers—China, Japan, India, and even possibly Russia. We are back to the 1930s in some respects, but fortunately without Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and the Japanese imperialists.

Trump, however different in inflection and demeanor, is like Franklin Roosevelt warning the French and British of the dangers of appeasement and saying that the United States cannot take the lead against Hitler if the democracies nearest to danger are feeding the savage beast. The Western alliance can be revived, but only when Europe recovers its political will and common sense. Except for a few purposeful countries formerly under Soviet occupation, the whole continent is, in de Gaulle’s phrase about the French Fourth Republic, “crossing the desert.” It will get to the other side; the administration, in its way, is trying to help, but only Europe can do it.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Robin Pope/NurPhoto via Getty Images

America • Energy • Environment • EU • Europe • Post • self-government • Technology

Why Don’t Climate Activists Support Nuclear Power?

For several days in mid-April, downtown London was paralyzed by thousands of “climate activists” protesting the failure of the British government to act swiftly enough to combat climate change. In mid-March, thousands of students across the United States staged school “walkouts” to demand action on climate change as well.

These protests are ongoing, but the underlying logic is hard to see. The primary sources of anthropogenic CO2 are no longer Western nations, which are only responsible for about 30 percent of all global emissions. The biggest single culprit, if you want to call it that, is China, responsible for 28 percent of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the United States, and 28 times as much as the United Kingdom.

Rapidly industrializing India, responsible for 6 percent of global CO2 emissions, is on track to become the most populous nation on earth. The chances that China and India will sacrifice their national future in order to reduce CO2 emissions are zero. The same holds for every emerging nation, including the demographic heavyweights Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, along with all the rest.

The logic of these protestors also fails when it comes to the science of climate change, although to suggest something might be off in their thinking is heresy. So rather than point out that moderate warming might actually be beneficial to the planet, or that extreme weather is more highly correlated with a cooling planet, let’s accept all the popular wisdom with respect to “climate science.” So what? According to their own theories, it’s already too late. Climate alarmists have repeatedly said we had just a few years left—or else.

In 1989, a “senior U.N. environmental official” said “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Then in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore told the Washington Post that “humanity may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” Fast forward to 2019, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) joins today’s alarmist chorus, telling us “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

So where’s the logic and reason behind these protests? The biggest emitters of CO2 are not going to stop emitting CO2, and it’s too late anyway. But there’s an even more obvious flaw in the logic of these protestors, and more generally, in the entire agenda of the climate change lobby: They will not support nuclear power.

The Case for Nuclear Power
While it’s disingenuous for those of us who don’t believe anthropogenic CO2 is a mortal threat to humanity to use the emissions-free argument to promote nuclear power, it’s important to recognize that nuclear power plants don’t emit anything into the atmosphere. Even so-called “deniers,” if they’re intellectually honest, acknowledge that burning fossil fuel still causes genuine air pollution. Although carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, and particulates are scrubbed out of most modern power plants in America, the rest of the world lags behind in cleaning up their smokestack emissions.

Even in America, where auto tailpipe emissions are cleaner than ever, air pollution can accumulate around busy intersections in large cities and remains a health hazard. Whether used to recharge car batteries or to otherwise power the electric grid, nuclear energy is 100 percent emissions-free.

Although fear of a nuclear accident continues to animate anti-nuclear activists around the world, nuclear is also safer than ever. But all the nuclear accidents in history—including the big three, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island—have caused at most 200 deaths. Even that number is based on generous speculation since it is impossible to positively identify the cause of illnesses people develop decades after an exposure.

Of course, there have been accidents while mining for nuclear fuel, or during construction of nuclear power plants. But as this chart shows, using data from the International Energy Agency, coal mining, drilling for oil and natural gas, and harvesting of “renewable” biomass are all far more harmful to human health.

Absent from the above chart are renewables, but this doesn’t mean renewable energy doesn’t have a cost in human life. Renewable energy relies primarily on photovoltaic panels, wind generators, and batteries, all three of which are incredibly resource intensive. Hundreds if not thousands of miners have already died, working under slave conditions, to extract the cobalt and lithium needed for modern batteries. As renewables increase their share of global energy production, this human catastrophe will increase in scale, and to-date there are minimal reforms, and no viable alternative materials.

Not only does nuclear power have an exemplary safety record when compared to other forms of energy, the next generation nuclear power technologies are safer than ever. These new reactors employ even more resilient cooling systems, they can reprocess their own spent fuel, and they are being designed as modules of various power outputs that require far less maintenance.

Nuclear fuel is also abundant. The world’s present measured resources of uranium are enough to last for about 90 years at current global rates of consumption. According to the World Nuclear Association, “this represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.”

This is an important point. Just as the concept of “peak oil” was popularized in the late 1990s, and debunked about 10 years later as new reserves were discovered and new methods of extraction were developed, it is unlikely the global supply of nuclear fuel would diminish precipitously, especially as reprocessing technology improves. The history of resource extraction, at least when market forces are allowed to operate, is that innovation and alternative solutions are always sufficient to offset looming scarcity of any particular resource.

Renewables Are Overrated
Wind, solar, and biofuels are touted as the answer, but the fact is they cannot match the efficiency and reliability of nuclear power. There are a lot of aspects to this, from the incredible waste of land, to the devastating toll on wildlife, to the resource intensity, to the monstrous recycling challenge as these massive installations wear out and have to be replaced. But what should be relevant to the climate activists is the intermittency of renewables, which cannot produce energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

To compensate for the on again off again nature of renewable energy, fossil fuel has to be employed as backup. This not only guarantees ongoing CO2 emissions, but it has economic consequences. Because natural gas power plants now have to be shut on and off depending on the availability of renewable energy, they cannot efficiently recover their construction costs. This artificially distorts upward the actual cost of fossil fuel energy, making renewable energy look more economical by comparison. Nuclear power plants, which have zero emissions but cannot be rapidly turned on and off, are in some cases being decommissioned to make room for hybrid renewable/fossil fuel systems. In states where this has happened, CO2 emissions have actually risen.

We Need an “All-of-the-Above” Energy Strategy
Global civilization depends on cheap, reliable, abundant energy, and it needs as much of it as it can possibly get. Just in order for average worldwide per capita energy consumption to reach half of what it currently is in the United States, global energy production has to double. This is an immutable fact.

Of course we should continue to develop renewable energy, just as we should continue to research breakthrough energy technologies such as fusion power. But fossil fuel use is not going to go away, its use is going to increase for at least the next 20-30 years until something better comes along. And clean, safe, abundant nuclear power should be part of our global energy portfolio, no matter what anyone believes regarding CO2 and “climate change.”

It is interesting to wonder who is behind the massive demonstrations around the world demanding “climate action.” Whoever they are, perhaps the single biggest challenge to their sincerity is their unwillingness to support nuclear power as part of the solution.

EU • Europe • Immigration • Post

Nothing Quiet on the Migration Front

Editor’s Note: The following is drawn from remarks delivered in late March at the Mathias Covinus Collegium International Conference on Migration in Budapest, Hungary.

Many thanks for the invitation and for giving me the floor together with this prestigious group of speakers. I would like, first, to congratulate the organizers of the conference for choosing such an important topic in the right moment—before the European Parliament elections.

Some of us are no great fans of the European Parliament because this is not a real parliament. The parliament is usually the most significant symbol of a democratic system, as it is in our nation states. This is, however, not the case of the European Parliament. Its undemocratic substance can’t be improved by increasing its competences or by changing its electoral procedures or its voting system. Democracy needs a demos and it is an undisputed fact that there is no demos at the European level. But let’s turn to the topic of our conference which is the mass migration into Europe.

I agree with the title of the conference which indicates that the mass migration is “the Biggest Challenge of Our Time.” I have only one disagreement with it: the question mark in the title is superfluous. I suppose most of us came here because we are convinced that this formulation is not a question, but a statement of an evident fact. Regretfully, not many European leaders are ready to say it aloud, clearly and convincingly. Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán is one of the few, if not the only one.

He and many of us who share similar views  have been heavily criticized over the years by European political, academic, and journalistic elites. We have been criticized without serious counterarguments. The arguments used for advocating the mass migration remain unconvincing, are full of holes and are, therefore, untenable. The facts speak for themselves.

The relatively new fashion among the European politically correct politicians is to claim that the episode of mass migration is over, that we are already behind the peak of the migration influx, that we shouldn’t misuse the easily evoked fear of common people for the sake of achieving our alternative political goals. I can’t disagree more. The phenomenon of mass migration is here, is here to stay, and is getting stronger and stronger.

Instead of using arguments, the powerful European elites use labels. The critics of the mass migration and of the mass migration advocacy are called populists. This is an empty accusation without any material substance. Serious people know that the labeling is not an analysis. And analysis is in the age of the deep intellectual confusion and moral emptiness difficult to find.

I wrote a short book about mass migration three years ago. It has already been published in eight European languages, including Hungarian. The last launching of the book took place two weeks ago in Italy. I am not going to repeat its arguments; let me mention two main points I consider crucial:

We should strictly differentiate individual and mass migration. This difference is fundamental. The European political elites speak about mass migration but use—almost exclusively—the arguments relevant for individual migration only. In the case of the mass migration, we shouldn’t concentrate on the fates of individual migrants but on the consequences of migration for the countries where the migrants massively go.

The absorption capacity of countries for individual migration is relatively high. Mass migration, on the contrary represents a fundamental attack on the cohesion, coherence, traditions, habits, institutions, cultural patterns, and social systems of countries which are these days flooded by migrants. Mass migration necessarily leads to substantial cultural, social, and political conflicts, shocks, and tensions. It touches upon fundamental aspects of citizenship, community and the identity of our countries. The European political leaders pretend not to see it. This is unacceptable.

As an economist, I am schooled to apply the terms “supply” and “demand” wherever it is possible, which means also in the non-market settings. My experience tells me that these two terms are very useful also in the discussion of the mass migration.

Most of commentators speak about mass migration without differentiating its supply and demand side. There is no doubt that there exist big problems in many developing countries of the world, in the Middle East, North Africa, and West Asia. This, of course, creates a reservoir of potential migrants. The worse the situation in the country is, the more motives for migration are created. This story is true but by itself is insufficient in understanding the whole story.

The supply of migrants must eventually find its demand. Without it, no migration can come about. The European countries are strong enough to stop mass migration on condition they decide to do it. We cannot directly influence the supply side but we do indirectly influence it, especially in a negative sense, when we destabilize the vulnerable countries by exporting revolutions there—as it happened with the Arab Spring—or when we can make wars in other countries, as was the case in Iraq. Basically, however, we are positioned on the demand side.

And here comes my main dissident’s argument: I consider the demand side in the current European migration context to be the crucial one, not the supply side caused by the wars in Syria, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in Somalia. The migrants find themselves in the European countries and cities because there has been an explicit or implicit demand for them. The implicit demand is more important. It is based on the current European culture and ideology, on multiculturalism, on progressivism of liberal democracy, on the pseudo-humanism of political correctness, on our version of the social system.

Returning to the explicit gestures, I don’t have in mind only the well-known explicit gestures like the one made by Angela Merkel in 2015 (even though I wouldn’t underestimate its huge impact). Similar gestures and statements have been made repeatedly by many other European politicians, journalists, public intellectuals, and especially by the political NGOs. Such gestures also belong to the official position of the European Union.

There are, in my understanding, two main motives the authors of these gestures have. They do it on the one hand as an expression of their own feeling of humanism, philanthropy, and compassion with human suffering. This  gives them the feeling of being good, regretfully, without serious thinking about the side-effects and consequences. Or they invite migrants more or less ideologically in connection with their almost religious belief in the ideology of multiculturalism, with their belief that diversity is more than unity; heterogeneity is better than homogeneity; sharp conflicts of values, behavioral patterns, cultural principles and religions contribute to human happiness (and social progress) more than social, cultural, and religious harmony.

I suppose most of us who came here do not share these views. We came here because we are the so called “Somewheres” not the “Anywheres,” because we belong to a particular political community, to our nation states. We are not “citizens of the world” (in President Obama’s sense), we are also not citizens of Europe. We are inhabitants of Europe, but citizens of our nation-states.

To my great regret, there emerged in the last decades another source of demand for mass migration which is specific for the contemporary post-democratic, centralistic, nation states suppressing European Union.

The European elites understood that to succeed in their ambition to get rid of the nation-states and to create a State of Europe (and a European Nation) they have to dissolve the old existing nations by mixing them with migrants from all over the world. By means of this procedure they want to create a new, truly European man, a Homo bruxellarum. This is the main reason why they are—without paying attention to all kinds of negative and destructive side-effects—supporting and promoting mass migration.

They don’t want to stop migration. They do want to manage, organize, and mastermind it. They are helped in this respect by United Nations documents such as the recent Compact on Migration. These documents were not written in Africa, but here in Europe and in America. They reflect the multiculturalists’ demand-side way of thinking, not the thinking of victims of war or the victims of bloody ethnic cleansings on the supply-side.

It is our task to oppose these ideas and to block the irresponsible behavior of their exponents. It is not easy to suggest how we will do it. I am skeptical about the power of reasoned arguments against aprioristic beliefs and against evident nonsense. Many people are largely immune to reason, evidence, and coherent arguments. We have to return this issue to the political level. Politicians like Prime Minister Orbán must win the elections and get a chance to influence the way of thinking in Europe. I wish them great success in this endeavour.

Photo Credit: Federico Scoppa/AFP/Getty Images

Conservatives • EU • Europe • Foreign Policy • Post • Progressivism • The Media

Sanction the UK and EU for Their Brexit Betrayal

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

The German word schadenfreude captures the sensation patriots feel knowing that the deaths of some of history’s greatest traitors have come to them, if not in cages, then at least in obscurity, as they passed penniless and were ignominiously laid to rest in foreign, ungrateful places.

So it is with America’s most notorious turncoat, Benedict Arnold, who lies in a mass grave in a nondescript churchyard in London.

Those who betray the legacy of their forebears and rob their progeny of their birthright deserve a similar fate. So, it should be with the leadership of the United Kingdom, the European Union, and their accomplices in Paris and Berlin.

The United States—as the last, best hope of mankind on earth—ought to name, shame, and sanction these individuals, if not their countries, for the greatest betrayal of the popular will in generations.

If America cannot stop the Brexit betrayal, we can at least hold those responsible for flouting democratic norms accountable—today, tomorrow, and forever.

Brexit Sabotage: Chaos like a Fox
On Thursday British Prime Minister Theresa May and EU Council President Donald Tusk agreed to extend the Brexit deadline to October 31, 2019—eight months beyond the deadline set forth in the EU membership referendum Britain held in June 2016.

After coddling her Europhile (i.e. Remain-supporting) Tory Members of Parliament for months, May—who herself backed staying in the EU—has lost a series of votes on her milquetoast, non-Leave Brexit plan in the House of Commons.

Parliament voted to extend Brexit’s deadline but could not manage a majority for any option—full Brexit, Brexit-light, Brexit a la Norway, or a second referendum.

But don’t worry, Remainers, the fix is in. Without a solid, working majority in the Commons, May’s party must rely on the protestant-nationalist DUP of Northern Ireland whose own petty demands and inconstancy dictate the ebb and flow of Brexit debates for the time being.

May likely will be deposed by her own party’s right flank (Brexiteers) or if she steps too far toward actual Brexit, Tory Remainers and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour MPs who could dissolve Parliament in a stroke. Either way, a second referendum (“People’s vote”) or unending foot-dragging and Brexit delays will frustrate efforts to extricate Britain from the EU until a beleaguered Brexit is killed dead by some late-night, backroom deal.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Vote, Vote Again
But the sturm und drang of Brexit’s public debate obscures the reality in front of Leave voters’ faces, Europhiles in Britain and the EU’s technocratic overlords have no intention of letting the will of the voters be manifest.

Never mind that 17.4 million or 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the EU, Brussels brokers no dissent and has great success in getting their way, if only eventually.

In 2005, the EU Constitution Treaty to further integrate the member-states faced the public in referendums in France and the Netherlands. Both countries rejected the plan which required unanimity to be enacted. Portugal had scheduled a binding referendum on the proposal for later that year but just scrapped it instead.

But the EU overlords were undeterred. They gussied up the undead treaty and the zombie became the “Lisbon Treaty” which no member-state, save Ireland, had to ratify by plebiscite. In 2008, the Irish duly rejected the proposal at the ballot box.

Dublin’s masters of the universe would not take “No” for an answer and subsequently resurrected the Lisbon Treaty with a few tweaks and the Emerald Isle backed the deal on the “re-vote” in 2009. The EU had done it before in Ireland in 2001—compelling a re-vote to achieve the desired outcome.

The EU’s motto seems to be: just keep voting, until they vote the “right” way.

The first democrats, the Greeks, saw their government ignore the EU’s austerity demands a few years ago. Athens’ populist government sheepishly ceded to Brussels and its German financial backers to flout the public will there too.

Now it appears Britain’s elected class of betters is on track to betray Brexit and there must be hell to pay for it.

Democracy for Thee, Not for Me
In a fit of irony, the EU and Britain impose sanctions all over the world for violations of democratic norms and authoritarian regimes’ sham elections.

Just last year, the EU parliament voted to sanction Viktor Orban’s Hungary, an EU member, over “undemocratic” acts including banning American financier George Soros’ organizations from operating in the country. Earlier that year, the executive body, the EU Commission started the same process against the freely elected, nationalist government of Poland.

Further, the EU recently imposed sanctions on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe for those countries’ anti-democratic moves.  

May, Tusk, and the Remainers have all the democratic acumen and allegiance worthy of the tin-pot dictators they seek to condemn.

As they encourage the removal of the Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro for undemocratic rule, they thwart the will of tens of millions of Britons for the sake of the undemocratic international bureaucratic project.

Uncle Sam’s Righteous Vengeance
Giving the EU—or at least its leadership—some of its own medicine would be a welcome and appropriate measure. America would be justified in calling out Europe’s hypocrisy and paternalism when it comes to self-determination and democracy.

Targeting Theresa May, her Remainer-laden cabinet, the EU president Tusk and his leadership cabal, and even two most high-handed European leaders, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel, might also prove useful and satisfying.

A 2014 study by Harvard researchers concluded, “By concentrating only on sanctions aimed at increasing the level of democracy in the targeted authoritarian state, we found that these sanctions are indeed associated with increasing levels of democracy. Moreover, authoritarian regimes targeted by democratic sanctions are more likely to experience institutional and leadership change.”

American foreign policy should be guided both by our interests and our values, and serendipitously, those overlap in promoting earnest democratic empowerment for the peoples of Europe against the anti-American technocrats ruling across the Atlantic.

Uncle Sam should make them pay for their hubris and teach them that the popular will is not a mere nuisance but a sacred charge.

Photo credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images

America • Conservatives • EU • Europe • Post

The Spurious Case of Jeremy Corbyn

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

Call me crazy, but I am beginning to suspect that thrusting a diehard Remainer into the job of pulling Great Britain out of the European Union was, on second thought, a bad move.

Excuse me for being glacially slow to arrive at this moment of clarity.

The revolution, though each pathetic flutter has been painfully televised, is indeed over. This week, Theresa May appears to have given up on her deal to leave the EU. And she is now siding with probably the most intellectually impoverished pseudo-sentient being to besmirch parliament in at least three centuries.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, sexagenarian Holden Caulfield sans the wit, humor, or intellectual incision, is now entrusted with the most consequential decision to befall our country since World War II.

What Corbyn thinks about Brexit is largely unknown. If he thinks at all it is unverified. His ex-wife claimed that in their four years together, “Jeremy” didn’t read one book. And he detested “bourgeoise” holiday spots. In the middle flushes of his youth, he vacationed in Communist East Germany. So, as you may deduce, he is a barrel of laughs. A box of frogs.

But May, still our prime minister, reported this week she held “constructive” talks with Corbyn with the hope of solving the Brexit impasse. She can’t do much else. Lawmakers killed her withdrawal agreement three times. Other lawmakers threatened to take control, and then voted several times against taking any semblance of control.

A lawmaker friend of mine, one of the original and thoroughly fruity Brexiteers, is so desperate to leave he has voted for May’s deal three times.

“Nobody here,” he said, interrogatively, “seems to know what they are doing.” Which is alright, I suppose, if one is standing in a Subway queue and the meat of discussion centers upon pointlessly large sandwiches. The most consequential of endeavors in such instances concerns ranch dressing. But he was not in a sandwich shop. This was the House of Commons.

Though, I hazard, 600 of the 650 lawmakers would struggle to run a Subway.

Jeremy Corbyn certainly would. Actually, that is a harsh prosecution of Subway managers. Corbyn couldn’t tong his way into a salad without first moralizing on the plight of Nicaraguan lettuce farmers.

And now he is effectively deputy prime minister.

The Brexiteers, understandably , are furious. After voting down May’s deal—as potentially loathsome as that deal might be—what’s on offer now is remorseless in appetite.

Apparently, May is warming to a customs union with the EU. To spare you the wearisome details: our trade policies would be out of our hands. No big beautiful trade deal from President Trump.

May’s lawmakers are seething. Only 37 of them voted on Monday for such an arrangement. A full 236 voted against. May has gone postal, and many in her party demand she be fragged.

But they should hold fire and resist rolling a proverbial grenade under her cubicle just yet.

In her speech, announcing the Corbyn talks, May pointed out that she felt forced to do so. She softly mentioned those Brexiteer holdouts had forced her to take such a noxious step.

May has gone nuclear. And the revulsion, as she surely hoped, will smoke out the last 50 or so diehards who refuse to push Brexit over the line in hope of a chimerical “no deal,” which won’t happen even though it is the best option.

The threat of a Corbyn-tainted Brexit should be enough, unbelievably, to push May’s withdrawal deal through parliament on the fourth time of asking, while exposing Corbyn’s double-bluff.

You see, Corbyn has played both Remainers and Leavers. His traditional base, the old working classes and lower-middle classes, now known as the precariat, backs Brexit by a ponderous margin. Meanwhile, the urban metropolitans are stridently Remain, and make up the bulk of those fighting to overturn the people.

If the Labour heartlands knew what Corbyn really thought about immigration and Britishness, he’d swing from a lamppost. Proverbially. Not to mention his anti-Semitism and his flirtations with every putrid sack of organs on political earth.

As in America, a realignment is underway in the UK. As Democrats are slowly realizing, their inconvenient old voters are not keen on the utopian machinations of their party’s coastal influence. Something must give. And it already has. They won’t win in 2020 or 2024.  Rural America belongs to President Trump. The future, if the GOP wants it, rests with these voters, and the middle-class. The radical majority.

So, by forcing Jeremy Corbyn from his plant upon the fence, perhaps Theresa May can expose just how alien he and his Labour party are to the desires of the wallowing-behind. Something Trump has done with brutal verve.

It is a sound gamble. And it might just work. Brexiteers would rather vote through May’s deal, sack her soon after, and rescue Brexit in the second round, than consider a Corbyn Brexit diluted to the taste of pointlessness. They’ll go for the former.

But the theater of Brexit reveals the real prize. Like the Trump election did in America, our vote to leave the European Union unmasked the barely concealed class hatred of progressive elites towards those they glibly left behind in the 1990s. Those they pretend are not just Netflix serfs on this wondrous Planet Uber.

Those hoping to govern for generations will position themselves accordingly. As I keep saying, the center of Great Britain and America rests with the socially conservative, economically sane. Nobody else matters. Certainly not Jeremy Corbyn.

Photo Credit: Anthony Devlin/Anthony Devlin/Getty Images

EU • Europe • Post • Religion and Society • Religion of Peace

UK: Radical Muslims Welcome, Persecuted Christians Need Not Apply

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

In two unrelated cases, the United Kingdom denied asylum to persecuted Christians by bizarrely citing the Bible and Jesus. Both Christians, a man and a woman, are former Muslims who were separately seeking asylum from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the ninth-worst persecutor of Christians—particularly of those who were Muslims and converted to Christianity.

UK asylum worker Nathan Stevens recently shared their stories. In his rejection letter from the UK’s Home Office, which is in charge of immigration, the Iranian man was told that biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith. The letter cited several biblical excerpts, including from Exodus, Leviticus, and Matthew, presumably to show that the Bible is violent; it said Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence.” The governmental letter then concluded:

These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.

In response, Nathan Stevens, the asylum seeker’s caseworker, tweeted:

… I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.

Stevens added:

“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith?

There seemed no awareness that, despite occasional verses of violence in the Bible, its main message, in both the Old and New Testaments, is to be found in Leviticus 19:18: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

In rejecting the claim for asylum of this man who converted from Islam to Christianity, and presumably compelling his return to Iran, the British government is effectively sentencing him to death.

In the second case, an Iranian female asylum seeker was informed in her rejection letter:

You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.

Recently interviewed on BBC Radio 4, the woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, said:

When I was in Iran I converted to Christianity and the situation changed and the government were [sic] looking for me and I had to flee from Iran…. In my country if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.

Concerning the asylum process, she said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me…. [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”

These two recently exposed cases appear to be symptomatic not only of a breathtaking lack of logic that flies in the face of history—God obviously did not always save those who believed in Him—but also what increasing appears to be a venomous Home Office bias against Christians. For instance, when Sister Ban Madleen, a Christian nun in Iraq who had fled the Islamic State, applied to the Home Office to visit her sick sister in Britain, she was denied a visa—twice. Another report cites a number of other Christian orderlies who were denied visas, including another nun with a PhD in Biblical Theology from Oxford; a nun denied for not having a personal bank account, and a Catholic priest denied for not being married.

In another case, the Home Office not only denied entry to three heroic Christian leaders—archbishops celebrated for their efforts to aid persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the UK’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by Prince Charles—but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”

Even longtime Christian residents are being deported. Earlier this year, Asher Samson, 41, a Christian man who had been residing in the UK for 15 years and undergoing theological studies, was deported back to Pakistan—where he had earlier been “beaten and threatened by Islamic extremists.” (Such treatment is normative for Christians in Pakistan, the world’s fifth-worst persecutor of Christians.) Samson’s former UK pastor said:

I’ve received some messages from him. He’s very scared, he’s fearful for his life…. He’s in hiding in Pakistan and his family are terribly worried for him…. At the moment he has no funds to live on—he can’t work …. [T]he UK is sending people back to these countries where their lives are in danger.

By contrast, a report from the Barnabas Fund found that in offering asylum, the UK “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians. Statistics confirm this allegation:

Figures obtained by Barnabas Fund under a Freedom of Information request show that out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.

Statistics from earlier years have shown the same disparity. Although Christians accounted for approximately 10% of Syria’s prewar population, the overwhelming majority of Syrians granted asylum by the Home Office were Sunni Muslims. Such an imbalance appears even more bizarre when one realizes that the Islamic State (ISIS) is itself a Sunni organization that targets non-Sunnis, primarily Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims, all minority groups that the U.S. government acknowledges have been targets of genocide.

As Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a life peer in the House of Lords, wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who heads the Home Office:

It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk…. As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.

Considering that persecuted Christian minorities—including priests and nuns—are denied visas, one might conclude that perhaps the Home Office just has extremely stringent asylum requirements. This notion is quickly dispelled, however, when one sees that the Home Office regularly grants visas and refugee status to extremist Muslims. One has yet to hear about Muslim asylum seekers being denied visas because the Koran is too violent, or because they do “not have enough faith” in Muhammad.

Ahmed Hassan, despite having no papers—and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier”—was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack in a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017.

The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric, Hamza Sodagar, to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocates beheading, burning, or throwing homosexuals from cliffs.

In addition, according to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”

The case of Asia Bibi—a Christian mother of five who has spent the last decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad—is perhaps emblematic of the immigration situation in the UK. After she was finally acquitted last November, Muslims rioted throughout Pakistan; in one march, more than 11,000 Muslims demanded her instant and public hanging.

As Pakistanis make up the majority of all Muslims in the UK—Sajid Javid the head of the Home Office is himself Pakistani—when they got wind that the UK might offer Asia Bibi asylum, they too rioted. As a result, Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application—”despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” one headline read. The UK, in other words, was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”

At the same time, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric, Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, considered so extreme that he is banned even from his native Pakistan, to come and lecture in UK mosques. Qadri celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi.

In short, local Muslim opinion apparently plays a major role in the UK’s immigration policy: radical Muslims are welcomed with open arms; Christian “infidels” need not apply.

Commenting on the difficulties Christian minority asylum seekers have with the Home Office, Dr. Martin Parsons, the head of research at the Barnabas Fund, remarking that “visas were granted in July to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” summarized the situation:

It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians…. There is a serious systemic problem when Islamist leaders who advocate persecution of Christians are given the green light telling them that their applications for UK visas will be looked on favourably, while visas for short pastoral visits to the UK are denied to Christian leaders whose churches are facing genocide. That is an urgent issue that Home Office ministers need to grasp and correct.

Editor’s note: This article was first published by the Gatestone Institute and is republished here by permission.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

EU • Europe • Political Parties • Post

Brexit Bloody Hell

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

I’ve never frequented a vegan restaurant. Never would. So I can only imagine that they don’t serve ribeye steak.

I suppose, if one is adventurous, you could take a seat. Tell the waiter you’d like a ribeye steak. Doubtless, the waiter would politely explain why that particular restaurant doesn’t serve meat.

“But, I want a ribeye! And I’m not leaving without one,” you could reply.

Perhaps one or two clandestine carnivores, dragged by their girlfriends into Gaia, or whatever it might be called, would confidentially admire your blooded gall.

“This is a vegan restaurant, sir.”

“I want a ribeye.”

“We don’t serve meat, sir.”

“But I want a ribeye—not leaving without one.”

“We don’t serve meat, sir.”

“Medium-rare, please.”

Perhaps you’d then leave having scored points of principle. Probably not. The entirety of patrons would likely think you were a buffoon. After all, you could have ordered the most palatable slop on the menu, pleased whomever had dragged you there, and later, somewhere else, ripped apart a meal fit for rational beings.

The point being: meat is not on the menu. It should be. But it is not.

Another menu lacking anything of sustenance is the Brexit menu. Glaringly absent is no-deal. After three years, what we do have is Theresa May’s half deal, or no Brexit at all.

Despite the prime minister this week promising to stand down, if her “Withdrawal Agreement” later went through, the lawmakers who back in January tried to cut her down, decided they don’t want that either. As it stands, the hardest of Brexiteers refuse to budge in wait of a chimerical no-deal Brexit.

The peculiarity of British politics thickens. Lawmakers not too keen on leaving the EU this week fought to wrest control from the government. They got what they wanted.

Then, in a series of “indicative votes” Thursday night, they added eight options to the menu. They proceeded to vote every option down—including a second referendum, despite, you know, spending near three years clamoring madly for one.

Even The Guardian, where all humor goes to die, whittled a joke out of that debacle.

A bigger joke is May’s deal. Yes, three courses of awful. And anyone with a soupçon of tact would have placed a “no deal” Brexit front and center. Taking that off the table means the EU doesn’t have to offer Britain anything palatable. Doubtless, if President Trump did the talking, we’d now repossess the Empire.

May’s mung bean soup is all we had. Until lawmakers voted that down, on Friday, for the third time. What’s on the menu now? That is anyone’s guess. Our current parliament doesn’t know. That’s for sure.

Yes, even with hardliner Jacob Rees-Mogg,  another 42 Tory defectors, five Labour lawmakers, and Boris Johnson all coming round in favor, the deal died. Again. This time with a majority of 58.

All depended on her partners, the Democratic Unionist Party, whose 10 lawmakers prop up her government. All 10 voted the deal down owing to the maddeningly intractable “backstop” issue concerning the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Nigel Dodds, leader of the DUP, even said he’d rather remain in the EU, than risk Northern Ireland’s position within the union. Which is not, ahem, ideal, if you’re a Brexiteer.

Our deadline, which was 11 p.m. on Friday, is now April 12. The holdouts can pretend a no-deal Brexit is less than two weeks away. Perhaps they haven’t been listening. It’s never going to happen. The risk of leaving with a ravening stomach is the likely end.

Remainers know this. Last weekend, they clotted London streets with twee placards designed largely to heap the attention on themselves. Some of them were truly brazen. Whereas most call for a “people’s vote” in hope of overturning the people, a sizeable chunk want to revoke Article 50—the Brexit moonshot—and cancel the whole thing, without the silly pretense of democracy.

They perhaps feel that their indulgently public demands to nullify the largest democratic mandate in our history is preferable to the farcical state of affairs within our parliament. A notion which is not entirely blameless.

The fact that 400,000 people (which claimed to be 1 million) even consider, publicly, overriding the democratic will of their fellow citizens says a great and gross deal about the incompetence of our political class.

Yet, this is where we are. May’s deal, killed three times, still twitching. Dead.

This is despite the prime minister offering to stand down. May, in fairness, tried to fall on her sword. Being Theresa May, she missed. Which perhaps sums up this quite unbelievable farce.

We’re in genuinely uncharted territory. After the defeat, May told lawmakers: “I fear we are reaching the limits of this process in this House.”

Which some take as a hint of a general election. Another grand waste of time which would tell us nothing. Despite the media insistence, nobody has changed their mind. Even the exceptionally hysterical ramblings of Project Fear had no effect. Rather than petrify in the face of no-deal, a sizeable number said it was their preferred choice.

What is most likely? A long extension of our deadline. One which, Remainers will hope, never ends. And that’s is the point. Check out the EU’s history with the pesky proles. They make the rubes vote again and again until they provide the correct answer.

Sadly, those who’ve spent decades fighting the EU should know all too well how these things pan out. Those diehards, the ones that killed May’s deal, are (apart from Americans, of course) the original Brexiteers.

They were Brexit before it was cool. When Euroskepticism was the strange brew of the swivel-eyed. And the politely mad.

And their chance has gone. Everything they ever wanted. Right there in front of them. And they said no. Yet, thanks to their demand for only the finest Brexit of Wagyu beef, we will leave with nothing.

Meanwhile, Great Britain, an allegedly serious country, is reduced to a Latin American banana republic. Without the sunshine.

Photo Credit: Peter Summers/Getty Images

2016 Election • Conservatives • Donald Trump • Elections • EU • Europe • Post

Down With the People

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

Short of taking up black tar heroin, I’ve decided that the best way to cope with this farcical Brexit saga is to imbibe regular doses of sardonic humor. Perhaps that might douse it into a vaguely acceptable hum.

A French lawmaker agrees with my prescription.

“I’ve ended up calling my cat Brexit,” a newspaper quoted Nathalie Loiseau as saying. “It wakes me up meowing like crazy every morning because it wants to go out, but as soon as I open the door, it just sits there undecided and then looks angry when I put it outside.”

Sadly, Loiseau admitted that her cat is not called Brexit. And that she doesn’t even have a cat. Which is fitting given our Brexit conundrum thickens each week with similar jest. Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal to leave the European Union isn’t called Brexit. And we don’t even have a deal on which we can vote.

Crushed by two ordinarily abdicating defeats, May’s deal to kind of leave the EU sits growing fungi thanks to the work of one ultra-Remainer whose opinion cascades over that of 17.4 million people.

John Bercow, speaker of the House and not of the people, this week blocked May’s deal. Using precedent stretching back hundreds of years, Bercow’s haughty intervention means May’s deal, unless changed “substantially,” won’t get a third reading.

This would have been marvelous news given our date for leaving the EU, one seared on the minds of millions, was just March 29. No-deal by default. Of course, we have a Parliament where two-thirds don’t fancy leaving the EU at all. So, that date is likely May 22.

That matters not. The point is we don’t get to leave in any meaningful sense. In case you haven’t been able to sleuth your way to such a conclusion.

Bercow’s meddlesome whim means even half-leaving the EU via May’s deal is perhaps no longer on the table. A perennial narcissist, the speaker has built a career on professional attention-seeking, which any armchair Freudian would deduce stemmed from Bercow’s lack of purposeful height.

No doubt the parliamentary pygmy gloried in the next-day headlines. All about him. That doughy snarl splattered across every front page.

But this is just a symptom of a wider elite malaise. And the hamartia that will bring them all down.

Even after three years, the debate from the Remain side still stalls upon whether or not we actually want to leave. When they say “we,” they mean themselves. Not the 17 million who pulled the trigger. Our minds haven’t changed. They’ve hardened.

Bercow is one case study in the collapse of the narcissistic elite; the majority vote to leave having shaken them irreparably silly.

And therein lies their problem. To allow democracy would be to allow reality to infiltrate. It would be to allow a forensic inspection of their shattered faith. The elite crisis of confidence is no closer to the stage of acceptance now than it was three years ago. Yet, any renewal demands it get there quick.

It is the mark of an insecure society that commands such fealty. All must play the game, or the game is invalid.

Brexit showed that the majority no longer wanted to play this game. In America, the election of President Trump showed that most no longer subscribe to a plutocratic play in which they are pawns, not players.

Of course, those who voted for either are accused daily of racism, sexism, fascism. They are intellectually famished. Didn’t know what they were voting for. These are nothing more than the charges of an elite defending its class interests. They, after all, benefit most from the smoldering status quo.

To defend this, so-called progressives employ those old tropes with diluted efficacy. Anyone who questions a neo-feudal system in which one-third gorges on the others, is branded practically inhuman.

And from both sides. Witness the so-called conservative reaction to Tucker Carlson’s critique of a broken America refusing even to reproduce itself.

Stamping one with the inscrutable label of racist means there is no debate to be had. Tellingly, those with sentient thoughts on immigration, on free trade, on rampant globalization—the radical majority—are quickly tainted as “untouchable.”

Why? Our elites insist that such undesirables are stoking a fascist future when, in reality, that is precisely what they’re trying to prevent. Insecure societies descend rapidly into tyranny. Brexit and Trump, though crude, offer an anti-venom to elite contagion.

Which raises the question: what is progressive about fighting feverishly alongside of the status quo? What, exactly, is progressive about a system rigged so brazenly to siphon the lion’s share of wealth upward, toward vanishingly few? Toward those concentrated within the megalopolis of London, Los Angeles, and Lyon?

After all, Brexit, Trump, the gilets jaunes, the populist swellings across Europe, are motored by the working and middle-classes; toward those whom the progressives are meant to progress.

Now the awoken precariat refuses to play along. The philosopher-kings and the woke hordes are hopelessly outnumbered.

But that doesn’t mean they’ll just give in. Like Bercow’s, their votes still count more than most.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Giorgos Georgiou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • EU • Europe • Post

From Brexit to Trump, Elite Contempt Shines Through

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

Not long ago, to support Great Britain’s departure from the European Union remained the hoppy heady preserve of the corduroyed English fruitcake.

Only the niche, and utterly mental clung to such opinions. Those trifling oddities, blimpish and better suited to reliving colonial exploits in faraway lands, were not of polite society. To be a Euroskeptic invited the label of weirdo, or, if they liked you—“eccentric.”

That argument was settled. Britain, and indeed the world, owed and pinned its future not to outdated concepts such as nationhood, borders, or common culture­­—oddities, pined for by oddities. To be British was embarrassing, and old hat.

David Cameron, our ex-prime minister, an alleged conservative, pretended himself to share this turbulence of brain. That Euroskepticism. Until he won his leadership election. Then he called such people, “fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists.”

Then he called for a European referendum. To settle the issue for generations. To smite, finally, those surely dwindling numbers of decaying old white men who still believed in that fatuous list of oddities they held so pathetically dear.

Of course, the weirdos won. And ever since, the Camerons of this world have worked tirelessly to overturn our decision.

Like Cameron, those who would overturn us only expressed their real opinions of us within the confines of their circle of tony friends at their tony parties, safe in distance of ear and eye, from the troglodytes whom cannot be taken seriously.

That was at least until 17.4 million British people had the temerity to vote to leave the European Union.

Then their real opinions gushed out, a thick unadulterated contempt for millions of people who, I suspect, were mildly aghast to learn that they didn’t get what they were voting for. That their apparent lack of education meant they couldn’t decipher a 16-word question.

Because our betters know better. They’re “progressive.” And born to rule.

We didn’t understand when the Remain campaign insisted a vote for Leave would make us all $5,700 a year worse-off. We didn’t grasp the apparent fact that half-a-million people would immediately lose their jobs. We blithely ignored the expert premonition of a phantom “instant recession.”

Of course, none of Project Fear happened.

We voted to leave anyway. But perhaps we didn’t listen to our betters because for most of us, things couldn’t really get much worse. Most of us haven’t seen a real wage increase in decades. Jobs for life, are now jobs of strife, as the gig economy faintly rewilds the industrial deadlands.

They’ve played the same game for almost three years. Without a deal, they insist, quite hilariously, that Britain will run out of medicine and cheese. We won’t eat. Sexually transmitted diseases will rocket. Wages, the economy, jobs, all kaput. If we dare upturn this rigged system, all shall perish.

To spare us this trauma, elites have worked tirelessly to overturn Brexit “for our own good.” In truth, the plebs voted against their interests. That’s what they really mean by that sickly old trope.

This week, in what was the most embarrassing spectacle of elite desperation, our betters took off the table what most of their citizens want.

No-deal Brexit, or Brexit to most outside of the London bubble, doesn’t induce the same fatal panic which depraves our betters. Most Britons, sick to the marrow with this putrid elitist revolt, back no-deal. Our betters voted to kill that idea. They also voted to extend our leaving date. We’re not going anywhere.

We are now bequeathed with two choices. Back Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal to half-leave the EU. Or not leave at all. That 600-page suicide note heads for its third vote next week. It will die. Again. And our betters of both parties will feign concern. As if this wasn’t the plan all along. Would you like your vomit warmed up, sir?

One friend of mine who,  like most, voted Leave is more than happy with the prospect of no-deal.

“We voted Leave three years ago. It’s not that hard to understand. We’ve been screwed over for decades, anyway. Not like it can get much worse,” he said, echoing a sentiment common across the contours of this once-great Britain.

I heard much the same, last year, during a visit to New York. Ordinary New Yorkers may not have celebrated President Trump’s louche demeanor, but they all knew which side he was on. Many did revel in his brawlish instincts. He was sticking it to the betters. After all, it’s nice to see a bully get a kicking. Isn’t it?

And that is why British elites, and their American tendrils, detest both Brexit and Trump. Both are an existential threat to the status quo. Witness their demented behavior. It’s the animations of the near-fatally wounded.

The fanatics care not about the working-class, the poor, nor the middle. They care not for minorities. They care for themselves. The beauty of 2016 removed that mask of faux-compassion. Deep down, they know it’s over.

Since that turbulent year, cross-party elites on both sides of the Atlantic have worked feverishly to overturn democracy. You think the progressives actually give one hoot about minorities? If they did, they’d laud the president’s record in buoying those boats. They’d applaud his trade policies. They’d back immigration-by-merit.

Perhaps you’ve noticed a pattern. Progressives brand anyone with the gall to question unfettered trade, unhindered immigration, and unfiltered thought as racist or parochial. Insinuate that such people are mentally incapable. Hence, they must domesticate the grazing herd. Overrule their bovine whims.

But it’s alright, everything is alright. And this circus is delicious in its own way. We aren’t yet donning yellow vests and raining down bricks. We don’t yet have to. The struggle might not be finished. But we, the fruitcakes and the deplorables—the ordinary—have already won.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Donald Trump • Elections • EU • Europe • Post

A Radical Majority

A man many accuse of arrogant loftiness, of being completely severed from those he lords over, issued an open letter this week addressed to the “Citizens of Europe,” as if the current year happened to be 1452.

Emmanuel Macron, default French president and paramour of the Financial Times, is currently battling months-long rolling protests to which working and middle-class citizens devote their weekends.

The Gilets Jaunes, seething at a churning French society in which they’ve been left behind, demand Macron’s resignation.

In response, Macron unveiled the Great National Debate, a series of town halls in which French citizens air their grievances. Most settle upon Macron himself, and his arrogance. Macron is “president for the rich.”

Such charges are not unfair. Macron, who refers to himself as a “Jupiterian” figure, and tells Frenchmen, unemployed and desperate, to “buy a new suit,” epitomizes all that is wrong with the French elite. And indeed, their London and Los Angeles brethren.

In that letter, published in every major European country, Macron decries Brexit, and maps out a new future for Europe. The magic solution? More lashings of the same noisome soup that voters across Europe and America ditched in 2016.

Macron’s barely concealed terror lays blame with “anger mongers” dusting the grazing herd with fake news, of which they are hopelessly seduced.

The opening paragraph’s self-inflation would puce even the cheeks of Nabokov.

“Citizens of Europe,” declares Macron, seemingly from a Renaissance palatial banquet, “if I am taking the liberty of addressing you directly, it is not only in the name of the history and values that unite us, but because time is of the essence. A few weeks from now the European elections will be decisive for the future of our continent.”

Those elections, set for May, should see one-third of all seats taken over by those pesky populists. Those people, those “authoritarians” who promise “anything and everything,” but seldom deliver.

Which is a cute charge to make. Macron promised a revolution. The French got another few years of elite misrule masquerading as meritocracy.

You see, Macron is the président par défaut. He won because his opponent’s surname was Le Pen. And the traditional two French parties hung themselves. A record number cast a ballot blanc—a vote for nobody.

Despite that, the Financial Times, et al., billed Macron as the populist antidote.

Desperate for a win, following President Trump’s own just months earlier, the global villagers’ Parisian chapter all converged on Project Macron. Even his creepy “seduction,” at 15, of his then 40-year old teacher, was lionized in the supplicant media as caddish exuberance—proof of his daring.

A relative unknown, he tiptoed around the cheese-melting French left and right, slipping into power. The numbers say it all: Macron’s base is the French elite, and their coat-tailers. Those outside the major cities backed Marine Le Pen.

It’s the same story in Great Britain, and America. Those happy with the status-quo plumped for Remain, and Hillary. Those devoured by unfettered globalization voted to Leave, and for Trump.

This befuddles the likes of Macron. But that trend is set to continue. Upcoming elections to the European Parliament, the specter within Macron’s letter, could see one-third of all seats fall to populists.

These populists, often if not always painted as dangerous and extremist by those with definably extremist views, tend to follow the Trumpian playbook—socially conservative, with economic moderation, and strong lines on immigration.

But to call them extremist is the biggest folly of all. If we check the numbers, most people, whether in Great Britain or the United States, tend to fall into this apparently radical majority. Those who’ve elected populist governments across Europe do too.

The real extremists are those who bandy around that word, casting it upon anyone with the gall to point out that three decades of neoliberalism have left the majority on the sidelines, whilse the economic elite rides the riches of unfettered globalization.

What I’ve previously called Red Tory, Americans might call Purple Dog—socially conservative, economically moderate.

Significantly, Purple Dogs form the dead center of the American electorate. Someone with political nous could corral this forgotten middle en route to a generation of dominance. If they wanted to. The GOP seems reluctant, to put it politely.

Indeed, the clamor of the middle has support from both sides. What Tucker Carlson espouses nightly, isn’t too far from the “authentically centrist agenda” forming Damon Linker’s recent piece in The Week.

Linker finds the true American middle trends along Republican social issues, with a moderate (or Democratic in the old sense) economic position. Indeed, this sweet spot resounds silently here, too.

It’s the same spot in which President Trump, the apparent extremist, planted his flag before winning the White House. The same spot where most Brexit voters find themselves.

It seems the real extremists, heaven forfend, are the open-borders globalists who spend most of their time decrying the majority’s temerity to call it quits on a game rigged against them. Who knew?

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Christophe Simon/AFP/Getty Images