Population Control and Social Engineering on a Vast Migratory Scale

The New American flag

Wikipedia Commons Photo

Western politicians, diplomats, heads of state, and other EU officials have agreed and signed on to U.N.’s Agenda 2030, a social engineering plan of population control; this includes every aspect of their daily lives and all business activity.

This onerous U.N. Agenda 2030, for which no “global citizens” have voted, had been deployed around the globe at the beginning of the Obama administration and had accelerated the “fundamental transformation of America” he had promised before he took office.

The massive exodus of third world populations, Muslims, Africans, Central Americans, Asians, and Middle Easterners, mostly young men, to Europe and to the United States has been socially engineered by the United Nations and by the IOM office, a U.N. affiliate, with the blessing of EU leaders, government officials at all levels, and many presidents.

When the current batch of politicians of all stripes will be long gone, a borderless America will be drastically different and unrecognizable to the present generations. The left has won the battle and the war for the hearts and minds of “progressive” America.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (NY-D) compares the situation on the U.S. southern border where migrants are housed, awaiting the disposition of their illegal crossing into the U.S., with a “concentration camp.”

The housing facilities are clean, serve three free meals a day, clean showers, TVs, pool tables, soccer, play areas, toys, clean clothes, medical care, and other amenities.  These illegal migrants have broken our laws when crossing the border and are demanding asylum.

It is an insult to Holocaust survivors to diminish the hell, torture, and suffering they endured at the hands of their Nazi captors who brought them into concentration camps by train to force them into dehumanizing work, starvation, and eventual genocide as part of Hitler’s final solution. 

To paraphrase Daniel Krygier, when the West colonized the East, it was called “imperialism.” But now that the Muslim East is colonizing the West with the blessing of the U.N.’s International Office for Migration (IOM), it is called “multiculturalism.”

If we defend Western nations and our sovereignty, we are “racists” even though border protection from enemy invasion has nothing to do with skin color. But those who “embrace despotic and xenophobic Muslim societies that oppress women, gays, and minorities,” call themselves “progressives” and “human rights champions.”

It is fine to criticize Israel, its existence, and “other free societies,” but when we criticize oppressive, totalitarian and terrorist-sponsoring societies, then we are Islamophobic and hate mongers.

The Orwellian dystopia of “1984” Eric Arthur Blair wrote about in 1949 is alive and well today. His invented diabolical social world order took 70 years to become reality.

Self-appointed global leaders have met on June 18, 2019 in Brussels to debate their planned migratory invasion which they call “forced displacement.” It is tied in very closely with their 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Agenda 2030.

Moderator of the debates was Marta Foresti, Principal Research Fellow and Director of the Overseas Development Institute’s (ODI) Human Mobility Initiative. The ODI is self-described as the U.K.’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. One of the goals of the Human Mobility Initiative is to shape global migration narratives.

 “The 2030 Agenda represents the first time that migration, mobility and global inequality are interlinked under the global development framework. While debate has often focused on the needs of the most vulnerable migrants, less discussed is the decisive role that migrants and forcibly displaced populations play in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially when it comes to their contribution to the host communities.”

I am not sure how the migrants sneaking into our country illegally across the southern border or brought in by buses and planes by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), with the knowledge and blessing of our own government which gives them the money to settle these “refugees,” constitutes displacement and how they contribute to our unwilling “host” communities. These individuals become welfare recipients as soon as they are enrolled for all handouts our government can provide, to the detriment of our poor citizens and veterans who must struggle to find and pay for medical care and housing.

Organizations participating in this event include:

-          the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

-          International Rescue Committee (IRC)

-          High Commissioner of the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR)

-          the European Commission

The event is organized by:

-          the International Organization for Migration (IOM)

-          the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

-          the International Rescue Committee (IRC)

-          the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). 

Antonio Vitorino said, “By embracing this reality, we can open up the potential for migrants to be agents of change at local, national, and global levels. Safe, orderly, and regular migration can be a powerful force to truly ensure that no one is left behind.”

How exactly is our problem to make sure that no one is left behind? Is it not the problem of their governments to provide for the welfare of their citizens? We certainly send enough humanitarian aid to many third world nations. Why must we foot the bill for all their failures on a personal and national level? Are women not accepting their submissive and second-class citizen role and do they not continue that submission even when they migrate to western and free societies?

“Women and girls in crisis are suffering a double disadvantage – because of where they live and because of their gender. It’s clear that the humanitarian sector needs to take more seriously the inequalities of power between men and women that drive unequal outcomes. The sector should try to create a double dividend – tackling the symptoms of disadvantage, as well as the power imbalances that generate them – by setting clear targets for women and girls in crisis as part of the Sustainable Development Goals and establishing a sector-wide Gender Equality Scorecard with shared metrics for success.” (David Miliband, IRC President and CEO)

It is important to note that there are few women and girls among the throng of male economic invaders. They do not seem to have suffered much in their countries as they are well dressed, fed, clean, and sporting the latest electronic gadgets, including expensive iPhones.

Kelly T. Clements, Deputy High Commissioner for the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)  made remarks about “the critical role of development actors to include refugees as important contributors to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in host countries.”

Why must we accept these 17 SDG goals which were developed mostly by U.N. representatives from third world countries interested in the redistribution of western wealth, supposedly worried about the fate of our globally warming planet which humans allegedly caused.

And speaking of population control, western nations already engage in demographic suicide through low birth rates while third world nations have much higher birthrates.

At the end of the day, no matter what euphemisms the U.N. and its affiliated NGOs create and use, the forced global migration and the forced flooding of the west with people inimical to our civilized society and to Christianity, are forms of population control. You will be socially engineered as U.N. desires, you will give up your hard-earned wealth to those less fortunate and less hard-working than you, give up your sovereignty, and you will like it.

Catalonia and Its Referendum on Independence from Spain

Catalonia, satellite image of snowfall
March 8, 2010

Catalonia is located on the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula and has a population of 7.52 million people. Catalonia has a distinct history, culture, and language. Its main city, Barcelona, was captured in 1714 by the first Bourbon king of Spain, Felipe V, and Catalonia lost its autonomy. Catalonia’s national day, September 11, commemorates this event.

The regional Government of Catalonia decided that a referendum would take place on Catalan independence on October 1, 2017. But the Constitutional Court of Spain declared on September 6, 2017 that the referendum and its invocation violated the Constitution.

Spain is divided in 17 autonomous communities with government delegates who must follow the same Constitution and legislation. However, Catalonia has tried for a long time to become independent. A few Catalonian politicians believe that they have something important to gain if they separate from Spain. After all Catalonia contributes the lion’s share of taxes to poorer regions. Catalonia provides one fifth of Spain’s industrial output.

 

Estelada blava, the pro-independence Catalonian flag

Photo: Wikipedia

 

Few citizens actually voted to break away in the legal referendum which took place five years ago on the issue of separation from Spain. Most ordinary Spanish citizens do not seem to be at all interested in separation. The average Spanish citizen sees the conflict in Catalonia in their own light.

But the current president of Catalonia, in an unconstitutional move, decided to organize a new referendum on the issue of independence from Spain.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his government made a mistake in dealing with Catalonia and addressed the conflict by calling in the national police and the civilian guards which he sent to Catalonia to “establish law and order” and to prevent Catalonians from voting.

Naturally Catalonians were outraged by the police presence and overt force and decided to vote even though many were not initially convinced that it was a good idea or even useful to separate Catalonia from Spain. It was reported that 2.225 million Catalonians voted on Sunday out of a total 5.5 million citizens registered to vote.

The conflict escalated when the Spanish police prevented Catalonians from entering the improvised voting centers while the Catalan police (Mossos d’Esquadra) protected the voters.

Additionally, the Internet was cut in voting centers and the voting population could not be cross-checked and verified; anyone could vote as long as they wrote down their names and an I.D. number. In the ensuing chaos, people who were not residents of Catalonia got to vote and some voted five times.

Catalonia is a more industrialized part of Spain, however, in the event of separation of Catalonia from Spain, business owners threatened to move to other areas. If Catalonia becomes an independent state, it is no longer part of the European Union; it must mint its own currency, have a monetary policy, and force Spanish citizens to travel with a passport in their own country.

The problem for Spain is that the rail road and interstate which connects it to Europe runs through the Mediterranean coast, through Catalonia. In the northern part of Spain, in order to cross into France through the Pyrenees Mountains, people use a narrow highway that crosses through Andorra.

Some Spanish believe that the Catalonian president acted unconstitutionally and forced the central government to take radical and unpopular measures which allowed Catalonians to claim that their democratic right of self-determination was violated.

The public opinion is greatly divided and many Catalonian families are separated along political lines; family members in the same house do not speak to each other because they have different political and economic views on the matter.

Most argue that an independent Catalonia would not benefit either side; it is simply a manipulation of the masses by a few elites with personal agendas.

For several years now, schools have been teaching the Catalan language while the Spanish language classes have been reduced. In public administration, nobody is hired unless they speak Catalan - same situation for professors or doctors. Some Spanish believe that English would be more beneficial since Spain has a huge tourist industry.

Violence was not the answer, many Spanish citizens claim, but it was necessary for the central government to re-establish law and order. Voting in a referendum that has been declared illegal by the central government in Madrid and by the courts was also a bad idea.

 

 

Is Brexit Good for Britain?

Forum Panel Photo: Ileana 2016

The American Conservative Union (ACU) and its foundation held a panel discussion on the topic of Brexit: The Collapse of the EU and Its Impact on America in the Cannon Caucus Room on June 13, 2016. The panelists were Nile Gardiner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, Steve Hilton, former senior advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, and KT McFarland, ACU Foundation Senior Fellow.

The British people will vote in a referendum on June 23, 2016 whether the U.K.  will stay in the European Union or exit, hence the abbreviation Brexit. President Obama visited the U.K. to support the “Remain” in the EU movement and attacked the “Leave” campaign.

Nile Gardiner criticized President Obama for his involvement in trying to influence the referendum of another nation. After President Obama’s speech, Gardiner added, the polls increased by 3 to 4 percent in favor of Brexit.

At the center of the debate are U.K.’s economic freedom, economic development, secure borders, massive immigration, and self-determination as a sovereign nation. According to Nile Gardiner, “Britain is no longer a sovereign nation.”

As a pan-European behemoth, EU is not really interested in peace and prosperity for all, even though originally, following the two world wars, that was probably a noble goal. As Paul Watson said “EU is about obliterating nation-states and replacing them with its own Byzantine United States of Europe and seizing raw power.” EU has become a “sprawling empire, it is not a free trade zone.”

How is the European Union an empire and not a free trade zone? The EU has a central bank, a president, one currency, criminal justice system, passport, flag, anthem, all “characteristics of a nation-state, a pan-European nationality, while they are criticizing us [U.K.} for our nationalist views.”

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are paid to inundate the waves with messages that EU must have more control; EU grabs more power and pretends that it did so in response to popular demand even though the voting public was never fully aware of EU’s true intentions. It is a classical modus operandi which has been employed at the state and local levels around the world in order to implement Sustainable Development, the lynchpin of United Nation’s Agenda 21/2030 without any real public input or voting.

“The American people would never accept the loss of self-determination,” added Nile Gardiner. Fearmongering to force the British people to stay in the EU is not working anymore. “The British people are clamoring for their freedom; they are clamoring to decide their own future. … And I hope that the American people will support them,” he concluded.

Responsible for the implementation of all domestic policies under Prime Minister David Cameron, and a personal friend, Steve Hilton found himself on the opposite side of his former boss in regards to Brexit. He fully supports U.K.’s exit from the EU as a way to bolster economic development and increase safety and prosperity for all British citizens. “EU has three presidents, none of whom are elected.”

“EU is seen as a version of NAFTA. It is not NAFTA,” Hilton said. It is a question of domestic policy, he explained. “Much more than half of what the British government was doing on a weekly basis, was implementing the EU’s decisions which we did not vote for and most of which we actually disagreed with. There was nothing we could do about it because we were not in control.” Unelected bureaucrats in Brussels made those decisions for domestic policy, environmental policy, everything is determined this way. Philosophically, he argued, British citizens believe in the freedom from administrative powers that constrain their ability to run their own lives.

When the EU Commission has its own government as well as the legislative body, with no separation of powers, then that is classic definition of tyranny, not democracy. Many believe that the EU Parliament is a “ceremonial position” with no real power.

The NGOs and the MEPs are the real power brokers, representing the powerful elites behind the scenes. It is generally believed that the MEPs earning up to 740% more than the average citizen, free shopping sprees, gasoline, haircuts, 12,000 euros per month staff budget and other perks, buys their allegiance to the EU. “MEPs make laws which they exempt themselves from.”

Every time referendums were held to make decisions that affected certain countries, if the results did not meet the stated goals of the EU, the vote was ignored and they were forced to vote again until they returned with the results the EU desired.

For example, Paul Watson explained, “Denmark, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, and Greece have voted to reject the Maastricht Treaty, the Niece Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Constitution, the euro bailout, which was illegal under their own “democratic” laws, the votes were ignored.” As Jean-Claude Juncker, the current President of the European Commission, said, “There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties.” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31082656

The root of the EU problem, KT McFarland said, was failed multiculturalism. The premise of this policy was that no nation wanted to sit in judgment of another nation, they were all equals, and it was perfectly fine to allow ethnic groups to set up enclaves, their countries within a western nation, in which to live off of the generous host welfare system, while making no effort to adapt to the new country or even have any allegiance to it. Countries, where multiculturalism is entrenched, will never be the same. McFarland cites Germany and Sweden as classical examples.

Another serious problem is national security which cannot be guaranteed with open borders. “In terms of security, Europe is committing assisted suicide,” said McFarland.

When EU judges say that “immigrants convicted of violent crimes cannot be deported from the U.K. unless their safety can be guaranteed in their home countries,” they are putting the safety of British citizens at further risk.

Most nations do not have adequate means, militarily or otherwise, to stop the flood of refugees.  Putting up barbed wire to stop the flood is ludicrous. What drives those refugees, McFarland said, is the conflict in the Middle which is not going to stop any time soon. Once negotiations allow five more states to join the EU, including Turkey, Serbia, and Albania, there is a potential of 80 million Turks migrating westward to countries with the most generous welfare systems.

There is already a shortage of housing in the U.K., “ten buyers for every home for sale.” According to Paul Watson, there are stories coming out of Sweden and Germany which describe “the government as making their own citizens homeless in order to accommodate Muslim migrants that have nothing but contempt for our culture, people from a regressive culture and belief system.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y

The strain on the economies of those countries that are taking in so many refugees under the multiculturalist policy will be enormous – feeding them, housing them, educating them, and medically treating them. “The most wanted man in the world, whose poster was at every train station, at every bus stop, was hiding in plain sight,” added McFarland.

Economic pressure, culture pressure, and a national security pressure through open borders are issues that British citizens must address on June 23. Additionally, wealth confiscation through U.K.’s 350 million pounds a week sent to EU, money that they cannot control how it is going to be spent, rigid EU regulations that destroy small businesses that cannot comply with, unemployment caused by massive exodus of cheap labor destroy the middle class. As Hilton said, we cannot accept millions of waiters from Eastern Europe, without our own British waiters becoming unemployed.

British fishermen have lost fishing grounds due to EU rules and the fishing industry has been devastated in waters where they’ve been fishing for centuries. “The EU has been paying fishermen to destroy their boats,” said Paul Watson.

Trade should improve once Brexit happens because EU does not allow Britain to negotiate its own trade deals. “EU needs the U.K., “we are their biggest export market.” To say that Britain will have to go to the “back of the queue” is ridiculous and irresponsible, said Nile Gardiner. Switzerland is not in the EU and still trades with them but is flourishing economically precisely because it is not in the EU.

Paul Watson made the best description why Brexit is good for Britain: “A vote to leave is a vote for the people, for small business, for lower taxes, for cheaper household bills, for lower fuel costs, for cheaper food prices, and against the obnoxious elites in Brussels.”

It really is a vote for personal freedom and self-determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western Europe's "Headache"

Location in India of gypsy tribes based
on genetic research  Photo: Wikipedia

The invasion of Europe by young military-age Muslim men from the Middle East and Africa has pushed one Western European “headache” to the back burner – the Romanian gypsies, with their nomadic lifestyle and “criminality,” petty theft, pickpocketing, and begging around train stations and major tourist attractions; these gypsies have irritated the European Union bureaucrats and the selectively multicultural Europeans.

In an effort to combat any ethnic discrimination, the Romanian government passed H.G. 1194 on December 12, 2001 which established the “attributes, components, organization, and functioning of the National Council to Combat Discrimination. The law established heavy penalties for anyone who attacks someone else on the basis of ethnicity. The main focus of the law was to prevent the proliferation of anti-Semitism and anti-gypsy sentiments. Insulting, humiliating, or disadvantaging any ethnic group is strictly forbidden.”

As Mircea Brenciu explained, “The chosen people of the Old Testament have suffered a genocide unprecedented in the history of humanity; other tragedies were experienced by Armenians in 1915, by the Nepalese and the Cambodians under Pol Pot, Ukrainians under Stalin, just to name a few, and gypsies under all countries.” The memory of such heinous acts must be kept alive to prevent the historical repetition of such tragedies.

A “semantic confusion” was deliberately created by the Romanian government under Petre Roman (1990-1991), a “semantic confusion” even promoted and accepted by the Romanian Academy.  The government decided that the word “gypsy” was really an insult, even though this terminology existed for hundreds of years, reflecting the misconception that these tribes were Egyptian; the word “gypsy” had to be changed to “rom/Romani.” Every other nation continued to call these migratory groups gypsies. The designation of “rom/Romani” was thus consecrated with great fanfare in Romania, using the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an excuse.

Modern gypsy Wagon, U.K. Photo: Wikipedia

 

There are approximately 11 million gypsies worldwide, of which 8-10 million live in various European countries, making them, for now, one of the largest minority. David Comas and his research group conducted a study and published the results in 2012 in Current Biology, under the title, “Reconstructing the Population History of European Romani from Genome-wide Data.” This genetic and linguistic analysis of 13 European gypsy groups found out that their ancestors left north/northwestern India about 1,500 years ago and settled in the Balkans area approximately 900 years ago.  The groups “constitute a mosaic of languages, religions, and lifestyles while sharing a distinct social heritage.” http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2812%2901260-2

The study authors also stated that, the migratory population, “with moderate gene flow from the Near or Middle East,” showed up in the Balkans about 900 years ago. This makes it more interesting why Romanians have decided to rename their gypsies “Romani” or “rom” even though they have nothing to do in origin with the Romans, the Roman Empire, or the Romanians’ ancestors, the Dacians.

Gypsies/Romani are proud of their heritage, their culture, their traditions, and their language, which is unlike the Latin-based Romanian language. But the change of terms from gypsy to “rom” or “Romani” has given rise to an uncomfortable confusion across European nations whose citizens have labeled and lumped all Romanians with any and every gypsy/Romani population across Europe that is “inconveniencing” European non-nomadic society.

According to Mircea Brenciu, Romanian gypsies/Romani give birth to 5-8 babies, while the birth rate for Romanians in general has been 2-3 children per family and less.  It is surprising that such a nomadic population would have a strong political and cultural influence in general in Romanian society after 1989. Brenciu calls it the “Rom-ization” of the Romanian people.

He explained that this “Rom-ization” (“manelizare” in Romanian language) has the following consequences:

-          No patriotism (gypsies have never been tied to any lands unless by force)

-          There is no spirit of solidarity (gypsies express such feelings of solidarity only in cases that serve their interests of the moment)

-          There is no punctuality and a sense of order (gypsies are Bohemian, indifferent to history, they are perennial pilgrims)

-          There is no respect for the law (in gypsy society the law is made by the “stabor” and the “bulibasha,” similar to Muslim tribes and their Sharia Law)

-          Gypsies build a state within a state, supported by the force of the occult.

It is hard to have a civilized discussion about issues of the gypsy/Romani population for fear that the dreaded H.G. 1194 law will somehow be violated in the dialogue process and the ethnic population offended, resulting in heavy penalties for the offending party. It does not take much these days for such an offense to occur, a process not unlike the Political Correctness of liberalism-gone-amuck in this country which stifles freedom of speech. The Europeans, of course, have no such guarantees of freedom of speech in their constitutions.

Brenciu wrote that, during the 18^th century, Empress Maria Theresa is said to have met with other dignitaries to stop the flow of gypsies from Eastern Europe to the West.  This gypsy exodus was inconvenient to western society because they were not subjects of any jurisdiction. They chose the Baragan Fields of Wallachia as settlement and built villages such as Tiganesti, Slobozia, Urziceni, to house by force, with European money, various gypsy groups.

In the meantime, a simple politically correct euphemism, “Rom/Romani,” invented by progressives. is confusing and obfuscating history by design, misrepresenting the roots of an entire minority, the gypsies.

 

Interview Across Cyber Space with Mircea Brenciu Part VI Infrastructure

Rapsa Village, children going to school  (Photo: digi24.ro)

The sixth installment of my interview across cyberspace with Mircea Brenciu, famous author and editor, adamantly anti-communist, and the founder of many publications in Romania, is coming to a close. A few questions remained to explain the transformation that occurred in Romania since the “collapse” of Ceausescu’s socialist dictatorship in 1989 when the much-touted “workers’ paradise” crashed and burned on the ashes of millions of victims who died needlessly at the reckless hands of Bolsheviks who were experimenting with people’s lives as dreamed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

As I watched videos from remote villages where people still live and die without electricity, paved roads, gravel roads, running water and sewer systems, trudging through ankle deep mud during rains, I wondered what happened to their standard of living in the twenty-seven years since communism “fell.”

Even though Romania became an EU member in 2007, the journey to modernization and progress is still very slow in some regions as it was evident during my visits. Romanians are smart, enterprising, and hard-working people, often making do with so much less than the rest of the developed world, but their journey is hampered by decades of brutal socialist centralized planning and the endemic corruption born by such a system and the need to survive.

On the question of roads, Brenciu explained that highways under the care of the Transportation Ministry are usually well maintained but county roads are not paved or are often neglected because they don’t have the know-how or the funds necessary to fix them.  

Interstate 1 or DN1 between the capital Bucharest and the northern ski resort city of Brasov, a distance of only 170 km, in Brenciu’s opinion, will never be an Autobahn in the near future. On the much sought route Sibiu-Pitesti, the government is just now taking public bids. And the Sibiu-Arad/Timisoara highway was built with “exaggerated efforts and mistakes which came to light as soon as it was inaugurated.”

Former president Traian Basescu raised eyebrows when he declared that “Romania does not need superhighways.” A 2012 referendum of 8 million Romanians indicated the opposite. As Romanians’ standard of living has improved, they bought hundreds of thousands of cars which now crowd the narrow roads. Parking is so inadequate, like in many other European cities, that people park everywhere, including sidewalks, sometimes blocking or slowing down traffic and endangering pedestrians.

The former Minister of Finance under President Emil Constantinescu, professor analyst Ilie Serbanescu, explained that both in Romania and in the European Union (EU), there is interest in only one route, Arad-Pitesti, to the exclusion of all others.  It seems easier to drive to the capital of Hungary, Budapest, in the west, where the infrastructure provides ease of transportation, than to go south to the capital of Romania, Bucharest.

I also asked Brenciu about running water and sewer systems. Surely Romania could easily provide for its citizens! Their former colonizers, the Romans, had an elaborate sewer and water system almost two millennia ago! Using European Union grants and loans, there are now fewer areas without connection to water pipes except in distant and isolated villages.

The fact, that the government is still addressing problems with water and sewer service in the 21^st century, is a direct reflection of the forced industrialization during the 20^th century socialist regime at the expense of the minimal needs of the forgotten Romanian citizens. Such a centralized socialist economy produced one social catastrophe after another that regional and local governments are still trying to overcome and resolve today.

I asked Mircea Brenciu if he believed that political corruption, so endemic in Romania now, can be eradicated.  He mentioned a “traffic of influence” called lobby that pushes issues to the limit of legality. The end of Ceausescu’s dictatorial regime encouraged and launched “the great national competition of personal financial gain” which led to today’s lobby-driven competition for political power and control.

Brenciu believes that the country is going in the direction of a police state again, of the socialist type he thought was dead and buried in 1989. Many Romanians are no longer placing their trust in political leadership or in people in general, but only in God. They realized that “it does not matter who votes, it only matters who counts the votes.”

Brenciu was referring to the shenanigans of the two presidential voting rounds that elected the current President Johannis over his competitor, Prime Minister Ponta, who had personal counsel and advice from Gen. Wesley Clark.  The web of global politics is difficult to untangle.

On the Schengen Agreement, Brenciu explained that, even though he is a “chronic European, Russo-phobe, and anti-communist,” he is becoming a “Euro-skeptic” because of EU’s politics towards Romanians. Even though Romania fulfills all conditions to be integrated into the Schengen Agreement, some of the member-states are reluctant to accept it into their fold while throwing their borders wide-open to the Muslim invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

It appears that Europeans are offended by Romanian gypsies but turn a blind eye to the violence and rapes by Muslims, going to great lengths to cover their crimes.  What do Romanian gypsies do in Europe that is so offensive? Apparently pick-pocketing and begging are “serious problems” for Europeans.

“Our gypsies are academicians compared to the savages coming from Africa and Asia,” stated Brenciu.  What is the point of having the Schengen Agreement if “Europe will continue on such an enormous and irresponsible scale the policy of allowing into their countries the largest exodus of humanity in modern history?”

Paradoxically, the states that have the highest Muslim penetration in Europe are the ones that are refusing Romania’s entrance into the Schengen Agreement. There are currently 26 European countries, covering 400 million people, who can travel in the Schengen Area like a single state with external border controls for travelers entering and exiting the area, but with no internal border controls. Romanians have not been admitted to this agreement, and they feel, rightfully so, as the black sheep of the European Union.

Now that Romanians are members of the European Union, they are no longer in control of their fate and their future, Brenciu concluded our interview.

Copyright: Ileana Johnson 2016

 

Part V Interview on Education with Mircea Brenciu

Thinker and his companion Constanta Museum
Photo: Ileana Johnson 2012

I asked Mircea Brenciu what happened to the education in Romania as it evolved from communist indoctrination to so-called western style education in 25 years. Although some young people earned international acclaim in science and mathematics, education in general has been a profound disappointment, he added.

Brenciu is a firm believer that the lack of spending in education is a direct reason for the pathetic performance. He explained that Romania continues to place last on education spending, behind countries like Bulgaria, China, and Indonesia.

Despite politicians’ promises to make education a priority, financing it has remained at the bottom when compared to schools’ needs and to allocations that other countries have made in education. He illustrated the dearth of investment in “human capital,” a.k.a. education, with a statistically low 2.5% of the national budget in 2013, 3.2% in 2014, and 3.7% in 2015.

Even though politicians have introduced a benchmark of 6 percent for education, according to the National Institute of Statistics (INS), investment in education has never exceeded 4 percent. Yet every government in power and every prime minister have pledged to the voting population that education was a priority. Remus Pricopie, former Minister of Education (2012-2014) reported in 2014 3.2 percent of the budget for expenditures in education.

I happen to disagree with Mircea Brenciu that spending more on education, throwing more money at schools, is going to make a difference in student achievement, performance on tests, or long-term retention and learning.

I don’t think the communist party spent outrageous amounts to indoctrinate the youth yet, in general, excluding the worthless classes of Scientific Socialism, Socialist Philosophy, and other such courses, students received a well-rounded education even though they had no labs for experimentation in physics, chemistry, or biology.

When I arrived directly from the socialist/communist state to the United States, I was shocked how ill-prepared most students and their teachers actually were. The depth of knowledge acquired by most eastern block students was superior when compared to the education of most Americans. It is also true that American students were encouraged to think individually and outside the box instead of emphasizing the collective. Collectivism stunted creativity and inventiveness.

Since Americans have been spending thousands of dollars per pupil to improve achievement and raise test scores, in the face of the fact that test scores do not compare well to other countries, it is obvious that throwing more money at education does not increase student performance or test scores. There are other variables such as parental dedication and involvement in their children’s education and two-parent families that are also very important.

I understand, in many villages in Romania, where the aediles had not used the funds judiciously, or did not receive any funding for education, it was hard to learn in a classroom whose roof was leaking, had no heat, or the school had not been completed or repaired for habitation.

The most adversely affected by unemployment are high school graduates with a rate of 8.1 percent unemployment when compared to those with a college diploma (5.1%). By age, the group of 15-24 year-olds have 23.7% unemployment rate.  Among the 25-34 year-olds unemployment was much smaller, 7.75 percent.

It is obvious to Brenciu that there are special interests at play that ignore the national interest, resulting in diminished education possibilities. Having a Parliament is great, however, the voters, informed, misinformed, or deliberately ignorant, get the politicians they elect. There is no such thing as the best party in power. Romanians and people in general should run like crazy away from a party or a politician who wants to dominate political life. “Did we not have for over 50 years a ‘unique’ party which led us, against our will, to the highest peaks of socialism?”

The content of education has become globalist, emphasizing global citizenship or preparation for such global citizenship.  The elites and the United Nations’ non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are working overtime everywhere to institute the sought-after socialist global control.

To me, it was refreshing to see so many churches mushroom around the country, and a comeback of faith after five decades of atheism under Ceausescu’s socialist/communist dictatorship. State funds were allocated to repair and rebuild many churches. But Romanians seemed to resent the church leaders and priests who lived lavish and luxurious lives when compared to most Romanians, while hospitals and schools were not funded adequately by the state and people died as a result.

I noticed many museum and architectural gems in a sorry state of neglect, decay, and rust. Priceless sculptures and mosaics were drowning in dust at Tomis and marble Etruscan sarcophagi were used as trash bins outside the Tomis Museum in Constanta.

Educators have told me that the curriculum is not teaching students so much about their national heroes anymore. History and national pride have been definitely marginalized in the quest to become “European citizens” as quickly as possible. The dumbing down of education has showcased depravity and immorality, denigrating good moral values, pride in national identity, and Romanian-ness. The noble ideals of love for their country, of patriotism, of respect for historical facts and for their ancestors, have disappeared from the curriculum, replaced by defeatism and shame for one’s ancestry.

Many well-educated and average Romanians sought employment elsewhere in the EU “openness” where the pay was commensurate with education, training, and experience, leaving a huge vacuum in Romanian key sectors of labor. Why work for 300 euros in Romania when you can get five times the pay (1,500 euros) for the same type job in the European Union and the cost of living is similar?

TO BE CONTINUED

 

Interview Across Cyber Space with Mircea Brenciu Part IV Medicine and Islamic Invasion

On the question of medicine and medical care after decades of communism which ended officially with the Revolution of December 1989, Brenciu explained that Romania now produces doctors on a “conveyor belt.” He admits that a good doctor is not made by textbook theory learned in school, but is born after years of residency training, specializing, and real life experience in the ER of a hospital.

The tragedy starts, he said, when the young resident is thrown in the midst of the hospital drama and realizes that he himself has become a social case, a victim of starvation on his meager income. While a nurse in the European Union, which Romania is a member of, earns about 6,500 lei (1,500 euros) per month, a doctor in Romania earns 1,500 lei per month, approximately four times less.

Under socialism/communism, people walked around the medical professionals with money in envelopes.  Extra cash for expected bribes sped up test results, X-rays, helped jump waiting lines, and gave patients extra much-needed and speedier medical attention, prevented infections, and perhaps insured survivability. Doctors accepted the bribes because their pay was so low. Everyone earned equal pay and experienced the same miserable standard of living, regardless of years of training, effort, and education.

Overcoming the problems associated with decades of totalitarian socialism/communism has not been easy. Accepting bribes and corruption across the board are still the norm. Even though medical care is socialized and free, people still pay doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel in order to expedite their tests, care, and treatment. There are private clinics but fees are potentially higher than the bribes.

Under such low current pay and demoralizing conditions, it is no surprise that a chronic crisis of medical personnel overwhelms the recovery system and the establishment of well-organized and timely health care. And the government in Bucharest does not seem to make much difference since the “command buttons are in Brussels.” The Romanians’ plans for the future do not seem to coincide with the plans of the technocrats from Brussels, added Brenciu.

Dr. Arafat, a naturalized Romanian, organized what most considered an exceptional service that was highly necessary in the medical chaos – SMURD, an acronym for the Emergency Medical Services in Romania. This service is a model of organization, efficiency, and necessity.

On the question of the Muslim invasion of Europe, Brenciu admitted that the Old Continent is finding itself again in the unenvied position of battlefield for the clash of civilizations. “Angela Merkel was not afraid to receive in the beautiful, liberal, and multicultural Germany one million Islamists, of which at least 5% could be terrorists with proper papers.”

Brenciu added that the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington brought attention to this inevitable phenomenon for the European society. The clash of civilization is a post-Cold War era hypothesis that supports the idea that people’s cultural and religious identities will be a major source of conflict. Huntington proposed this idea in a 1992 lecture at the American Enterprise Institute. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

Setting aside the humanitarian aspect of this invasion and petitions for political and economic asylum, Brenciu believes that “accepting to be invaded in good conscience by cohorts of people with foreign traditions, culture, schooling, and especially religion, by hundreds of thousands of individuals terrorized by war, poverty, and the devastating and merciless Islamism, seems to be a form of madness bordering on treason.”

In his opinion, Angela Merkel, with her exaggerated and programmed tolerance for the refugees of Islam, will compromise the European Union, which will fold in the face of huge pressure of the member states, forced to accept unwillingly thousands and thousands of hungry, lawless, and savage refugees. Additionally, Germany will be gripped by national despair.

What will Merkel do to “attenuate the fantastic pressure of this human ballast which materialized suddenly and without logic?” She will probably “force the small states of Central and Eastern Europe, EU members, to receive a large portion of these unfortunate “impoverished” who paid heavy fees [where did they get so much money, he wonders] to cross many borders and thousands of kilometers to come to the Promised Land, Germany.”

Romania was asked initially to accept two thousand immigrants but President Johannis negotiated later to accept forty-five hundred. Following the visit of the “technocrat premier Ciolos in Germany in January 2016, we must now think of a number of refugees much, much larger, a number that will likely be either secret or falsified publicly.”

What shocks Brenciu is that, despite the sacrifices Romanians have made across the centuries to preserve the “Christian spirit, they are now infected quietly by Islam in unknown proportions by the very European institutions which should have defended Christianity and the doctrine of a free and democratic Europe.”

Brenciu did not speak in a discriminatory vein; he referred to the Islamic world that must respect its geographic boundaries and the boundaries, cultures, lands, human rights, and religions of other peoples.

TO BE CONTINUED

Interview Across Cyber Space with Mircea Brenciu - Part III Standard of Living

Life in general has improved for Romanians. They can now travel freely in the country and move across international borders with ease.  They have freedom of political and artistic expression, freedom of assembly, unlimited Internet access, plenty of trashy television but also good educational programming, public information, easier access to medical care and better quality care, the right to own private property, professional opportunities, the right to go to college, even private ones, and many other freedoms the West had taken for granted. The failed European style multiculturalism, sexual freedoms/perversions, and drug use have arrived as well.

Food is probably the most beneficial improvement in the lives of Romanians – it is available everywhere and there is no need to stand in endless lines to leave empty-handed as was the case during the communist regime. People are no longer faced with having to repair their shoes from year to year because they could not buy new ones. Grocery stores display an abundance of food, not just one solitaire salami in the window. Pharmacy shelves are no longer empty and drugs are available. Fast communication and modern transportation are now a breeze even in the most isolated corners of the country.

Brenciu described the standard of living and the buying power of the Romanian citizen who must live on a minimum net salary of $232 a month, about 1050 lei. According to economists, the median net salary for the country is 1,600 lei a month, $384. Yet prices for goods and services are 90 percent in line with prices across Europe. How are Romanians expected to survive under such conditions and unfair disparity? Even though Romania has joined the European Union in 2007, life is much harder than in the other EU members where salaries are much higher and in proportion to prices.

Not one political leader has succeeded in 26 years after the fall of communism, Brenciu added, to increase the Romanians’ standards of living to at least the minimum level of their European Union brethren.

The fact that people expect politicians to have solutions for their problems is quite telling. It is an indication that decades of communism have brainwashed the citizenry into believing that solutions to their problems come from big or bigger government’s intrusion into everyone’s lives.

What is to blame for the current unresolved economic disparity? Incompetence and corruption across the board at the state level are significant, however, even more important, in Brenciu’s view, are the politics of other foreign governments, of multinational corporations, and of strategies to undermine the interests of the Romanian people in order to subjugate a small country with yet unexploited natural resources. “Onerous patrimonial and business interests supersede the interests of the Romanian people.”

In his opinion, the Romanian population, after decades of tyrannical communism, has learned to survive in a harsh environment and to live with very little and quite poorly, but the younger generation does not seem so eager to be marginalized at the periphery of the globalized political system.

There are many foreign entities, Brenciu explained, who salivate at the prospect of dividing the country and claiming parts, they think, are rightfully theirs. “The Hungarians have exophthalmic eyes for Transylvania; Europe is thinking out-loud how they can round up all the gypsies into the Baragan Fields, and the Moldovans on the Russian side of the Prut River dream of an illusory Big Moldova. Even Bulgarians are not too relaxed about northern Dobrogea.”

The European Union has had to deal with Greece and its potential exodus from the EU called Grexit. The technocrats in Brussels “calmed the waters” with billions of euros in funds that are helping the Greeks continue their socialist spending. Brenciu thought that “Romania might follow the same path if EU does not take rapid measures to increase the average pay for Romanians, even though they would have to break the rules of economic development.”

Brenciu reminded us that Germany was the beneficiary of the Marshall Plan after WWII, which saved the Germans from an “existential impasse.”  He argued, “Romania was in a real war, longer and more criminal than Germany’s but nobody took this fact into account. What was communism if not a war of life and death of an entire nation? Why does EU not organize a system for Romanians, similar to the Marshall Plan, without so many conditions and strings attached?” He semi-answered his own question when he described how Holland opposed Romania’s entry into the Schengen Zone because Romania refused the indefinite concession of its main port, Constanta.

What seems to be Romania’s salvation at the moment, he said, is the fact that Romania is located strategically at the confluence of the Christian West and the Islamic Orient and the United States is taking a keen interest in this strategic location.

During the fifth decade of the 20^th century, heroic anti-communist, anti-Bolshevik resistance fighters hid in the Carpathian mountains, waiting for the American troops to save them. American soldiers never arrived but they are here now, strengthening the buffer zone between Christianity and Islam. It is a blessing, Brenciu added, that “American strategic interests are converging perfectly with Romanian interests” and the ties to Washington are stronger than ever.

Brenciu believed that Europe, with its culture and enlightenment, the center of human civilization on earth, owes a debt of gratitude to the “poor Romanians who never betrayed common European and Christian values and were satisfied with very little in order to survive as shields in the face of so many barbaric invasions.”

He concluded, “Europe should bow its head in respect and should produce urgently and with love, the fraternal and just reparations to a people who defended with their absolute poverty, the splendor of a narcissistic and profoundly selfish civilization.”

As a former Iron Curtain nation, Romania started its road to democracy and to a free market economy at a distinct disadvantage when compared to other former communist Soviet satellite nations. Ceausescu made it a point of pride that Romania should not owe money to foreign lenders; he saw himself as a ‘maverick’ president. He paid all loans quickly by taking away much needed food and funds earmarked for improving the lives of Romanians who were forced to survive in abject poverty, with no decent food, meager rations, no basic necessities, little heat, and intermittent water and electricity.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

 

Interview across Cyber Space

“Truth is sleepwalking with a hole in its head.”  - Mircea Brenciu

Mircea Brenciu Photo: Wikipedia

I met Mircea Brenciu on a sunny day in May 2015 in the downtown park as he was delivering a speech in Brasov on Heroes Day. The background of the rally was a huge cross erected in the memory of those who lost their lives during the Revolution of December 1989, when dozens of people were shot in the anti-communist revolution. Some of those young people were buried not far behind the cross.

I don’t believe in coincidence – there is a higher purpose for this seemingly chance encounter on such an important day in Romania’s history.

I interviewed Brenciu that day and again, more recently, across cyber space. Mircea Brenciu, born and raised in Brasov, educated in Economics and mass communication, is a writer, poet, founder, co-founder, and editor of many publications and organizations, including the prestigious Journalism Society of Romania, author of many books and recipient of numerous local and national awards. He comes from a family of scholars with a long history of anti-communist activity. He and Mircea Sevaciuc proclaimed November 15 the Anti-Communism Fight Day.

My theory is that a “fundamental transformation” is currently sweeping the globe and this massive change is not necessarily in the best interest of the citizens of various countries nor desired or initiated by them.

I asked Brenciu about the political power in Romania. Those currently in power and the opposition form a “common front” against the executive, the president and the prime minister, he wrote. Even though there are numerous political parties, they have no real power, he said, they make up a “decorative Parliament” reminiscent of the Stalinist era, easily recognized by those who were unfortunate enough to have lived in that dark period of history and who do not belong to the “Facebook generation.” Brenciu calls this type of political power, “artisan politics.”

The majority of the members of Parliament are just voting machines, Brenciu said, with salaries and inflated official bonuses much higher than what the average citizen earns. There are a few among them who have amassed huge fortunes, taking advantage of the traffic of influence among those who have the power to make decisions, who received bribes in exchange for rubber stamp approvals, for faux public auctions, and even for political and judiciary decisions.

Using a hyperbole to describe the corruption, Brenciu believes that the majority in this category of influence trafficking belonged to the former President Basescu regime. He was “a retired sailor who reached Romania’s deck with the goal of transforming it into a pirate ship.” The Romanian people were and are still taking all the risks while floating on this boat called country that is taking on water really fast.

“Our government is named by Brussels through the strange intervention of President Johannis, resulting in a total loss of state sovereignty. The government answers to Brussels. I spoke about the dissolution of Romania in my book, Cardinal Dialogues, Brenciu said. One of my interlocutors, Ilie Serbanescu, a political and economic analyst, had introduced for the first time the idea that Romania had become a colony.

The technocrats have enabled this colonization which took place under the pretext of eliminating corruption and moving the country towards a European way.  Hired by various non-profits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and financed by the ‘generous and dispassionate’ George Soros, the technocrats were principal enablers.” Brenciu wondered why Soros was connected to the interests of the Old Continent. Soros seems to be interested in many continents but particularly North America and Europe.

I asked Brenciu who elects such corrupt members of Parliament and if there is a connection to the former communists who went underground, disappeared, or died during or shortly after the tyrannical couple, the Ceausescus, were executed on Christmas Day 1989.

The crypto-communist period of the children of former Securitate members and communist apparatchiks has somewhat passed in great measure by biology; those were mostly present during the regimes of Ion Iliescu and Emil Constantinescu who ruled following the 1989 Revolution.

Crypto-communists secretly sympathize with communism or are secretly members of the Communist party if the communist party is allowed to exist. In the U.S., crypto-communists have come out of the shadows and engage in overt anti-American activities, demonstrations, civil disobedience, and destruction of property without any fear of prosecution or retribution. There are ample examples where communist minority groups funded by Soros have burned, looted, and pillaged businesses in several towns and neighborhoods while the police watched.

But there is a more nefarious group at play in Romania called “intellectuals,” added Brenciu, with Masters and Doctorates purchased with cash in dubious subjects such as political and military strategy, former and current officers, faux journalists who shape the political opinion with their inaccurate reporting by deriding and annihilating patriotism, faith, and hope in a nationalistic future.  These manipulators, whether they are found in politics, justice, business, mass-media, or in pseudo-cultural circles, are the actual millionaires and billionaires who are sinking Romania into the abyss of the Mariana Trench, to use another maritime hyperbole, said Brenciu.

Brenciu concluded that talented, honest, and sincere opinion makers who are not financially motivated or bribed are usually marginalized, eliminated, and compromised. “Truth is sleepwalking with a hole in its head.”

The one world government elites with the help of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and European Union (EU) are busy incorporating and bringing in line as many countries as possible under their global communism umbrella.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

"Combating Hate in Europe" Forum

From left to right: Fred Hiatt, Washington Post moderator, Peter Wettig, German Ambassador, Gerard Araud, French Ambassador, and David O'Sullivan, EU Ambassador to U.S. Photo: Ileana Johnson 2016

Despite the snowy conditions in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum held a program on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, January 27, 2016 on the topic of “Combating Hate in Europe.” http://www.ushmm.org/online/watch/index.html

In advertising the forum, the museum explained the importance of such a program.
“Around the world, antisemitism, religious persecution, and violent extremism are on the rise, and each threatens the stability and freedoms that democratic leaders are working to preserve.”

The Museum’s intent was to examine how the lessons of the Holocaust could help “combat extremism and also stand up to antisemitism and violence against religious minorities.”

Ambassadors were to address what can be done to confront these challenges today, “what their governments are doing and still need to do to educate young people, counter hate speech, and create economic opportunity while also maintaining secure borders and offering safe harbor to refugees.”

Speakers included Gérard Araud, Ambassador of France to the United States, David O'Sullivan, Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, and Peter Wittig, Ambassador of Germany to the United States. Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post was the moderator.

Dr. Alfred Munzer

The special unannounced guest and speaker was a Holocaust survivor, Dr. Alfred Münzer.

In her opening remarks, the museum representative described the day as a “day for education and reflection,” keeping in mind the social unrest in Europe, the fear on the ground, the resentment, xenophobia, hate speech, vicious, sexual attacks, and the treacherous slide into the worst extremism, the rise of terror groups and of government leaders who engage in hate speech. She described the rise of radical groups in Poland, “which are bolder and stronger than ever,” and the “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-NATO, anti-Europe feelings, “the unbridled threats and actions against minorities; the anti-s have taken over the global discourse.”

Fred Hiatt remarked that America spoke with “moral arrogance” about Europe but “nobody is in a position to lecture anybody else when we are talking about these topics.” He mentioned how dismayed many were at the level of intolerance in parts of our presidential debates, “the ease with which other human beings were dehumanized.”

Peter Wettig explained that his country, Germany, has a moral responsibility to never forget the Holocaust, and that shapes its foreign policy, especially towards Israel. Anti-Semitism is not tolerated – “my country has strict laws on incitement, on hate speech, and on Holocaust denial which are punishable under the law, under the full force of the law.”

Those who decide what constitutes hate speech are lawyers and judges, an obviously subjective decision. One of the panelists explained that, in order to be hate speech, it must “incite” violence. I thought violence in general is caused by hate, an “intense and passionate dislike” of something or someone, by revenge, or insanity.

What is then “hate speech” as determined by progressive scholars. There is a legal and a dictionary definition.

“In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”

In the dictionary, it is “speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

By this definition, most Democrats should be fined for “hate speech” and inciting riots and violence. But we do have freedom of speech, particularly unpleasant and offensive speech.

The audience expected the forum to address “the growing concern of most of Europe and many here in this country of the virulent spread of hatred meted out by the growing Muslim population in their host countries.” Instead, “the general position taken was that the rest of us aren’t tolerant enough of their customs and religious ideas.”

According to Chriss Rainey, “the discussion was presented in a panel of like-minded socialists who represented their socialist governments. I don’t think anyone has the answers yet for the Muslim infiltration of Europe and the western world, but to think we can do nothing but increase tolerance is irrational.”

Rainey continued, “Did it ever occur to anyone that the repeated mention of Republican candidates running for office, Trump in particular, was offensive and bordering on hate speech? Or is it only acceptable to speak your mind and express your sincere beliefs if you are Democrat or a socialist?”

The German ambassador Wittig expressed his country’s position of respect for Jewish groups, for Israel’s right to exist, and his country’s stance of intolerance towards any form of anti-Semitism. He almost foolishly insisted that anti-Semitism, “if it existed, was a German problem and not a threat from the million Muslims they have invited and allowed into the country.”

An interesting word used by several people on the panel raised my radar, “stakeholders,” a word that points to the one world governance socialist-speak coming from the United Nations.

Ambassador Gerard Araud focused his remarks on the French secularist society which “has just opened its doors to a very religious body of immigrants who do not share a common morality with host countries.” Reeducating and training the immigrants to the French way of life was presented in such a positive light as if it was remotely possible. Never mind the two massacres in Paris in 2015; that must have been just an exception to the peacefulness and good intent of the new comers to build a progressive life in France.

Chriss Rainey believes that “Araud’s remarks reflect an attitude that they don’t like religion because it puts barriers on human progress. They have ideas of right and wrong and anyone will be trained in the proper conduct of a citizen. The French expect to do this not through any religious body, which has been the source of morality for centuries, but from within state run schools that are set up to mold the next generation, outside the loving eye of home and family. But then, how could it be otherwise since they have basically destroyed the family already and the only thing left to train children—what few of them there are, is the state.”

Ambassador David O’Sullivan, representing EU, a house of cards threatened by the possible exit of Greece and U.K., explained his organization’s interest in controlling the 28 member-states to make sure they stay in line and preserve the EU. To succeed, EU bureaucrats must make sure any nationalist idea is rejected as dangerous, racist, hateful, xenophobic, backwards, and simple-minded. Anyone who opposes global government control is uneducated.

O’Sullivan expressed his disdain for Donald Trump, a presidential candidate who loves his country and speaks openly about protecting Americans’ rights to preserve their way of life. Ambassador O’Sullivan added that he had faith in the American voters to do the right thing, meaning, to vote for some other candidate who shares his progressive, globalist control views.

During the panel discussion and Q&A, the bashing of Donald Trump was almost a lait-motif. Trump voters were derided as “nativists,” “lower class” and “uneducated” for considering a vote for such a persona-non-grata whom the Labor Party in the U.K. contemplated banning. The two remaining ambassadors expressed their faith in the American voters that they would do the right thing and vote as the elites and the media desire.

As Chriss Rainey so aptly put it, “Could it be that the remarks about our conservative candidates that we heard mentioned again and again, are merely a reflection of their own fear of a growing conservative movement in Europe?”

After the conclusion of the panel discussion and Q & A, a Dutch survivor of the Holocaust, Dr. Alfred Münzer, made brief remarks about how he survived “the fury of anti-Semitism that had engulfed Europe,” having been hidden and protected “by a Dutch family and their Muslim housekeeper.” But his older sisters, 6 and 8 years old, did not survive. They were turned in to the authorities and taken to Auschwitz. “The father of a Catholic family whose wife had taken them in did not like Jewish children.” Sadly, he explained, the murder of six million Jews did not end the anti-Semitism that is very much alive today.

I was surprised that not once the real culprits of anti-Semitism and perpetrators of heinous crimes today were not mentioned. Yet every panelist and the moderator repeated ad nauseam the idea that somehow, conservatives and nationalists in Europe and around the globe who disagree with progressive goals and ideals are “far right loons” who deserve derision, contempt, and legal punishment of hate crimes.  

Freedom of speech must fall under progressive censorship law; eager judges should eliminate the right to speak and think which is divergent from the ruling elites. Working hand in glove with social media, especially Facebook, these European bureaucrats and Democrats want to nip in the bud any resistance against their speech dictates.

Unlike Europe, which is a basket case of linguistic Tower of Babel, of broke socialist states thanks to their open borders, multi-culturalism and diversity at all costs, most Americans like their borders, their sovereignty, and their culture, and would like to keep it this way.

Americans do not want to lose their national identity to hostile, invading cultures that do not wish to assimilate but desire to change the demographics of the host country, its history, and replace the local customs and religions with Islam. It seems that the ruling progressives and invading Islamists, who rape and pillage across Europe, make strange bed fellows. The media and the socialist authorities are on high alert to hide the chaos.

The panelists spent more time protecting minorities that actually engage in hate speech, incitement, and murder, while condemning the “hate speech” coming from the “far right” fringe and those so intolerant and disagreeable with the progressive open border, destroy western civilization agenda.

No mention was made of all the violence, chaos, and rapes committed by the military age Muslim refugees harbored in ever-increasing numbers and welcomed with open arms by EU leaders determined to change the arrogant and intolerant face and demographics of our western civilization.

Unfortunately, thanks to progressive tyrants, career politicians in Washington who only represent the interests of their capitalist cronies, billionaires, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lobbying around the world with coffers full of grant money, the fix is in for European style global socialism.

Further reading sources cited by the Holocaust Museum:

*Antisemitism in Germany. Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that antisemitism is "more widespread than we imagine." http://www.jta.org/2016/01/24/news-opinion/world/merkel-anti-semitism-in-germany-more-widespread-than-we-can-imagine?utm_source=Newsletter+subscribers&utm_campaign=e4d5d21674-Daily_Briefing_1_25_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-e4d5d21674-25299385

*Extremism in Poland. Our opening speaker and USHMM Council member, Amy Kaslow recently reported on the growth of nationalist movements in Eastern Europe.
http://fortune.com/author/amy-kaslow/

*Holocaust Remembrance events in Paris. To mark the global Day of Remembrance, the Museum and UNESCO Paris will co-host a series of events and open an important exhibition on propaganda, called State of Deception.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/oppose-new-propaganda-of-hatred-by-irina-bokova-and-sara-bloomfield-2016-01