Monday, June 4, 2018
Saving Western Culture : Will the Last EU Elite to Leave Please Turn Out the Lights
TODAY'S NEWS IS THAT SLOVENIA JUST ELECTED A POPULIST MAJORITY. And another European Union member state joins the anti-EU conservative wave washing over European politics. • • • SLOVENIA ELECTS ANTI-IMMIGRATION POPULISTS. The Guardian reproted it on Sunday evening and confirmed it on Monday morning : "Slovenian nationalist party set for power after winning election; President poised to allow Janez Janša to form government after his party wins 25% of vote." • As happened in Italy, the president of Slovenia says he will offer a mandate to form the government to a populist opposition leader whose party won the most votes in Sunday’s parliamentary elections. President Borut Pahor said Janez Janša should be given a chance to gather a parliamentary majority after his anti-immigration Slovenian Democratic (SDS) party won 25% of the vote. Turnout was 51.5%. • With 25% of the 90-seat parliament, the SDS, according to the Guardian : "would need to link up with at least two other parties to gain a majority. Most other parties that have made it into the 90-member parliament have ruled out a coalition with Janša because of his extremist views. They are more likely to form a centrist coalition." • President Pahor told the Delo newspaprer : "I am not obliged to award the mandate to the relative winner of the election, but I will do so because I strongly believe in democracy.” • But, the Guardian says observers in Slovenia are predicting long and tough post-election talks because nine parties have entered the parliament, including the far-right National party. Here are the election results : "The anti-establishment List of Marjan Šarec (LMS) trailed in second place with just over 12%, preliminary returns showed. The Social Democrats, the Modern center party of the outgoing prime minister, Miro Cerar, and the left all received around 9%." • Slovenia, once part of Yugoslavia and the birthplace of US First Lady Melania Trump. Slovenia is a beautiful almost alpine country known for its mountains, ski resorts, lakes, sailing nad wines. It borders on Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Italy and the Adriatic Sea. Slovenia joined the European Union in 2004 and has used the Euro as its official currency since 2007. • The BBC reported : "On Sunday evening as the results became clear he [Janša] said his party's 'door for talks and coalitions is open' to all other parties. 'We are ready to start serious talks based on the program we have been working hard on,' he said....The only party that has so far said it will work with the SDS is the center-right Nova Slovenija which won 7.1% and has seven seats. That could leave the anti-establishment LMS, which will have 13 seats, with a crucial role to play, correspondents say." • In what has become a recurring theme of populist parties in the EU, the SDS argues that money spent on migrants would be better used for the country's security forces. Janša says he wants Slovenia to "become a country that will put the wellbeing and security of Slovenians first." • The European media insist on calling these populist parties "right-wing" or "extremist," terms meant to cast doubt on their democratic principles and agendas. Janša gets the "extremist" label because he is an ally of Hungary’s anti-immigration prime minister, Viktor Orbán. Note how the Guardian describes what happened in Slovenia : "His election success mirrors the growth of rightwing populism in central and eastern Europe following a large influx of migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Voters in a number of eastern member states of the European Union -- notably Hungary and Poland -- have turned to parties that oppose the bloc’s plans for countries to accept asylum seekers under a quota system. The SDS is firmly opposed to such quotas and said most of the money used to support them should be diverted to the security forces." • The UK Express Monday report on the election in Slovenia suggests that winner Janez Janša is not an extremist at all : "Mr Jansa’s drive for power comes almost 30 years to the day after his arrest for spreading military secrets which played a part in the break-down of Communist Yugoslavia, which made up a cluster of eastern European countries including Slovenia. Mr Jansa, who has a liberal background, won his party seats in parliament after getting tips from Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban’s political playbook. The SDS leader’s success with Slovenia’s two million voters further excels the country’s growth of right-wing populism and drive for tougher anti-immigration rules....Some 500,000 migrants from the Middle East and Africa passed through Slovenia during 2015." • • • ITALY PAYS THE PRICE FOR EU OPEN BORDERS. Gatestone Institute's Soenen Kern took another look at the Italian elections in a Monday article. Kern noted several factors that influenced Italian voters : "An estimated 700,000 migrants have arrived in Italy during the past five years. — International Organization for Migration...."There are not enough homes or jobs for Italians, let alone for half the African continent." — Matteo Salvini, Interior Minister, Italy....This law [Article 10 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights] effectively prevents Italy and other EU members from deporting migrants to most countries in the Moslem world." • With the odds stacked against them so heavily by the EU, Italians heeded the advice of Italy's new interior minister, Matteo Salvini, who vowed : "Open doors in Italy for the right people and a one-way ticket out for those who come here to make trouble and think that we will provide for them. One of our top priorities will be deportation." Salvini said in a Saturday rally : "The party is over for illegal immigrants. They will have to pack their bags, in a polite and calm manner, but they will have to go. Refugees escaping from war are welcome, but all others must leave." On Sunday, Kern reported : "Salvini visited Sicily, one of the main landing points in Europe for migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa. He said : 'Enough of Sicily being the refugee camp of Europe. I will not stand by and do nothing while there are landings after landings of migrants. We need deportation centers. There are not enough homes or jobs for Italians, let alone for half the African continent. We need to use common sense.' Salvini also accused Tunisian authorities of deliberately sending criminals to Italy : 'Tunisia is a free and democratic country that is not exporting gentlemen but often willingly exports convicts....it does not seem to me that there are wars, pestilence or famine in Tunisia.' " • Statistics are stark reminders of the immigration bind the EU has put Italy in, Kern points out : "Italy is the main European gateway for migrants arriving by sea: 119,369 arrived by sea in 2017 and 181,436 in 2016, according to the International Organization for Migration. An estimated 700,000 migrants have arrived in Italy during the past five years. Italy has been the main point of entry to Europe since the EU-Turkey migrant deal, signed in March 2016, shut off the route from Turkey to Greece, at one time the preferred point of entry to Europe for migrants from Asia and the Middle East...Since the beginning of 2018, more than 13,000 migrants have arrived in Italy from Libya. Those numbers are expected to increase during the summer as the weather improves. But, Italy deported only 6,514 migrants in 2017, and 5,817 in 2016. The new government has pledged to speed up deportations by converting migrant reception centers into deportation centers. Deportations, however, are expensive and complex. According to Italian law, at least two agents must escort each deportee in an elaborate operation. The newspaper La Repubblica described a recent deportation operation of 29 Tunisians, who were escorted on an aircraft chartered from Bulgaria by 74 government agents, including doctors, nurses, armed police and unarmed plainclothes officers, at a total cost of €115,000 ($135,000), or €3,965 per deportee. At this rate, the new government's pledge to deport 500,000 migrants would cost Italian taxpayers nearly €2 billion ($2.3 billion)." • In addition to the financial costs, Italy faces legal hurdles that make mass deportations nearly impossible. Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states : "No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This law effectively prevents Italy and other EU members from deporting migrants to most countries in the Moslem world. • Italy's geographic location means that it has borne disproportionate responsibility for illegal immigration from Africa and the Middle East, but Salvini says other EU member states resist changes that would require them to share the burden : "They want to weigh down the Mediterranean countries, such as Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Spain, giving us thousands of more migrants for a period ten years." EU law currently requires member states to be financially responsible for migrants arriving in their countries for a period of ten years. • • • NORTHERN EUROPE ATTACKS THE SOUTH. Kern gives examples of pro-EU, pro-mass migration and pro-multiculturalism media outlets have gone into attack mode in an effort to undermine the new Italian government. • "The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel published a cover which featured a fork of spaghetti with one piece dangling as a noose : 'Italy is destroying itself -- and dragging down Europe with it.' It wrote, in apocalyptic terms : 'The EU must adopt a united stance on Donald Trump, whose misguided policies threaten both Europe's security and prosperity. Trump is forcing Europe into a trade war and, worse yet, he threatens to scrap the postwar international order that enabled the Europeans to find their place in the world -- through trade and the structures of the World Trade Organization and the security it found in the form of NATO. BUT, how can the EU wage a trade war if Italy threatens to spiral into chaos? At a time when the EU could be proving itself as an alternative to Trump's unilateralism...Europe may instead be facing months, if not years, of squabbling over a possible bailout for Italy....If this country teeters, it will shake the entire architecture of the European Union. The Italy crisis is a convergence of the two greatest challenges facing the EU : the economic threat to the Eurozone and the erosion of shared values and norms. If the populists now govern in Italy, the country could steer itself on a course of constant confrontation with Brussels -- by for example, expressing its solidarity on key issues with right-wing populists in France, Austria or Finland or with the EU-critical governments in Hungary and Poland....The revival of nationalism in Europe, particularly in Italy, is bad news for the Continent. If the EU ever had one great, overarching goal, then it was to counter national self-interest with the vision of a transnational community of values. What will hold Europe together if that foundation is shaken?" • Der Spiegel is presenting a deep but unspoken fear in Europe when it says that "nationalism" will re-awaken. Der Spiegel means German nationalism, but nobody actually wants to talk about the fears that created the European Union, fears that Germany would once more, as it did twice in the 20th century, create a modern version of the the National Socialist Party and again devastate Europe as it did in World War II. Nobody asks the fundamental question -- Why should all of Europe be shackled to an EU that tramples on its nation states' cultures and democratic processes just to hold Germany's ultra-aggressive tendencies in check. Why let Germany rule Europe in order to keep Germany from conquering Europe? Perhaps populists will find the courage to address these questions directly. • • • WILL THE LAST EU ELITIST TO LEAVE PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS. That's pretty much what it feels like in Europe right now. It is again the Gatestone Institute that tells us what is really happening in Europe. Soeren Kern reported last Friday that Denmark has becomes the sixth European country to enact a ban on Islamic full-face veils. Jacques Myard, a former conservative MP who supported the ban in France, says : "The face is your passport. When you refuse me to see you, I am a victim." • The Danish Parliament agreed and passed a ban on Islamic full-face veils in public spaces. The new law, sponsored by Denmark's center-right government, and backed by the Social Democrats and the Danish People's Party, was passed on May 31 by 75 votes to 30. • Kern reports : "Denmark becomes the sixth European country to enact such a ban, after France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Austria. Bavaria in Germany, Catalonia in Spain and Ticino in Switzerland also have imposed regional burka bans, while Norway has tabled a law to ban burkas in public schools. The bans seemingly seek to restrict the proliferating expression of political Islam in Europe. The Danish burka ban was first proposed by the Danish People's Party in 2009. MP Martin Henriksen said that burkas and niqabs 'are incompatible with Danish culture.' He added : 'It has taken almost ten years to convince a majority in the parliament that we should ban burka and niqab in public spaces. Now that the ban has been approved, Parliament should, in the opinion of the Danish People's Party, continue to work on additional measures against the Islamization of Denmark.' " • True to form, Amnesty International said the new law was a "discriminatory violation of women's rights. But, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has twice has ruled that burka bans are legal. • In Denmark, Moslems greeted the new law defiantly : A dozen women dressed in burkas and niqabs sat in the visitor's gallery at the parliament in Copenhagen. "Under no circumstances will I compromise my own principles," said one of them. Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen said that "some people do not want to be a part of Danish society and want to create parallel societies with their own norms and rules." This, he said, proved the need for a burka ban : "We want to live in a society where we can see each other in the eyes." • • • BRITAIN FUMBLES THE IMMIGRANT BALL BIGTIME. "...the mass rape of local girls....The barbarism, which was carried out by local men of what is erroneously described as 'Asian' origin, included branding one of the girls with an 'M' on her body. The abuser's name was 'Mohammed' and the Mohammed in question wanted people to know that this girl 'belonged' to him and as such was his property. Others among the hundreds of local victims endured equally horrific abuse....Among the stories that came out in the 2013 court case at the Old Bailey was that one of the girls was drugged and raped by a gang of men. She managed to escape and hail a taxi which drove her to the care home she lived in. Staff at the care home refused to pay the taxi fare, so the taxi driver took the girl straight back to the property from which she had just escaped, where the gang then raped her again. This is not a nightmare set in some far distant land...but a story set in leafy Oxfordshire. Families of some of the abused girls related that they had tried consistently to raise the alarm over what was happening to their daughters but that every door of the state was closed in their faces." • That's how Gatestone Institute's Douglas Murray reported on Sunday about "Rape Gangs: A Story Set in Leafy Oxfordshire." Murray says : "Since the arrest of Tommy Robinson on May 25, the presence generally -- and incorrectly -- referred to as 'Asian grooming gangs' has been back in the news. This has re-ignited a debate about whether victims are getting justice and whether perpetrators are encountering it. In all this at least one key element is missing. What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities to go on, doing nothing to stop them?....It is worth asking if any of these people's lives, career paths, or even pension plans were ever remotely affected by their proven failure to confront one of the greatest evils to have gone on in Britain. That is the mass rape of young girls motivated by adults propelled by (among much else) racism, religiosity, misogyny and class contempt." • Another Gateway Institute writer, Bruce Bawer, tied the grooming gang atrocities to the question of press freedom in the UK today, using the arrest and jailing of Tommy Robinson, the private blogger reporter who was trying to report on the trial of one of the grooming gangs in Leeds in northern England when he was arrested while his streaming was being watched live on Facebook by supporters around the world. Bawer asked last weekend : "Robinson remains in jail for daring to exercise his free speech, and what the mainstream media have won back is the right to resume repeating their lockstep lies about who he is and what he stands for....The Evening Standard 's Tom Powell wrote that the Robinson affair 'has triggered a furious reaction from his fans.' In fact, it seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country." • In America, Robert Spencer warned that "the darkness of Sharia-compliant totalitarianism descends upon the UK." Thomas Lifson asked : "Is Britain lost to the ranks of free nations? The land that bequeathed the world the Magna Carta and the 'mother of parliaments' is indulging in totalitarianism with its handling of Tommy Robinson, a famous political activist agitating about the threat of radical Islam, and attempting to report on the trial of a Moslem 'grooming gang' that allegedly preyed on young English girls, forcing them into prostitution." • Douglas Murray is unrelenting : "Whereas Robinson was arrested for 'breaching the peace' -- 'apparently British police code for 'offending Islam,' noted Spencer wryly -- and was immediately thereafter found guilty of 'contempt of court' and hustled off to the hoosegow, the savages whose case he was covering have apparently been on trial for several weeks now. They face multiple charges, including rape, racially aggravated assault, and inciting a child into prostitution. One of the defendants is accused of 51 separate counts, including 21 counts of rape. During the weeks of their trial they have, of course, had legal representation and have apparently been allowed to go home at night....Meanwhile, Robinson remains in jail for daring to exercise his free speech, and what the mainstream media have won back is the right to resume repeating their lockstep lies about who he is and what he stand for." • In another article, Bruce Bawer noted : "As any viewer of British TV news knows, a 'trained professional journalist' in Britain observes all kinds of rules of professional conduct : he calls Moslems 'Asians,' he describes any critic of Islam, or anyone who attends a rally protesting the unjust incarceration of a critic of Islam, as a member of the 'far right,' and he identifies far-left smear machines as 'anti-racist groups.' " • Bawer points out -- and I can attest because some of my British friends have politely accused me the same thing -- that non-British do not understand the "the exquisite nuances of British jurisprudence, specifically the kingdom's laws about the coverage of trials -- for if we did understand, we would recognize that Robinson's summary arrest and imprisonment did not represent an outrageous denial of his freedom of speech, his right to due process, and his right to an attorney of his own choosing, but were, in fact, thoroughly appropriate actions intended to ensure the integrity of the trial he was covering. Those of us outside the UK who think that British freedom has been compromised and that the British system of law has been cynically exploited for ignoble purposes are, apparently, entirely mistaken; on the contrary, we are instructed, Britain's police are continuing to conduct themselves in a responsible matter, Britain's courts are still models of probity, and Britain's real journalists (not clumsy, activist amateurs like Robinson) persist in carrying out their role with extraordinary professionalism and propriety, obeying to the letter the eminently sensible rules that govern reportage about court cases in the land of Magna Carta." • The grooming gang press gags is remarkably egregious, even for the British. Bawer quotes one journalist : "It is true that in previous years the UK police wrongly hesitated to prosecute Moslem grooming gangs. And it was a shocking scandal, which the Daily Mail did much to expose and excoriate. But that has changed." Bawer's reaction : "Hesitated? Changed? Talk about English understatement. For decades -- not years -- police, social workers, local politicians, and journalists all over Britain knew that thousands of non-Moslem girls throughout the country were being repeatedly raped by Moslem gangs. The perpetrators were not arrested -- partly because police and others in authority were apparently terrified of being called racists. In addition, they might have feared a massive explosion of Moslem outrage....Instead of arresting rapists, the police -- in at least a couple of cases -- have actually arrested people who did nothing other than to try to rescue their children from the clutches of rapists....to suggest that the policies that made these atrocities possible have changed -- or that anywhere near all of the Moslem rapists are now facing trial or already behind bars -- is an absurd and grotesque lie....One Englishman explained that all those upstanding police and courthouse personnel in his country have 'thoroughly investigated' the grooming-gang cases, and their efforts have involved 'great resources of police time and great expense.' By reporting live on Facebook from outside the courthouse...Robinson risked destroying all their hard work by broadcasting information of which, by law, jurors in this trial, and potential jurors in other rape-gang trials, should be kept unaware. Poppycock....The information he supplied, including the names and ages of the defendants, came straight off the BBC website. The critic...actually argued that Robinson, by reading off all those Moslem names, might have formed unfortunate 'preconceptions' in the minds of potential jurors that would make it impossible for them to give future Moslem defendants a fair trial. Is he suggesting that in order for any of these thugs to get tried fairly, the entire British public should be kept in the dark about the reality of Moslem grooming gangs? 'Robinson was not just on the street, he was sending a running commentary to the internet,' complained one correspondent. 'If any other journalist was found doing that, he or she may also have been sent to prison under a gag order until the trial ends.' " • Think about that. Freedom of the press in the UK does not include the freedom to report criminal cases before a verdict has been reached. Bawer asks : "Does anyone truly believe that some well-known BBC or Sky News talking head would ever have been plucked up from outside the courthouse in Leeds, shoved into a paddywagon, dragged before a judge, and tossed unceremoniously into the clink without so much as being allowed to phone a lawyer?....Some British correspondents also expressed concern that reckless rhetoric about the Robinson case might end up causing 'an insurrection' in Britain, which 'would lead to immense casualties.' News flash : there have already been immense casualties. Question for these critics : Are those child rape victims unreal to you? What about the countless UK victims of female genital mutilation, 'honor' killings, and other 'honor'-related punishments, not to mention various less-than-neighborly activities by Moslem gangs?....if Britain keeps on in the direction it is currently going, the number of casualties will only rise. "Demography is destiny,' as they say. • Bawer says he has been told that "an experienced English lawyer...would have advised" against publishing some passages of his recent articles. Mercifully, not everyone is subject to Britain's increasingly frightening laws. • • • THAT BRINGS US TO AMERICA. Fox News published an Opinion piece on Monday that asked "Why should states that protect illegal immigrants be rewarded with more political power?" Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains : "Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit against the US Census Bureau. If the state wins, it could have major political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political representation in Congress. Alabama is arguing that by including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, the Census Bureau deprives the state -- and other states with low numbers of illegal immigrants -- of representation in the US House of Representatives, as well as votes in the Electoral College that determine who is elected President. Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of counting illegal immigrants in the census gives states that protect them (California, for example) seats and votes they are not entitled to have." • The 14th Amendment provides that representatives in the House “shall be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers,” with the “Numbers” determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State.” Von Spakovsky says : "Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow states to gain a political advantage over other states by flouting federal immigration law. The number of representatives in the House -- 435 -- has been fixed by law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment is 'a zero sum proposition: Each state’s gain is another state’s loss.'....Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and Texas each gained one seat and one vote." As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit : “four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.” • Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. It says this “will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation.” This also violates the “one person, one vote” equal representation standard of the 14th Amendment. • Moreover, argues Alabama, including illegal immigrants in the census “punishes states who do cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the identification and removal” of illegal aliens and will also will likely cause it to lose its fair share of the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the federal government in grants and other funds. • Von Spakovsky says : "The key to Alabama’s case is the definition of 'persons' who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues that the term 'persons' was understood at the 'time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified' to mean the 'inhabitants' of a state.'....The term ‘inhabitant’ did not include unlawful residents because inhabitance was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside.' In other words, 'persons' does not include individuals who are in the US illegally, without the permission of the federal government. • BUT, says von Spakvosky : "The 'Residence' rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated to the state where their 'usual residence' is located, regardless of whether they are legally present. Alabama argues that the rule is unconstitutional, and also claims, the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is 'arbitrary and capricious' and exceeds the Census Bureau’s statutory authority." • The last time the Supreme Court had a significant case involving the census was in 1999 in Department of Commerce v. US House of Representatives. The justices concluded that the Census Bureau had to do an actual count of the population -- it could not use statistical sampling. But, in 2015 the Supreme Court held that states could use total population numbers -- which includes illegal immigrants -- in drawing the boundaries of legislative districts. But, that case was about redistricting, not apportionment. • Whether Alabama wins will largely depend on whether it can convince the Supreme Court -- and in particular its new conservative 5-4 alignment -- that its understanding of the historical definition of "persons” in the apportionment clause of the Constitution is correct. • • • DEAR READERS, that brings us to another similarity between populist parties in Europe and conservatives and Trump Deplorables in the US -- both pay attention to history and its lessons and warnings. Illegal immigrants who are largely Moslem are changing the culture of Europe even faster than the EU is. The enclaves where sharia applies, the no-go zones so hotly denied by EU elites, the increasingly successful forcing of schools, courts and other public institutions to adapt to their food and other religious preferences -- all are examples of Europe slowly sinking into a cultural no-mans-land. The EU elites, like the Progressive Left in the US, attack populists and conservatives -- because EU elites and Progressives have lost their cultural anchor in their wildly overstated effort to open the borders for everyone. It is a Progressive-Globalist denial of culture and of the religious norms that created a great portion of the culture. When Italy demands relief from the influx of illegal immigrants overwhelming its society by electing an anti-immigrant govenrment that has promised that relief, when Slovenia elects a govenrment that puts Slovenia first, when six EU countries ban burkas and other face covers that are seen by radical Islam as requirements for women, when Alabama seeks help from the US federal courts to prevent illegal immigrants from benefitting the states that accept and protect them -- we are witnessing not simply political acts but societal acts meant to save their cultures. Britain is a poster child for the EU's refusal to defend its culture and, in fact, to participate in its destruction. Germany has walked into that trap. France is struggling to save its culture while creating a parallel Moslem culture in France. To want to save a culture that is alive and healthy is neither xenophobic nor racist. It is simply a fact of human societies that they strive to protect their way of life. • If "Demography is Desitny" -- a phrase often attributed to French sociologist and father of positivism Auguste Comte, who lived during the Enlightenment (1798 - 1857) -- then Europe, and especially Germany whose leaders believe that its own people cannot reproduce sufficiently to provide a viable population, is in real trouble because its elite leadership insists on both an internal European blending of cultures that will erase them and because of an open door to immigrants that inevitably will lead to cultural suicide. The US has not reached that point yet and may never because of the unique nature of its 'melting pot' culture, and because, for the moment, America has astrong leader whose policies put America first. But, being aware of the problem and the Progressive Globalists who cause it and striving to retain our cultures as individuals, countries, and western civilization are imperative for the future.