I just returned from a trip to East Africa where I was involved in discussions with several government leaders regarding the refugee crisis, among other issues. The continued flow of immigrants across national borders seeking to reach Europe is declining as colder weather arrives but not as much as in previous years and the migration is expected to surge again in the Spring of 2017, a seemingly never-ending stream of migrants that reflects the economic problems that prevail in much of the continent. Libya continues to be the favored destination as a launching point for Italy.
The officials note that most of those on the move are not legitimate refugees fleeing conflict zones. They are mostly economic immigrants who create problems all along their routes to the north as they are transiting relatively poor countries with little in the way of resources.
The East African governments largely blame the surge taking place over the past two years on European Union policies, which have morphed into a blanket even if reluctant acceptance of what is being described as “humanitarian” assistance even though the migrants are overwhelmingly young males seeking work who regularly cite the belief that if they reach Italy or Greece they will eventually be able to stay in Europe. Many wind up in temporary government run camps before escaping and heading north so the word going back through the grapevine to friends at home is that Europe is now wide open.
Unlike the flaccid Europeans, the North African governments have a much clearer vision of what is occurring and would like to see the European Union pick up the immigrants at sea and immediately return them to their points of embarkation, mostly in Libya, thereby removing incentives to migrate. Repeat as necessary and sooner or later the message will be read loud and clear. Shutting down the escape route at its end point will also close all points down the line, which would appear to be a sensible strategy both for Europeans and Africans but Europe appears to be gripped by fear that it is not being humane enough even as it commits cultural and demographic suicide.
So conservative Africans believe that culture and identity, national borders and security for citizens do matter even if heavily propagandized politically correct Europeans do not. Here in the United States we engage in similar delusions. Black Lives Matter (BLM) has reportedly endorsed the Palestinian cause, which has produced the usual euphoria among those on the left who persist in believing that everything comes down to racism. One has to ask why. Police brutality is a problem for all Americans but BLM is a collection of the usual poseurs, publicity seekers and cash hounds whose talk of reparations for slavery is reminiscent of the venerable “race hustler” Jesse Jackson’s shakedown of Coca-Cola or of Tawana Brawley’s showboating ally Al Sharpton, though without the latter’s nifty suits.
Whatever credibility BLM has is wasted when they embrace the cause of thugs like Michael Brown, a six-foot-four 265-pound monster who robbed a convenience store and beat up a clerk before trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop. If the loudmouths really cared about black lives they would work to convince their buddies to stop shooting each other, since that is overwhelmingly where most blacks are killed and they might also think a bit about reducing the horrific levels of violent crime that seems to be part and parcel of their manhood ritual, which is why cops target them in the first place.
BLM is, of course, in part a creation of a heavily Jewish national media which rushes to promote causes that are acceptably progressive. I suspect that reliably liberal American Jews consistently lean left at least in part to rationalize their own guilt over how rich and powerful they have become, but many close ranks when it comes to Israel. Given that reality, BLM has, in its embrace of the Palestinians, consequently cut off its own source of publicity. Have you heard much about BLM since it picked up the Palestinian cause back in August? Wonder why. And as for the Palestinians, whose reality under Israeli occupation is far, far worse than anything the BLM crowd experiences, all they will get is the hearty handshake accompanied by the usual advice to not let the door hit them in their asses on the way out.
And how can we forget about the “we need to protect them” liberal interventionists who are currently staffing the White House, Pentagon and State Department, many of who will continue to serve under la Belle Dame sans Merci Hillary and are eager to repeat her triumph in overthrowing and murdering Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi? Liberal interventionists believe that Americans “…are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future,” as the eminent Iraqi baby killer Madeleine Albright once put it. We know better than those ignorant savages who inhabit most of the earth and by gum we will kill their leaders, overthrow their governments and compel them to adopt our way of life whether they want to or not. For the liberal interventionist no price is too high for someone else to pay to bring a righteous order to the world.
In practice liberal interventionists believe that war has replaced diplomacy as a tool for policing the world. If anyone doubts what they are all about I would recommend watching a cold-blooded Albright on 60 Minutes when speaking of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. It’s odd how war crimes committed by liberal interventionists are not crimes at all because they are based on good intentions and are characterized as really just an effort to make the world a better place. It is essential for progressives to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves all the time. No advocates of realpolitik need apply.
And then there is Hillary, the ultimate liberal delusion. If you question that judgement I would refer you to the ongoing ferocious whitewashing of her eminently forgettable record by a fawning media. It is clearly visible if one reviews the back issues of any national newspaper or mainstream television news program over the past six months. Many of Hillary’s supporters clearly believe in her because she is a woman. As the narrative goes, women in the public eye claim that they want to be treated like men but they apparently also have virtues that men do not possess. What those virtues might be is left largely to the imagination and memories of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher rather suggest that women can be just as hard-nosed and nasty as most men. Indeed, some are certainly trying to be prototypically male in their aggressiveness to dispel the impression that they are women.
And Hillary is hardly a fitting candidate for women’s interests in spite of her frequent allusions to her engagement on the issue. Her husband’s infidelities and alleged sexual assaults do not bear scrutiny and she was an enabler, not just an observer, attacking the women who came forward as Bill’s sordid history unraveled to protect both their political careers. If ambition should be “made of sterner stuff” as Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony once put it, Hillary certainly has what it takes.
Hillary Clinton is also an unrepentant warmonger who has rationalized America’s role as a global interventionist. She relied on the liberal Amnesty International concept of “smart power” to bomb Libya and bring about regime change. She is poised to confront Russia, Iran and China and her credentials for mayhem include the Libyan fiasco. Her best friend in foreign high places is war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She will no doubt continue the precedent set by Bush-Obama of Presidential mendacity coupled with astonishing incompetence and the Constitution will fade into irrelevances as the war against Islam continues for another decade.
Hillary claims to be middle America virtue at its finest but she actually epitomizes political corruption and moral vacuity coupled with a globalist vision when it comes to following the money. She is the nexus of financial services and government power, owned by corporate interests and a protector of Wall Street myriad donors who have contributed to her personally and to her satyromaniacal husband’s foundation. Hillary believes that taking $300,000 to speak for 20 minutes at a taxpayer supported public university is her due. Every dissident and fringe element in America gets a nod and a smile from Hillary and she will permit anyone who walks into a polling station without any form of identification to vote (for her) while amnestying millions of illegals, but working people who want to keep their own money and make their own decisions are for her “deplorable.”
All of those who worship at Hillary’s feet regard this kind of “invade the world, invite the world” stuff as the right thing to do and therefore progressive. I don’t get it. What kind of America will she leave us after eight years? Will it be a loose structure orchestrated by grievance professionals who play the victim at every turn? Who knows, but it won’t be the America most of us remember and the first big hurdle will be somehow avoiding World War III, which she seems keen to start.
So no, I don’t dig the type of hypocritical and sanctimonious liberal that is currently in vogue very much. Nor the modern day Republican conservatives, but that is another story. I attended an anti-war conference a couple of weeks ago. My college experience during Vietnam was full of liberal pieties coming from people whose real concern was not about the war itself but personal, i.e. they did not want to get drafted. Well, at this conference the same folks were still around. They are much older and fatter and their long hair is gray. They are wearing the same t-shirts, raising the same clenched fists and saying the same stuff about how all the world is wonderful except for their fellow citizens. Liberalism is all about feeling good and blaming the bad things on somebody or something else, be it George Bush, capitalism, imperialism, fascism, colonialism and, of course, racism. It was a trip down memory lane both for them and me.