Many Will Not Like This Analysis —Europe Needs America—Still.

From Hoover Institute Website

Why Europe Gets No Respect

by Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, July 12, 2018

After the recent G-7 meeting, some European nations such as France and Germany expressed anger that their views were given short shrift by Donald Trump—displaying fits of pique memorialized in a now infamous photo of standing G-7 leaders who were leaning into a surrounded and sitting Trump. “International cooperation,” huffed an unidentified senior French official, “cannot depend on being angry and on sound bites. Let’s be serious.” The former British ambassador to the U.S., Peter Westmacott, sniffed, “Trump is readier to give a pass to countries that pose a real threat to Western values and security than to America’s traditional allies. If there is a ‘method to the madness,’ to use the words of British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, it is currently well hidden.”

Yet in current foreign policy journals, a constant theme is European leaders who lament that Europe does not get its due on the world stage. Why would that be?

After all, if “Europe” is defined by the membership of the 28-member European Union, then it should easily be the world’s superpower. The European project now has an aggregate population (512 million) that dwarfs that of the United States (326 million). Even its GDP ($20 trillion) is often calibrated as roughly equivalent to or even larger than America’s ($19 trillion).

Historically, European geography has been strategically influential—with windows on the Atlantic, Baltic, and Mediterranean, the ancient maritime nexus of three continents. Rome is the center of Christianity, by far the world’s largest religion. Some of the world’s great nations—Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and the United States—were birthed as European colonies. Some two billion people speak European languages, including hundreds of millions outside of Europe whose first language is English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French.

European products—Airbus, BP, Shell, and Volkswagen—are global household names. France each year hosts the greatest number of the world’s tourists. Europe as a whole is more visited than any other nation or geographical area—and no wonder, given Europe was the home to civilization’s most significant breakthroughs: the birth of the city-state, the emergence of Roman republicanism and its later globalized empire, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution.

Many of the world’s greatest thinkers, writers, scientists, and politicians were European, from Plato, Socrates Cicero, Octavian and Pericles to Copernicus, Dante, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Einstein, and Churchill. And likewise, the greatest cataclysms in world history took place on European soil: The Black Death, Stalin’s genocide in Western Russia, World Wars I and II, and the Holocaust. The Western military tradition was born in Europe, and the world’s most lethal armies in history—Roman, French, German—were all European, as were the most skilled commanders, from Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to Napoleon and Wellington.

Why, then, are European leaders increasingly feeling irrelevant, often passive-aggressive in their exasperation, and seemingly without confidence in either their present or their illustrious past, and so often ignored by major powers?

In most high-stakes diplomacy—denuclearizing North Korea, attempting to make China play by international norms of trade and commerce, keeping Vladimir Putin within his borders, destroying ISIS, isolating a theocratic and potentially nuclear Iran, and the perennial Israel and Palestinian problem—Europe is largely a spectator. Its once heralded “soft power” of the 1990s and early 21st century is more soft than powerful. The friends of Europe no longer count on it; its enemies do not fear it.

The high-tech revolution that birthed Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft passed Europe by. Judged by the great historical determinants of civilizational power—fuel, energy, education, demography, political stability, and military power—Europe is waning. It is spending a mere 1.4% of its collective GDP on defense. Most analysts conclude that even what Europe does spend on security does not translate directly into military readiness, at least in comparison with the U.S. military. And with a fertility rate of less than 1.6%, Europe is slowly shrinking and aging—hence the short-sighted immigration policy of Angela Merkel who apparently sees immigration also as a solution to the demography crisis and a shortcut to low-cost labor.

Across the continent, laws against fracking, German dismantling of nuclear power plants, and massive green subsidies for erratic wind and solar generation—all self-inflicted wounds—have made European gasoline and electricity costs among the highest in the world. Europe remains dependent on Russia, Central Asia, and the OPEC countries for much of its energy needs. In the Times Higher Education World University Rankings of the world’s top 20 universities, only 1 was a continental European university; in contrast, 15 were American and 4 British.

Politically, the European Union has not squared the circle of uniting diverse peoples, languages, and cultures with long historical grievances into a pan-European nation—at least without a level of coercion that is inconsistent with democratic values. Instead, members increasingly find European Union dogma at odds with human nature, at least in terms of entitlements, immigrations, and national security. For a continent that celebrates diversity, the European apparat is quite intolerant of dissident voices.

The result is frustration and polarization, as the EU is slowing becoming trisected. Eastern Europeans revolt at the open-borders bullying of Berlin and Paris and are beginning to refuse entry to any more Muslim men from the Middle East. Meanwhile Mediterranean Europeans see their frontline burdens of dealing with massive illegal immigration not just as underappreciated, but also as another manifestation of an earlier northern European financial diktat. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom just drifts away. In the center of these regional tensions stands Germany, the EU’s largest nation—and the one with its most problematic history. In theory, Germany asserts that it no longer is the bully of 1871, 1914, and 1939. In fact, Berlin shows little patience with those who object to its plans of dealing with Brexit, Muslim immigration, and indebted southern European Union members.

These rifts are symptomatic of an existential paradox, similar in some sense to the contradictions of the progressive movement in the United States. European government is largely run by an elite class of professional and bureaucratic careerists. On matters such as illegal immigration and financial sacrifices, their privilege exempts them from the concrete consequences of their ideology and policy: someone other than they will bear the immediate consequences of massive illegal immigration on the schools, neighborhoods, and public safety.

The implementation of a social welfare state seeks to provide cradle-to-grave support for a static underclass in exchange for its political support for an entrenched elite. The expensive social project squeezes the middle class, as taxes rise to pay for entitlements for the poor and to subsidize the lifestyles of the mandarins of the administrative state.

The European social welfare state envisions military expenditures as theft from social welfare entitlements—a viable assumption as long as the United States continues to underwrite European national security. European culture is uncomfortable with the individual drive toward upward mobility and entrepreneurialism. Its own attitude is more like the Obama platitudes “you didn’t build that,” “now is not the time to profit,” or “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Purely private research universities are almost nonexistent. The European ethos too often sees profit-making as a violation of fairness. Equality not liberty is the operative agenda, an idea that transcends the European Union and in theory applies to anyone from anywhere who can manage to cross the borders of the European Union.

Out of this complex matrix emerges the haughty European mindset that it alone has transcended the limitations of human nature, convinced that enlightened ideas about soft power and pure reason can eliminate war, poverty, and inequality not just inside Europe, but globally as well.

Loud professions of human rights, and deep antipathy to religion as a sort of dark, unenlightened force from Europe’s troubled past have deluded the European Union about the ultimate sources of its safety and prosperity. Its postwar trajectory to affluence and security partly rested on U.S. military subsidies, as well as the ability to run up large trade deficits with the United States that supported the evolution of a globalized economy. European foreign policy in the concrete hinges on trading and profiting with almost anyone, while in the abstract it opposes human rights abuses, often by its own trade partners. Europeans talk loftily, but act either in self-interested fashion or not much at all.

The 21st century has not been too impressed. A bullying China has sized up Europe and concluded that it either cannot or will not do much about Chinese mercantilism, which is based on violations of almost all the canons of postwar trade agreements. Two-million impoverished and mostly Muslim migrants rightly assumed that Europe is hopelessly divided and completely incapable of exercising either the political or moral will to protect its own sovereignty, much less defend its political and religious history and traditions. Russia cynically accepts that an unarmed and energy-hungry Europe will not to do much to check Russian expansionism. Europe appears to Russia more worried about oil and natural gas supplies than translating its moral outrage over Putin’s authoritarianism into any concrete pushback. Better, then, to buy as much Russian natural gas as possible, while damning a supposedly colluding Trump administration for being too soft on the Russian oligarchy.

Recent polls show a general drop in confidence in the European Union by its members. In some countries, the EU no longer wins majority support. A continental ethos of agnosticism, state dependency, childlessness, and multiculturalism leaves Europe especially vulnerable to both the foreign challenges of a dangerous neighborhood, and massive influxes of mostly Muslim immigrants, as its own shrinking population is in danger of becoming incapable of supporting the welfare state and pension payouts of an aging population.

An American solution to European stasis—deregulation, tax cutting, more referenda and plebiscites, increased defense spending, natural gas and oil fracking, border security—would be unthinkable Such a turnabout would be antithetical to the European elite’s own self-perceptions and humanitarian pretensions, and would entail a collective admission of failure.

The European Union is left with its signature mythology that pan-Europeanism alone has at least kept the peace for nearly 75 years, the longest period of uninterrupted continental calm since the unification of Germany in 1871. Such naiveté takes into little account the role of an American-led NATO or the anomaly that Germany, Europe’s largest, most dynamic country, and also its most aggressive nation historically, did not develop nuclear weapons, while its traditional frontline enemies in two world wars, France and the United Kingdom, nuclearized—on the instinct that power, not pretension, keeps the peace.

The European furor over Donald Trump is not, as alleged, because he and the nation that elected him are crude, but that he and his country are needed more than ever by a continent that has lost its way.


Medical Experiments Without Proper Consent.

The following article comes from the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal written by Sharyl Attkisson.

In May 2007, Carrie and Shawn Pratt agreed to sign up their severely premature daughter, Dagen, for a government-funded study being conducted at Duke University Hospital. The Pratts say they were told that researchers simply were gathering information to help other children.

“We never understood the study to be based on manipulating her oxygen level to meet [researchers’] needs,” Carrie Pratt says.

At issue is an experiment in which researchers at two dozen academic institutions randomly manipulated the oxygen levels of 1,316 extremely premature infants without providing their parents the full details of the methods and risks.

Confronted with the reality, which the Pratts discovered just last year, the West Virginia couple remain shell-shocked.

They already had lost a preemie son four years before Dagen was born. They say they can’t understand why medical professionals would have suggested enrolling their frail, newborn daughter in an experiment that could put her at further risk.

“When you have a small child, a micro-preemie, on a ventilator with see-through skin and fighting for her life … it is the most humbling, sad experience of your life,” Carrie Pratt says in an interview. “So, of course we would agree to participate in a study if it meant collecting info or data to help someone else. But certainly not at the expense of our daughter.

Today, the Pratts wonder whether the study, called SUPPORT, contributed to Dagen’s health issues. She suffered multiple incidences of collapsed lungs, breathing problems, and other life-threatening conditions.

Diagnosed with retinopathy, Dagen had to have laser eye surgery when she was 2 months old. She has cerebral palsy. Now 7, she often wears orthotics on both legs.

“Do we blame SUPPORT?” Dagen’s mother asks.

The Academic Debate

The friendly sounding acronym SUPPORT stands for “Surfactant, Positive Airway Pressure, and Pulse Oximetry Randomized Trial.” The experiment, which cost taxpayers $20.8 million, was conducted at 23 academic institutions from 2005 to 2009 under the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The consent form signed by parents did not disclose one controversial aspect of the experiment: The preemies’ oxygen monitors intentionally were altered to provide false readings so that medical staff wouldn’t be tempted to adjust the babies’ oxygen out of their study-assigned range.

More babies who received higher levels of oxygen ended up with serious vision disorders. The low-oxygen preemies were more likely to die. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2010, sparked ongoing ethical questions and complaints.

Little over nine months ago, hundreds of researchers and academics from around the globe gathered in person or via teleconference to address the supposed confusion surrounding informed consent in the wake of the SUPPORT controversy.

They came together Aug. 28 near the Capitol, in the Great Hall of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, where HHS is headquartered. The meeting was the first step in the government’s effort to clarify and draft new guidance on the consent process for human research.

About half of the academics used the HHS forum to defend SUPPORT’s consent process. Some made the case that, in some instances, study subjects should be told less, not more.

If the process of informed consent becomes too off-putting, they argued, not enough patients would sign up for studies intended to advance what researchers consider the greater good.

Dr. John Lantos, director of pediatric bioethics at another study site, Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics of Kansas City, Mo., said consent forms that make it sound like “death lurked at every corner” are counterproductive.

“[T]hey are not empowering people to make informed choices, they are scaring them into making uninformed ones,” Lantos said.

The discussion was academic until the Pratts took the stage—carrying pretty, 6-year-old Dagen, who was wearing a sundress and ponytails but looked fragile and thin in leg braces.

“We were guaranteed that the study wouldn’t hurt Dagen in any way, that it was just gathering information,” Shawn Pratt told the audience academics and research scientists, “and were shocked to learn the care she received was based not on what she needed, but on some protocol.”

Dagen’s father continued: “We want to know, as information comes in, why the risks and intent of the study were not clear. If it were clear, we wouldn’t have taken part in the study.”

‘That Wasn’t Clear?’

At least one of three HHS panelists who moderated the meeting appeared dumbfounded by the Pratts’ personal story after lofty discussions about the greater good.

The HHS ethics office director, Dr. Jerry Menikoff, was on the panel, but he wasn’t the one who spoke up.

Rather, it was Dr. Robert Temple, deputy director for clinical science at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Just to be sure I understood: You got some kind of consent form, but I take it you’re saying that you couldn’t tell from that, that there were actually two things that she was going to be randomized to?” Temple asked the Pratts. “But that wasn’t clear? Is that what you’re saying?”

“They said they are collecting data, that don’t worry, she is going to be cared for,” Carrie Pratt answered.

“So they didn’t really communicate that it was in fact an experiment?” Temple asked.

“No,” Dagen’s mom replied.

Sharrissa Cook also spoke about her son, Dreshan, at the HHS meeting. Cook was just 25 weeks into her pregnancy when she gave birth to a critically ill baby boy in October 2006. She is now part of a lawsuit alleging that the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, the lead study site, misled her and other SUPPORT parents.

Dreshan, who weighed a fragile 1 pound, 11 ounces at birth, faces a myriad of health problems at age 7.

“Had I known the full extent of the study, I would not have given my consent. … I unknowingly placed my son in harm’s way,” Cook said. “I trusted them with my baby’s life … My son is a live, breathing human being. He is not simply a subject.”

HHS has yet to issue conclusions about what occurred during the multiyear experiment on preemies.

Study’s ‘risk and intent’ weren’t clear, Shawn Pratt said.

‘A Lot of Rationalization’

Scientists and other researchers face “such incredible pressure today to advance research and their own position and standing in the research community,” the source says. As a result, “a lot of rationalization can take place” on the question of what to tell human test subjects.

Or in this case, what to tell their anxious and vulnerable parents.

Some researchers appear to be turning criticism of SUPPORT on its head. They argue that informed consent should be suspended altogether in such studies, which they contend merely evaluated an already-approved, widely used “standard of care” treatment.

As a mother, Carrie Pratt says she understands researchers’ concern that if consent forms tell potential study participants too much, they might be scared off.

“[But] seriously, can anyone blame them?” she asks. “One thing is for sure, anyone approaching us to participate in a study can just keep walking.”

Dr. Michael Carome, a former leader of the HHS ethics office who now directs health research for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, says talk of withholding more information from test subjects is dangerous.

Public Citizen continues to press HHS to address “ethical lapses” in the NIH-financed study, and to allow the ethics office to complete investigative and enforcement actions without interference.

Carome says he considers it “highly likely” that many, if not most, parents would have refused to enroll their babies in the NIH-financed study had they been “appropriately informed about the nature of the research and its risks.”

But the answer, Carome argues, isn’t to hide the risks.

“Some experiments maybe just can’t be done,” he says.

Sharyl Attkisson, an Emmy award-winning investigative journalist, is a former senior independent contributor to The Daily Signal. She hosts the Sunday morning news program “Full Measure” and is the The New York Times best-selling author of “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote” and “Stonewalled.”

Window Dressing

Federal Cabinet Shuffle : Adding Numbers Won’t Solve The Problems—Action Would Be Better

Following an old tired tradition our PM has added quantity to his Cabinet ; quality , that’s doubtful.

It is all about Politics and less about policy and program .

Just look at the Fisheries portfolio , for example. Liberals are pretty safe in the east—at least that’s what their polls show. In the west , with the Trans Mountain , not so much . So switch this portfolio to the west . Strictly politics. Nothing to do with Fisheries policy . The fact ,for example , that fishery research needs many more dollars is irrelevant .

The so called emphasis on trade is nothing more than window dressing and rewarding some loyal back benchers to say nothing of attempting to boost Ontario and Quebec representation. The number of trade delegations to Asia since Mulroney was Prime Minister is staggering but little has changed.

What is needed is smart regulation not more as is the case right now. Pipeline projects have been cancelled as a result. What we need is free trade inside our country. What we need is no monopolies like we have in dairy. What we need is a more productive work force —our productivity levels are some of the lowest in the OECD. What we need is less taxation not more .

Widow dressing may look nice, but if the foundation is fragile , the house will still creek.

Is Telsa’s Musk Loosing It ?

There is evidence that he is at least having trouble when criticism arises.

Golden boys are like that , aren’t they? Petulant ,spoiled.

You see when you get all this money from the Government( most reports put the figure at $4 to $5 billion) and are on to greenie things you can start to believe you are invincible because everyone seems to be adoring you.

Then when things start to go wrong you have difficulty taking the criticism .

Recently Musk got testy with a number of investor types . Of course, they did not understand according to Musk .

And then the Thai matter really showed his adolescence . A British diver involved in the rescue called Musk efforts at sending a submarine to the scene a PR stunt. Musk got personal and called the diver a ‘pedo.’

Now we all know that Musk has been PRing for years .

Nice fellow don’t you think ——

I just read that in Ontario , until common sense Doug Ford came along , you could get a $14,000 subsidy if you bought an electric car . Of course, many states in the US also have such subsidies .

Such easy goodies are sure to make you sulky and spoiled .

That’s our new techy entrepreneurs for you.

I think some reeducation is in order——should start Musk at about grade seven , methinks—some good old reading and arithmetic.

Oh, and a few manners.

Addition: USA reports today July 18 that Musk has apologized for his comments.

PM Trudeau, Immigration and Doing Your Job .

By Lorrie Goldstein—Toronto Sun Newspaper

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to stop acting like a deadbeat parent and provide for the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who have streamed into Canada from the U.S. at unmanned border crossings through ‘irregular migration.’

I’m using the terms preferred by Trudeau and his minions — as opposed to illegal border crossers — because that triggers the Liberals into accusing anyone who uses them of being ‘un-Canadian’ and part of the ‘alt-right,’ which is their predictable, dumb and desperate attempt to dodge the real issue.

Back in the real world, what’s un-Canadian is for Trudeau’s government to admit almost 30,000 asylum seekers into Canada through unmanned border crossings and then dump the responsibility for looking after them onto provinces and cities, which had no say in the process and lack the resources to cope.

The Liberals portray critics of their actions as racists — the same way they portrayed critics of their Islamophobia motion — in order to divert attention from the real issue.

In this case, it’s the Trudeau government shirking its responsibility to help provincial and municipal governments cope with the cost of caring for these asylum seekers as their claims are being adjudicated, which often takes years.

Federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, when he isn’t accusing Ontario Community and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod of fear-mongering and divisiveness, keeps saying he has the backs of cities and provinces having to cope with irregular migration.

Based on Trudeau’s actions so far, that’s utter nonsense.

The feds to date have set aside just $50 million to help house asylum seekers — $36 million for Quebec, $11 million for Ontario (meaning Toronto) and $3 million for Manitoba.

By contrast, Toronto alone says its emergency shelter system is overwhelmed and needs $64.5 million, while MacLeod says the total Ontario tab is $176 million to date. Quebec is asking for $146 million.

What’s un-Canadian is for the Trudeau government to dump the issue on provinces and cities, and then play the race card on those stuck footing the bill.

If Trudeau & Co. care as much about asylum seekers as they claim, why aren’t they providing the necessary funding, which is their responsibility, for basics like shelter and community and social services, so that asylum seekers have the best chance of succeeding in Canada if their claims are approved?

Someone should tell Trudeau that fulfilling his government’s responsibilities to asylum seekers and refugees extends beyond posing for selfies with them.

Instead of lecturing Ontario Premier Doug Ford about how the asylum system works, Trudeau should start listening to employees of the federal Immigration and Refugee Board, who told the Toronto Star last week they’re frustrated, beleaguered and overwhelmed by “the influx of migrants crossing the border” that “has turned Canada’s asylum system into an assembly line, exacerbating operational problems and prioritizing targets over the needs of vulnerable people.”

Canadians know what’s really going on, even if Trudeau and his minions don’t.

A Dart Insight poll released last week found 70% of Canadians surveyed don’t believe the Trudeau government has a clear plan to deal with asylum seekers streaming into Canada, while 57% say the federal government isn’t providing adequate resources for the impacted communities to deal with them.

Instead of playing the race card, why don’t Trudeau & Co. — for once — just do their jobs?

Germany’s Collusion With Muslim Anti Semitism

From FrontPage Website


German authorities condemn anti-Semitic violence in word and condone it in deed.

July 16, 2018 Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism

On April 25th, thousands in Berlin rallied for the “Berlin Tragt Kippa” or “Berlin Wears a Kippah” march. The march had been called after an Israeli Arab Christian had worn a Kippah, a Jewish religious head covering, to test the level of anti-Semitism only to be violently attacked by a Syrian Muslim refugee screaming anti-Semitic slurs. The video of the attack went viral and the march went viral too.

People of good will wore kippahs, took selfies and no one was assaulted by a Syrian refugee.

In June, the perpetrator, Knaan al-Sebai, pled guilty to the attack. He claimed that despite screaming “Jew” in Arabic at his victim, often used as a slur in the Muslim world, he wasn’t anti-Semitic. Instead he blamed hashish and exhaustion. Despite being 19-years-old, Al-Sebai was sentenced to 4 weeks in juvie.

In Germany, if you’re under 20, you too can be treated as a juvenile after a violent anti-Semitic attack.

The Syrian-Palestinian migrant “fell out of the nest too early and had not yet learned to properly fly,” Judge Günter Räcke tenderly summed up the violent assault by the adult man.

Judge Räcke diagnosed the violent criminal with a bad case of frustration. Jews were just an outlet for his “bad mood”. The job center had cut off his support. When he attacked the man he thought was a Jew, he “felt that he was in the right. That’s a powerful thing.” Indeed it is. Just ask any Nazi.

Knaan al-Sebai had assaulted his victim with a bottle and a belt. He would later claim that despite the assaults, “I did not want to beat him, I just wanted to scare him.” He also screamed anti-Semitic slurs at the Arab Christian veterinary student. When a local German woman told him that you can’t behave this way in Germany, he had shouted back at her, “I don’t give a damn. I’m Palestinian. ”

Instead of sending him to jail, Judge Räcke sentenced the anti-Semitic thug to take a tour of the House of the Wannsee Conference; the lavish mansion that hosted the Nazi conference plotting the extermination of the Jews. A location frequently visited by Jewish tourists.

“It’s not an extended civics course,” Judge Räcke said. Just so he’ll understand why everyone is so upset.

“I made a mistake and I have learned from it,” the Syrian refugee told the court. “I hope not to end up in this situation again.”

Any Jews or Christians whom he may or may not attack in the future share the same hope.

Since El-Sebai had been held for two months before trial, he walked away with time served. And now he’s suing for compensation over the extra days that he was held in custody while awaiting trial.

The Syrian refugee would like 950 Euros or approximately $1,000 from Germany. And he’s also appealing the conviction.

Since his original viral assault, there have been a number of anti-Semitic attacks in Berlin.

10 Syrians were arrested in early July for attacking a man wearing a Star of David while screaming anti-Semitic slurs. In June, a Jewish teenager was attacked at a Berlin train station for the music he was listening to. “I don’t want to hear this Jew s*** here! This is our town, our turf. If I see you here again, I’ll slit your throat, you f***ing Jew.”

When a German friend tried to defend him, he was met with the rejoinder, “You lousy Germans. You don’t have a right to say anything.”

One of the weapons of choice of the Arab Muslim attackers was a broken bottle.

Also in June, a 14-year-old Jewish girl was murdered by a Muslim refugee in Germany.

Last year there were 1,453 anti-Semitic attacks in Germany. There are only around 100,000 Jews in Germany. Many of them have only a limited Jewish ancestry, don’t identify as Jewish and wouldn’t be likely to be singled out for anti-Semitic attacks. The official Jewish community in Berlin numbers 10,000.

It’s when we compare 100,000 Jews to 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents that we can see the problem.

The United States averages fewer anti-Semitic incidents per year, in a country with between 4 to 6 million Jews, than all of Germany.

Even in the UK, there were 1,382 incidents in 2017 in a country with 263,346 Jews.

Why is Germany so much worse? The court case of Knaan al-Sebai and its aftermath, the Kippah march and Judge Räcke, along with Merkel’s open borders policy for migrants like Al-Sebai, hold the answer.

The kippah worn by the Arab Christian veterinary student when he was attacked was put on display in the Jewish Muslim of Berlin. It’ll become part of the museum’s permanent collection.

And like the kippah march, the resort to virtuous symbolism misses the real point.

Anti-semitism isn’t an abstraction. It’s not a theory or a symbol. It’s what happens when violent thugs like Knaan al-Sebai are given a pass for attacking Jews. The museum’s new permanent display will open in 2019. But El-Sebai was out in a few months and may yet end up making a thousand bucks out of it.

Last year, a German regional court ruled that an attempted firebombing of a synagogue by three Muslim men wasn’t anti-Semitic, but had been carried out to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict”.

The anti-Semitic arsonists, two Muhammads and an Ismail, blamed alcohol and marijuana, and received suspended sentences.

The Knaan al-Sebai case wasn’t atypical, it’s typical of what happens when the occasional anti-Semitic Muslim attacker is actually put on trial in Germany. His lawyer invariably blames drugs and alcohol. A sympathetic judge finds every possible excuse for the attack and lets him off with a slap on the wrist.

But not before the judge condescendingly urges the thug to understand the morally superior position of Germany on anti-Semitism, while at the same time excusing him for not yet adapting to German mores.

Judge Räcke sending Knaan al-Sebai to learn about anti-Semitism at the House of the Wannsee Conference is typical of the preening moral superiority and the anti-Semitism of the authorities who want to be seen as condemning anti-Semitism even while they actually collude with anti-Semites.

That doesn’t only happen in Germany. But it has become ubiquitous there.

The Knaan al-Sebai attack has become a symbol of the hollow self-righteous posturing and its ugly aftermath. The German authorities pay lip service to symbolic events like the Kippah March even as the attacker who was behind it was quickly set free and may even yet be rewarded for his crime.

Germany condemns anti-Semitic violence in word and condones it in deed.

Anti-Semitism is widely condemned and condoned in Europe. It’s hard to find any mainstream European politician who won’t condemn anti-Semitism, at least in the abstract, but finding real enduring consequences for anti-Semitic Muslim attacks short of outright murder is often equally elusive.

European politicians condone every display of anti-Semitism up to actual physical violence. And European courts condone anti-Semitic violence up to actual murder. And sometimes even then.

The attack by Knaan al-Sebai has become a symbol of overt anti-Semitism in broad daylight. But it’s also a symbol of covert anti-Semitism. And we cannot understand the one without the other.

Muslim anti-Semitism is not organically part of Europe. It was covertly brought there. It was covertly cultivated there. And it is being covertly protected, as Knaan al-Sebai, was protected. When Muslim migrants swarmed into Europe, the authorities promised that they would do the jobs that Germans didn’t want to do. Very few of these refugees have taken on gainful employment. But refugees like Knaan al-Sebai are hard at work doing the jobs that Merkel and some other Germans don’t want to do.

France Wins World Cup—Russia Wins Diplomatic Cup

The press conference just ended between Putin and Trump shows a clear winner .

If words are anything to go by anymore then Russia may not have won on the soccer field, although they did better there than most people thought , but they surely won on the diplomatic field.

Here you have the President of the America soft peddling the actions of a country that has committed actions at home and abroad that are unjustifiable in any context. From the annexation of Crimea, undermining the Ukrainian political process , to the helping of his friend Assad in Syria, this man and country has undermined all natural and international rules .

To top it off, the press conference talked about co-operation of the two countries on cyber security hours after the indictment by American Authorities of Russian agents in cyber attacks attempting to undermine the US election process. Unbelievable.

Obviously, Trump, on this occasion , had plenty of good reasons to listen to his advisors and intelligence agencies who seem unanimous in the their conclusion that Russia was involved in attempting to undermine the recent US election . The President seems unable to differentiate between collusion by him and/or his people, totally unproven, and Russia using cyber methods , much evidence, to interfere with the election.

Putin has succeeded on the world stage unbelievably :

Germany and Europe will continue to buy trillions of cubic feet of Russia Gas , even having a former German Chancellor involved in agreements to facilitate the deals .

China is even providing financing for the Russia / China agreements for Russian gas to China .

Russia barges into Syria’s civil war , taking the side of a Dictator that gases his own people, cooperates with Iran’s proxies in Syria , and proceeds to enlarge a Russian base in Syria and establish;sh a new one there.

Undermine British security with the allegations that Russian agents have poisoned individuals in Britian thought dangerous to the Russian state.

And now gets the American President to soft peddle Russia’s terrible ( likely criminal ) behaviour and agree on co-operation on a number of fronts.

The Trump calculation of co-operation with Russia without first or simultaneously taking on Russia’s recent behavior seems a losing strategy unless there is something beyond the words of the Press Conference .

Trump neeeded to disrupt many things domestically and has had some success to which I have alluded in these pages, , but on this one , the Art of The Deal looks like it was stolen by Putin and used successfully against him .

Putin gave Trump a soccer ball at the Press Conference —— recent World Cup in Russia and all —-but in American parlance the meeting might better be described in baseball terms —-Trump strikes out.