Chavez’ solutions nurture his problems. An unwelcome candidate in Germany. The unmentionable Near Eastern solution is gaining acceptance. Who is willing to evict whom? Returning to conditions your family had escaped. Choosing between a community of blood or one of common purpose. Is “leftist peace activist” an oxymoron?

 

1.When Chavez nationalizes an industry, he is engaging in a political and not an economic action as he puts enterprises under political control. In his case, “politics” mean “Chavez”. Louis 16th said that “I am the state” and in the Venezuelan reality that imitates the Sun King, the public realm has become identical with the Bolivarian “Leader’s” eccentric whims. When such nationalizations occur, the accompanying commentary tends to note that Venezuela’s problems made the Chavists to take control of new enterprises. This cause and effect relationship can be turned around. Wanting to comprehend reality the conditional “can” might even need to be translated into an imperative “must”.

In Venezuela’s case, forced state ownership through confiscation is not a necessarily a reaction to an economic problem. Much rather, ideology-fueled nationalization is the cause of troubles that the country would otherwise – that is without the guidance of the Caudillo – be forced to do without. The claim is based on an inevitable consequence of public ownership. Whatever is taken over needs to be managed thereafter. Running an economy is not exactly a proven strength of radical collectivists. Chavez’ managerial skills fit the Marxist pattern. One gets the impression that the man would manage to stop the multiplication of a rabbit farm’s inmates if he would deign to operate one.

There is good news in this. The more Chavez grabs the greater the troubles and the shorter the distance to the ultimate collapse. Enlightenment tends to follow disappointment. As this happens, having lived through an analogous experience, the writer is led to say that he feels sorry for the Venezuelans. They are destined to experience shortages even of goods they used to have in over abundance.

 

2. The dateline of June 10 predates your correspondent’s vacation. Regardless of the elapsed time, the core issue raised is of perennial interest. The German Left opposes, for reasons that are revealing, its own presidential candidate Mr. Gauck – frankly the favorite of this writer for the ceremonial post – is a candidate of the SPD, the Social Democrats. Much of his support comes from the Center and the Right. Not surprisingly, the Left’s left is attacking him. Mr. Gauck’s name has become a generic term. It is used to tag the attempt to discover the crimes of the GDR’s totalitarian system and its perpetrators. The term for the agency in charge of house-cleaning is known as something like ”The Gauck Office”.

A certain Ms Kipping accused Gauck that, he cultivates analogies between National Socialism and the GDR’s international that is Soviet Socialism. In doing so, he is alleged to be legitimizing Nazism. Or more precisely, since the Deep Reds do not mean “Nazism” but, to hide the embarrassing “s-word” in the name, they talk about “Fascism” – which racist National Socialism was not. Just because the Reds killed with other methods, but having more time, a larger number of people than the Browns had, the damaging comparison is unwelcome by the left of our time. Even so, the reluctance to look into the mirror does not make the comparison inappropriate. (June 30: With the help of the abstaining hardliners of the Left, Mr. Gauck’s opponent who, ironically, happens to be the “conservative” Ms. Merkel’s candidate, has been narrowly elected.)

 

3. Helen Thomas’ recipe for solving the problems of the Near East by making the Jews go away has a disturbing aspect. Stealthily, a once unmentionable idea is emerging. It used to be a secret thought that is now moving, coming from beyond what used to be the pale, into the public realm. It is that, neither a two-state nor a federative one state solution can overcome the problem, which is the pacification of the Palestinians. The Left-Green-Peace camp, are inching from an interesting thesis toward a programmatic position. Once the ground is prepared through the erosion of the public’s will, the idea will gain respectability that Israel, as a newcomer to the region, and being an incompatible component there, should pack up and “leave”.

 

4. The depicted “solution by eviction” approach has an analogy in the Atlantic region. The groups that are inclined to advocate the eviction of an element that is organized as a state for the reason that it is alien, make an about face on the immigration issue in their own country. On both sides of the Ocean, even illegal entrants are supposed to be not only tolerated but also subsidized while they are not held to comply with local law. This is done with the justification that no person can be illegal, cultural differences must be respected and that, therefore, enforcing the host community’s rules amounts to racism. In the case of the Near East, racism is defined as the reverse of the foregoing. There the racist is the one that claims after politically, economically and militarily successful decades of organized existence on an identifiable territory, the right to stay and to exist. Could it be that moral positions are taken according to the dictates of political correctness and the likely resistance of the contending parties?

 

5. N.B. Many illegal immigrants bring with them a culture and attitudes that you or your ancestors have fled. (The disregard for laws and local ways as well as antiquated views on the causes of wealth and poverty are meant.) Therefore, the question is whether you wish to be returned to the conditions that originally your family had escaped.

 

6. We are often called upon to judge, accept or reject behavior, attitudes and opinions. As we do so, it is easily forgotten that the real question presented to us is not whether someone shares our nationality through the accident of birth. The issue is whether another person wishes by choice to share your way of life and lets you pursue the path to “ happiness” as you define it.

 

7. Illegal immigration has an often neglected negative effect. In the practice of immigration offices, the lost control over the number and the quality of entrants provokes a face-saving reaction. It manifests itself by restricting that aspect of immigration that is easy to control. This means those that bother to go through the legal channels asking to be accepted as residents in the country of their choice, are subjected to hard-nosed treatment. Within the category of over the table applications, the numbers are likely to be cut back and the rules will be applied inflexibly. The hoped for result might be the restoration of the “tough” image of the agency. Meanwhile, qualified entrants, whose skills are needed by the chosen host country’s economy, are kept out by rules that are only applied against the docile and the deserving.

 

8. Israel’s action against the theatrically constructed attempt to break her Gaza blockade has brought her condemnation. It is one that the gang rocketing her settlements from the enclave it rules has failed to provoke. The same applies to the detention of the kidnapped soldier Shalit that Hamas wants to exchange for a thousand of its terrorists. (Is one Israeli corporal worth a thousand Jihadists? Do not answer with the implied “yes” even if Hamas itself suggests it. Your response is likely to be so non-PC that you get into trouble.)

Regarding the dramatic stoppage of the blockade-breakers, two terms tend to be used. One is “peace activists”. The other one is “leftist”. This tells us that on some of the ships the accompanying crowd – unnecessary to deliver goods but useful as scandal-makers – consisted of leftist advocates of peace. The term deserves analysis.

Outside the area of verbal political combat, the words “leftist” and “peace” are as much a mismatch as would be “national Socialism” and “humanism”.

It should be common knowledge that, due to their Marxism, leftists believe in an ongoing struggle (war, conflict) between juxtaposed forces representing good and evil. They also believe that the good, meaning their side, is predestined by the logic that enfolds through history, to prevail. In other words, their concept of human development is determined by an irrepressible struggle that propel mankind toward its destiny of a perfect and ultimately conflict-free society. On the way to this goal a war is waged. Therefore, peace – implying a coexistence and tolerance of others – is not possible. This makes in the parlance of these people “peace” into a weapon. It is to be used against the useful idiots on the “other side” to prevail thanks to their paralysis in the war that is a milestone to total victory. The implication is that “leftist peace activist” is, and always has been, an oxymoron. Only that the deluded enemy has not noticed it.