1. Consistency deserves praise. As so often, a significant portion of our species is stubborn. Some of these score high in the realm of stupidity and the “meanly crooked.” Take Germany’s “Left Party”. Its antecedent Communists lost power when the “GDR” folded, after which it called itself “The Party of Democratic Socialists”. It did not matter that the terms used ignore a choice to be made. In practice, the preference for “socialism” over “democracy” had always been clear. It is therefore no surprise that the party has congratulated Fidel Castro for the “successful activity” which distinguishes his presence in politics. It is to be doubted that they meant to praise the Leader for keeping masses of 1950 vintage American cars continue to run circles around his junkyard. The other achievement is that he stayed in power by keeping his people handcuffed. Quite an achievement if compared to the entity that the Kremlin had set up in the Soviet zone of occupation. It checked out once Moscow could not send tanks to maintain “panzer-Communism” there.

2. Equally constructive is the reported activity of a certain “Tom”. He achieved a summer highlight. Following the example set by the “downtrodden” of England, he showed his moral uprightness by torching cars in Berlin. According to his claim once apprehended, frustration, joblessness, and the limitations of formal politics caused him to engage in demolition. Perhaps the case can be of help to mankind. The learned analysis regarding the causes of the riots might be deepened. When a person alerted by the noise shouted from a balcony “why are you doing this”, he got an answer that tells more than ten reports by well-paid social workers. The echo that came back was “because it is fun.” The item makes one think that it is a good thing that “Tom” is not active in Cuba. One reason might be that there is less to torch there. Where folks trod on foot and cars are for comrades, the reaction to be expected would ruin the “fun”.

3. Not infrequently, those that explain their lack of reaction to violence and outrage convert their inclination to capitulate into excusing moral terms. Therefore, they refer to their philosophy of tolerance as being their guiding conviction. In reality those that are “neutral” in the face of abuse might in most cases be simply too timid to take a stand.

4. More about solving problems by sweeping them under the rug and by making the crime an act of morally inspired virtue. A survey asked who in history the respondent’s most despicable character is. Few picked Stalin. Mao missed from the list. While Guevara is still doing well on T-shirts, it seems that several of the following points are true.

(A) Ignorance about “history” is widespread and nurtured by the assumption that, once it has happened –and most of the time, it did so elsewhere- then it cannot be changed and does not affect us.

(B) Even if it is safely in the past, if could not happen “here”.

(C) Pick your enemies from the politically dead past. Hitler, having no serious present epigones, is fine. Fighting defunct Nazis lends one moral status and involves no price.

(D) There can be no enemy on the Left. Whether asked about it or not, Leftists gladly endorse the theory.

(E) Violence and power –as well as wealth- are a magnetic force. Existing violent movements attract those that secretly wish they would have the temerity to participate.

5. The collapse of North Africa’s dictatorships brings remarkable refugees to Europe’s shores. A report from Hungary tells of a variety that tries to get from Serbia, which is not a Shengen country, into Hungary, which is. This means that once you are in Hungary you have arrived in  that part of Europe where the lunches are free. From there one can get easily to a country rich enough to offer unlimited opportunities. Such as for welfare, rent-subsidies, medical care and the right to import relatives. The implications are of consequence. That is a reason to translate part of the report.

“’Libya finished’ they say and add: Gaddafi is already in Serbia. It soon becomes clear that they have fled Tripoli half a year ago and that they are greatly devoted to the dictator. ‘Gaddafi good’ they repeat and explain that the Libyan Leader has never wavered as a governor.”

This raise questions. Is there an obligation to accept entrants that subscribe to political ideals that are not only not in accordance with those of the host but actually oppose those diametrically? Do the supporters of a dictatorship that has been hostile to the host country have a humanitarian right to refuge in that democracy? The same pertains to economic theories, such as the obligation to put up radical collectivists in a society organized around the principle of a free market and personal ownership. Ditto for the absolute right of persons with a commitment to the Sharia to immigrate into countries whose laws separate Church and State.

The above is supported by the fact that there are plenty of collectivist dictatorships to grace with the presence of their fleeing devotees. And in case someone not only likes the Sharia but also wishes it to displace the law of the land, might it not be more appropriate to go to, shall we say, Saudi Arabia?

6. The children of Vietnamese immigrants are, as representatives of the “second generation” at the top of their class in Berlin. You also read of failing migrant groups that represent another tradition. Their record could bear the title “missed opportunities”. After two or three generations in the location of their choice, they are often unable to handle the language of the land and become dropouts. The failure nurtures their anger. This resentment is not directed at the retrograde forces that stand in the way of integration. The imported tradition of backwardness denies success in the context of a modern society. It might be a proud heritage that nearly conquered the world but it is also a force that keeps parents in bad jobs and, since those disappear, on welfare. A loud and visible element among such immigrants went their frustration on the allegedly iniquitous way of life their family has opted for by immigrating into it. 

7. The apologists of laggard immigrations do a disservice to their clients. The criterion of such protectors is that, there is no under achievement that would lack a criminal contribution by the successful. On the one hand, they like to emphasize individuality if it expresses itself by tattoos, nose-rings, and clothing that either covers too little of what might be kept private or shrouds under mobile tents what is meant for display. On the other hand, individuality measured by tackling tasks and overcoming obstacles, is dismissed as a strategy. Preaching that failure is a sign of virtue, and that achievement is evidence “one dimensionality” or of crookedness,  deprives the credulous of their chance in life.