Cemil Kerimoglu πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ @cemk_cemil · Apr 15 https://substack.com/home/post/p-194290585 Europe finds itself at a fateful juncture, yet its own decision-making machinery lets a single malicious actor paralyze the whole. In aiming to protect the smaller nations, the unanimity principle was essentially catering to petty nationalism. Eventually, it has become the liberum veto of our time - the same institution that once destroyed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and wiped it off the map. Even the very thought itself that small European nations need "protection" against larger ones is flawed and deeply malicious. This new essay argues that abolishing the veto is thus not merely a procedural tweak. It is a philosophical act: the moment Europeans finally choose to see themselves as Europeans, and Europe as more than the sum of its parts. Abolish the veto!

Just because you can steal my cheese doesn't mean you should.

World to abandon all logic and reason, begin to fire guns at random while eating fancy chocolate.

Azad Essa @azadessa · Mar 14 A reminder that our best selling children’s book, ‘From the River to the Sea: A Colouring Book’, has been banned from sale and distribution in France following false accusations of antisemitism from the French Zionist right.

I expect more effort to stop antisemitism, not simply because it should be done, but because of antisemitism, but because it is an alarm bell of all kinds of problems lingering. If world war two meant anything? And laws could be passed and nothing might change, more violence and more hate?

Yes, France took a notable (though ultimately unsuccessful) parliamentary action against antisemitism as recently as yesterday (April 16, 2026).What HappenedFrench lawmakers, led by centrist MP Caroline Yadan (from President Macron's centrist coalition), had prepared the so-called Yadan bill (or PPL Yadan / Bill 575) for debate in the National Assembly on April 16–17, 2026. The bill aimed to combat what its supporters described as "new forms of antisemitism" that have surged since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the ensuing Israel-Gaza war. france24.com Key proposed measures included:Expanding the offense of "glorification of terrorism" or "incitement to terrorism" to cover implicit justifications. Creating a new offense for publicly calling for the destruction of a state recognized by France (widely seen as targeting slogans like "From the river to the sea" or explicit calls to eliminate Israel). Penalizing excessive trivialization of terrorist acts or comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. Supporters argued this was necessary to address evolving antisemitic rhetoric that existing laws (which already criminalize direct incitement and Holocaust denial) do not fully cover, amid a documented rise in antisemitic incidents in France.The OutcomeAt the last minute on April 16, 2026, the bill's backers withdrew it before the scheduled debate, as it became clear it lacked sufficient votes to pass. This followed:Massive public opposition, including a petition that gathered over 700,000 signatures. Protests and criticism from left-wing parties, UN human rights experts, academics, and free-speech advocates who warned the bill risked conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism, potentially chilling pro-Palestinian speech and activism. en.wikipedia.org The government has indicated it will introduce a revised or similar bill in late June 2026.Broader ContextThis episode occurs against a backdrop of ongoing high levels of antisemitic acts in France (Europe's largest Jewish community). French authorities continue to enforce existing laws through arrests, investigations, and public condemnations. President Macron has also spoken out strongly against antisemitism and called for measures like mandatory electoral bans for officials guilty of it.In short, France's most recent high-profile action was this attempted legislative push, which was halted yesterday due to lack of support—but the issue remains very much alive, with plans for a follow-up bill soon. The debate highlights deep divisions in France over how to balance fighting hate with protecting free expression.

And if they support antifa? Thought for 4s Supporting Antifa in an educational context would amplify the anti-democratic nature of ideological capture to a dangerous degree.Antifa's core characteristicsAntifa is a loose, decentralized far-left militant movement that explicitly rejects liberal democracy in favor of direct action, deplatforming, and sometimes violence to combat perceived fascism. It opposes free speech for opponents, views institutions (including schools) as tools for revolutionary change, and often aligns with anarchist or accelerationist tactics. Open support for it goes beyond standard left politics into endorsing extra-legal methods.Why educator or institutional support crosses a lineUndermines the rule of law — Public schools are state institutions bound by democratic norms (elections, due process, free expression under the First Amendment). Teachers or curricula that romanticize, excuse, or promote Antifa-style tactics (property destruction, no-platforming, "by any means necessary") teach contempt for democratic mechanisms. This is especially toxic for youth, who are still forming civic habits. Heightens indoctrination risk — In captured systems (e.g., activist factions within unions like Oakland Education Association), materials that frame Antifa sympathetically as heroic resisters fit the pattern of one-sided narratives. We've seen unauthorized "teach-ins" and "liberatory education" pushes in Oakland and similar districts that critics argue veer into political activism rather than balanced analysis. Glorifying militant groups adds an endorsement of violence to ideological skew. rethinkingschools.org Disproportionate harm — For less-educated or captive audiences (K-12 students), this normalizes extremism. It can desensitize youth to political violence, chill dissent in classrooms, and erode trust in democratic institutions. Post-2020 riots and campus disruptions showed real-world spillover. Anti-democratic double standard — Democracy allows debate over ideas, even radical ones. But state-funded educators actively supporting a movement that rejects debate itself (via doxxing, riots, or "punch a Nazi" rhetoric that expands "Nazi" to include mainstream conservatives) is viewpoint discrimination with state power behind it. It's the opposite of pluralism. Reality checkNot every progressive educator supports Antifa—many explicitly reject its violence. Direct endorsements in official curricula are rare and often opposed by districts when publicized. However, tolerance or soft-pedaling in activist teacher circles, reading lists that lionize radical left figures, or failure to condemn Antifa-linked tactics does occur in highly polarized blue-city environments and feeds the capture critique.This would make the problem not just bias, but incitement against democratic norms. Reforms emphasizing classical civics, viewpoint balance, and strict political neutrality in K-12 become even more urgent. Public education should prepare citizens for democracy, not recruit for its rejection..