Juncker: Nationalists and Populists Are “Stupid” And “Are In Love With Their Own Countries”

We have previously discussed President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and his controversial statements. Juncker for many is the face of the detached and arrogant bureaucracy that dictates policies and practices in various nations. While the EU has long tried to assure people that it is not replacing their national identity or self-determination, Juncker has always been dismissive of such concerns, even with growing anti-EU movements. That dismissive attitude was evident this week when Juncker said on CNN “These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.”

The notion of people being stupid for being “in love with their own countries” embodied the fears of critics that the EU was always an effort to erase national identity, as least in governance and policy.

He added “They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away … we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in . . . It’s always easier to mobilize negative forces than to mobilize positive forces.”

Of course, Juncker has never mobilized any forces beyond the top European elite. His CNN interview embodies his leadership style of disdainful and cavalier comments. He previously blasted the very notion of national borders.

It is remarkably stupid for Juncker to openly maintain such a position when the EU is fighting to dampen calls for exits from the organization.

I do not view national identity and governance to be an act of stupidity. What has always concerns me about the EU is how it is distant from those who are living under its dictates. While nations continue to maintain their governments, the EU increasingly dictates the conditions under which businesses operate and individuals live. The democratic element of government is not nearly as strong with the EU, which is run by experts who operate well above the fray of local politics.

Many people define patriotism as “being in love with your own country.”

I have always viewed Juncker to be a disaster as a president. Indeed, the fact that he has remained in the position shows the lack of real democratic elements over who controls the organization. With a poll showing that the majority of Europeans expect the EU to collapse in 20 years, one would think that Juncker would be trying to establish new alliances and giving greater assurances. Instead, he has continued his signature style of arrogant and dismissive comments to anyone who believes in national governance.

If the EU does collapse, it will have much to do with the reckless and imperial rule of Jean-Claude Juncker.

52 thoughts on “Juncker: Nationalists and Populists Are “Stupid” And “Are In Love With Their Own Countries””

  1. Jean-Claude Juncker is a disaster as President of the European dis-Union. For him to say that “nationalism is bad” is a silly comment. How can anyone love anything or anyone if he doesn’t first love himself?

    If one doesn’t love himself first, he won’t be able to love another. The same attitude affects his love of country. And from that, he can love the European Union, and then the world.

  2. It’s stupid to be in love with your own country? Maybe if Americans weren’t in love with their own country we’d be speaking German today.

  3. Well, it looks like when the US Military went though western Europe in WW2 they missed some key Nazi Families through & here like the Bush family & friends.

    Oh well, thats why they still sell brooms & dust pans.

    BTW: How is Prof Truley’s mental health? Is he drinking too much again, on Meth???

    I mean jeez, Pilosa, Nadler & their buddies like Ilhan Omar & yet P Turley has a 24/7 hard on against the main defend of the USA Trump.

    Well, go figure, but it’s just simple math & anyone with 2 brain cells left can see P Turley needs to correct his azz’s loan apps with the help of Paul Manafort. 😉

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=junker%27s+dad+%26+granddad+were+both+Nazi%27s+in+full+support+of+hitler&t=lm&ia=web

    1. Well, aside from P Turley protecting people like Pilosi, Nadler, Waters, etc. I hope he has a nice holiday.

      BTW my G Grand dad fought under Grant/Sherman, but I just love the big ole Robert E Lee Battle behind these boys & their band.

      Let that free Flag Fly!

  4. Leftism is trying to re-define language.

    For instance, “patriotism”, “nationalism”, and “in love with one’s country” were always considered positive terms and phrases. Signs of character. Ghandi and Nelson Mandela were nationalists. They wanted what was best for their countries.

    It is responsible to want what is best for your country. If you don’t love your country, then why live there?

    Neither nationalism nor patriotism are synonymous with xenophobia. I love the US, but I’m not mistrustful of Italians. I enjoy visiting other countries, and yet I love my own and prefer to live here. It is absurd to read any evil motivation behind simple truths.

    The problem with Leftist globalist movements towards globalizations, of which the EU was a step along the way, is that they no longer do what is best for their country. They set up impenetrable bureaucracies. For instance, the EU Parliament moves between Brussels and Strasbourg twice a year, because it was part of the EU Treaty. Twice a year, government grinds to a halt for weeks, everything gets boxed up, and moves. It costs 103 million euros a year just to move locations and it is inefficient on the order of Monty Python. It’s not in the best interests of any member country to waste this kind of time and money, but all of the countries are stuck with it.

    It is also naive to assume that there is no importance in national identity. The United States has both similarities and differences with other nations. We share a basic Western value system with other nations, but no other country on Earth values individual freedom like we do. We have the most robust free speech rights on Earth. Should we ever succumb to Leftist globalism efforts, then one day, we might lose our Constitutional First Amendment rights because some over-seeing union determined that there would be a list of acceptable terminology and a list of hate speech.

    We are supposed to do what is best for our country, in addition to charitable efforts. There is already a mechanism in place for forming ties with other countries – treaties, trade agreements, and negotiations. One should never cede sovereignty to any other entity.

    These out of touch elitists are getting voted out. The Left claimed they were ashamed of our own country on the world stage, and now May is out, and the rest of the brat pack are embattled.

    Words have meaning, or else they are useless. We must defend against this technique of criminalizing our own language, as well as dumbing down serious words like racist or xenophobe.

  5. Chinese communists, Cuban communists, North Korean communists, Venezuelan communists, Vietnamese communists, Laotian communists and all communists everywhere are direct and eternal mortal enemies of America.

    Central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering are all immutably anti-American, un-American and unconstitutional. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” deliberately omitting and, thereby, deliberately excluding any power to tax for any and all forms of individual welfare.

    Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several states…” to preclude abuse, favor or bias by one state over another denying any and all other forms of regulation.

    The right to private property provides individuals the right to possess and control and to claim and exercise dominion over private property “…in exclusion of every other individual…” understanding that “every” includes governmental individuals.
    _________________________________________________

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    “Private Property is that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

    1. and while the state pretends to pay them they pretend to work. How someever.. In USSR days an optimist learned English, a pessimist learned Chinese and realists practiced marxmanship.

  6. Information and Historical Data on Cities, Towns and Counties in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There are 14 Counties, with 39 cities and 312 towns. There are fourteen communities that have applied for, and been granted, city forms of government, though they wish to be known as “The Town of”.

    Total 365. Which means 30 is one twelfth.

    Better than Evergreen in Washington State who caved to a total of eight students. but still leaves 88 per cent …..

    Question How many of them are from the Socialist Party and how many are American Citizens.

    1. Your question has no meaning, Proportional Representation removes all need for Party Affiliation! Why do you think Article 1 of the Constitution assembled our Government Based Upon Proportional Representation instead of Party Affiliation!

  7. remember nationalist and populist just like labor and liberal have completely different meanings in Europe than they do in North America

      1. Labor Party? Your all right Jack. What’s mine is yours and whats yours isn’t worth having.

    1. Actually liberal in the USA like progressive have no meaning at all. They are just ‘other names for socialists. The classic mistake when taking over the Democrat Party was Socialism has nothing to do with Democrat, Democracy, or Democratic.

  8. I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously, especially when it comes to Governing systems. Actually Brexit should signal to you what’s wrong with the EU, and what is wrong with our Government as well! For some reason people think that leadership is necessary in republican Government!

    I’ll let you think about that concept for a while………………………

    Republican Government is Collective, not Individual Governance! Many today believe that it makes sense in a Republic to reform the government based upon election cycles, and the winners, the Party with the most seats based upon the election, or majority formed by a coalition of minor parties, is then empowered to form a Government, or administration, and Select a leader which forms policy and makes all decisions! Not in a republican form of Government! In republican Government the Government, including all distribution of seats and rights of Suffrage are stipulated from the beginning, all seats are assigned, no seats are contested in partisan elections, the distribution of power and control are defined, and the Government never changes, unless more members are added to the Government!

    I can see people shaking their heads already!

    Republican Government is a Separation of Governing from Politics, which includes all the conflicts of interest associated with Partisan Politics! This is the main reason that many do not understand our Constitution, and think it is only a framework for us to use as a guide! No the Constitution defines the distribution of Power and Suffrage, unalterably, and no Elections or Congressional Statutes can change or effect that composition of the Government! This is what makes our Governing System unique!

    “These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.”, this is what Juncker said, and I didn’t see where you contested his assessment! But why shouldn’t the people of each country love their own countries, and why should it matter to the EU if they do? The Same Question could, and should, be asked about The United States, why shouldn’t the people of a State love their own State and protect the interest, especially economic interests, of their State, and why should conformity be a prerequisite as a member of the Union to National interest and National Policy!?

    The truth is that in a Confederated Republic the idea of being in love with you own country, or State, is a prerequisite to the proper function of the Government. State Sovereignty, which has nothing to do with noncompliance with National directives, is imperative to maintain the independent Suffrage which forces concurrence by Majority Consensus, of the Members of the Governing Assembly.

    Maybe we need to discuss what constitutes a member of the Governing Assembly! A Member is the Districts, Counties, States, or Countries that are being assembled. In the case of our Federal Government a Member is a State, The United States, in Congress Assembled! In the case of the EU a Member is the Individual Countries which comprise the EU! So in the EU it makes absolutely no sense for them to hold partisan Elections to determine A Majority Party EU wide, just like it makes no sense to hold partisan elections in the US for that same purpose. If you think about it, it makes no sense to assemble by Party Affiliation, if you are already assembled by State or Country, there’s no necessity for control if every State has rights of Suffrage of their own.

    Sovereignty must be a prerequisite, especially economic sovereignty, of a large republic, the larger the republic the more necessary it is that each member maintains their power of the Purse, allowing no monies to be transferred from their District to the Collective without their approval.

    With this view it should be obvious what Britten should do with the EU, they should threaten Brexit to achieve equality in Representation and Suffrage within the EU. The United States would never have ratified the Constitution if they were not included in the Union as Equals with the necessary controls in place to maintain that Equality of Representation and Suffrage through State Sovereignty!

    1. I’ll set aside time until then… short version. In a true Democracy every citizen votes on everything everytime. Might work in a confined area until they elect the Mayor and the City Council

      Republic from the latin res publica is of,by,and for the citizens.

      Both systems work until – for a democracy it’s outgrown by it’s population and geographical size;

      and for a Constitutional Republic also known sometimes as a social contract it’s succesfully ignored by, as the word implies – the ignorant.

      Socialism having never been successful by the standards of self governing citizens – begins and ends as a failure.

      Sweden is a good example of turning that failure into a positive by adopting market capitalism as an economic system, retaining a conscious social conscience which is not socialism and rejecting it up to and including ‘welfare.’

      They are now struggling with an out of control immigration problem but see it as problem of social conscience.

      Swedes also laugh at those that think they are still Sociaists.

      1. A Republic is not a Direct (true) Democracy, it is an indirect Democracy Based Upon Equal Representation and Equal Suffrage through Representation!

        And you cannot compare our Confederated Republic to any other Governing System in current operation, or ever throughout history, ours is unique! Our problem today is those who have taken it upon themselves to remake our Republic based upon the Party Systems like those of European Parliaments.

        Once you understand that we don’t need, or want, political parties in our system of government, then we can move this conversation forward, but until then this conversation is futile!

      1. Thank you. I stand corrected. Goodreads stands corrected. Verbatim cut and paste: “I only regret that I have but one life to loose for my country.” – Nathan Hale

  9. He’s from Luxembourg, and was actually the Prime Minister. Luxembourg is a country for whom sovereignty is a courtesy extended by its neighbours. The country may have skilled workers, but it doesn’t have sufficient manpower to assemble a university medical center (as the term would be understood in the United States) or a bourse or aught but the most skeletal diplomatic corps. It would have to rely on Belgian institutions for that. (Luxembourg established a customs union with Belgium right after the 1st World War).

    It would be agreeable if the Luxembourgeois parliament passed a bill of attainder stripping him of his citizenship – signed, sealed, delivered courtesy the country’s Grand Duke. If he’s such a smart person, he can figure out how to cope as a stateless individual.

  10. the tribal nature of humans is far more deeply ingrained that the rather new and untested ethos of a global hegemony. Even the ancient persians and romans understood that allowing regional differences to continue in their empires ensured a more cohesive situation. I am wondering if this push for a one world government is just another untested anthropological experiment that will fail just as the untested mess of “The Great Society”. It sounds great in theory because that theory purposefully deletes all human elements that run counter to the pre-perceived results.

    1. The limits of “tribalism” is the test and it’s not like we don’t have the ability to overcome it’s excesses – or we better hope we can. The US is one of the strongest arguments for overcoming tribalism as most of us regard the country of our ancestors’ origin with more curiosity than real loyalty. The largest immigrant group in the US by country of origin has been Germany, yet we went to war with them twice with only the smallest of resistance or disloyalty from that group.

      The future will ultimately require a world government with teeth, or forget getting into the 22nd century with an intact civilization. That’s just a fact.

      1. “The future will ultimately require a world government with teeth, or forget getting into the 22nd century with an intact civilization. That’s just a fact.”

        No, and it’s not a fact. As usual, you ascribe more intelligence to government employees than actually exists. And people are too different around the world to have one central government.

          1. The future will ultimately require a world government with teeth, or forget getting into the 22nd century with an intact civilization. That’s just a fact.

            Your inability to know the difference between opinion and fact certainly explains much of your commentary. In either case, you should be able to support your opinion with evidence proving it to be a well-formed opinion, or provide the evidence to prove your claim to be a fact.

            Ready? Go!

          2. “It’s a fact”

            As a matter of both logic and linguistics, there’s no such thing as a “fact” pertaining to the future.

          3. Anon – the only people who openly state they want to conquer the world are Islamic extremists who desire the global caliphate called for in Qu’ran.

            What you state as fact is actually the definition of a hypothesis, and then a theory. You theorize that civilization will crumble unless it is brought under a single global government. I hypothesis that it would require a severe dictatorship to rule the entire planet with one government, and bring together polar opposite cultures.

            Let’s hope your theory does not come to pass. If it does, it will likely go the way of Rome, and crumble away back into its disparate parts.

      2. The future will ultimately require a world government with teeth,

        It will require nothing of the kind. That’s just your stupid ambition.

        1. That bodes good news for the world. It means the Clintons will not be part of it as according to Hillary it only takes a village

      3. Are you suggesting that we conquer the rest of the world and force it to obey US laws?

        Otherwise, what you refer to as “tribalism” actually refers to wildly different cultures. What goes in Afghanistan is the polar opposite for what is acceptable in the US. When someone immigrates to the US from Afghanistan, they must follow US law, hence, they must leave the part of their culture and tradition behind that our country finds unlawful.

        Without one law, you have countries along the spectrum of beliefs about individual rights, etc.

        Tribalism has an inherent negative connotation. What would be more accurate would be associating with those who share your beliefs. I would not want to live in Saudi Arabia, where I would have to wear an abaya, and hire a driver, and be chaperoned. How would such “tribalism” be overcome, exactly? Is Saudi Arabia going to lose its individual identity and become another Western country, or would the US become misogynistic and violent to fit in with the Kingdom?

        I prefer to live in a free, Western country that is not subject to the whims of, say, Strasbourg.

    2. “Even the ancient persians and romans understood that allowing regional differences to continue in their empires ensured a more cohesive situation.”

      I’m not sure whether I’m addressing your point or not, but there’s a big difference between conquering a territory and allowing the indigenous culture to continue in that territory, on the one hand, and allowing mass immigration without assimilation, on the other. The Romans, to use one of your examples, tolerated Judaism in Judaea only up to certain well-defined limits, before finally aborting that particular experiment in multiculturalism in 70 AD.

    3. The Fallacy of both Socialism and Keynesian Economics. They both ignore the human element and attempt to replace humans with Pelosian Schumerists or those afflicted with Fineslimes Condition.

  11. Lovely that his revealing comments are many while May is going down with her resistance to Brexit. Every so often politicians err and speak the truth.

Leave a Reply