Obama: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant Death to America does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe”

Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.

Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

(…)

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.

Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.

Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”

En udskamning for langt

Feminisme, Kunst og kultur, Ligestilling, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 18, 2016 at 4:27 am

Ord som racist, islamofob og nazist har været i flittigt brug når relevante debatter skulle kvæles i vuggen og rationelle mennesker udskammes for at den forbrydelse at bringe viden til torvs. Vi har levet med det, selv om det har haft sine ofre, for i sidste ende slides fraser op. Og fordi man aner at de aggressioner, der ligger til grund for dem er en sikker indikation for, hvor desperat et standpunkt forsvares.

Det er selvfølgelig venstrefløjen, der i sin egen selvforståelse står så moralsk opløftet, at den ikke kan lade sig hæmme af nogen skam eller anstændighed. Den staår ikke til regnskab for nogen virkelighed fordi det fordømmelsesværdige ikke bare vil dø af sig selv. Men hvis ikke revolutionen æder sine børn, så gør storkapitalen det.

Sony Pictures har lanceret en ny udgave af den klassiske 80er gyserkomedie Ghostbusters. I stedet for at være den tredie i en række, har man valgt at relancere, hvad man håber bliver et franchise i stil med Avenger-universet, Ghostbusters i en ny origins fortælling. Altså at man starter historien forfra med en ny begyndelse.

Men kritikken begyndte at hagle ned over filmens kvalitet allerede da den første trailer blev offentliggjort, hvilket truede filmens succes og Sony Pictures profit. Så modsvaret blev at bekrige kritikerne ved at udskamme dem. hovedroller i Sony Pictures Ghostbusters er, i tidens frigørende ånd, alle kvinder (barnløse i øvrigt, på nær en). Følgeligt bliver enhver kritik misogyn, leveret af tabermænd, skimlede sikkert, som de bor alene eller i kælderen hjemme hos mor.

Ghostbusters tilblivelse ligner en parodi af Robert Altmans 90er film The Player. Det er svært at overbevise mange om at det mandlige publikum ikke bryder sig om kvindelige helte. Alien filmene, Hunger Games, den seneste Star Wars og de klassiske Emanuelle film har alle begejstret drenge og mænd. Gavin McInnes behøver kun et enkelt reklamefoto fra den nye Ghostbusters til at hegle hele konceptet ned - og svælge i herlig misogyni.

Mere blod på Obamas hænder

Yderligere 3 amerikanske politibetjente er blevet dræbt af en attentatmand, efter at være blevet lokket i en fælde. Mordene skete i Baton Rouge i Los Angeles. Breitbart skriver at

Sunday on Fox News Channel’s breaking news coverage of the shootings in Baton Rouge, LA that has killed 3 officers and injured 3 more, Cleveland police officer and Police Patrolmen’s Association President Steve Loomis said President Barack Obama had “blood on his hands.”

Loomis said, “The president of the Untied States validated a false narrative and the nonsense that Black Lives Matter and the Media are pressing out to the public — validated with his very divisive statements And now we see an escalation.

I New York råbte demonstranter for et par uger siden “What do we want? Dead Cops!”

Den slags afskrækker ikke venstrefløjenm, de kære mennesker. Sandheden, at sorte ikke har højere tendens til at blive skudt af politifolk end hvide eller andre farver, er ikke en viden de har brug for til at forstyrre deres ‘narrativ’. Og ‘narrativet’ er så godt i sin moralske renhed at man sagtens kan forsvare mord på politifolk, bare sådan i al almindelighed. “De amerikanske demonstrationer mod politifolks drab på sorte nåede i dag Danmark, hvor Rådhuspladsen i København dannede rammen om en solidaritetsdemonstration for bevægelsen ’Black Lives Matter’” skriver Danmarks Radio. Jamen, hvorledes kan det dog rage nogen herhjemme, hvad amerikanerne render rundt og laver, tænker man måske? Så er det fordi man undervurderer venstrefløjens evne til at blande alle deres sorger sammen.

Vi ønsker at vise vores solidaritet og opbakning til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsbevægelse Blacklivesmatter og vise vores støtte og kærlighed til de myrdedes efterladte.

Vi fordømmer den politisering, kriminalisering og racislisering af PADs (People of Afican Decent) der på globalt plan, dagligt frarøver os vores værdighed og liv, live for rullende kamera.

Lad os med klar røst sige deres navne højt og begribe deres menneskelighed og historie:

Trayvon Martin, Miriam Carey, Tanisha Anderson, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, Emmanuel Chidi Namdi. . . Listen fortsætter og inkluderer skæbner frarøvet på europæisk jord.

Vi fordømmer den raceprofilerende politibrutalitet der i USA placerer sorte mænd i risikozonen : 9 gange større sandsynlighed for at blive dræbt af politiet end en andre amerikanske borgere.

I 2015 mistede 1,134 afro-amerikanere livet i politiets varetægt, 25% af disse var ubevæbnet.

Vi fordømmer den manglende retsforfølgelse og dom af de voldsudøvende og moderiske politimænd.

Vi fordømmer den globale stilhed der lamer i vores øre når 10.000vis af PAD bådflygtningene mister livet på Middelhavet på deres færd mod Europa.

Vi råber den institutionelle og strukturelle racisme op, som forstummer og negligerer vores oplevelser og virkelighed.

Ifølge nogle teorier er vi alle af afrikansk herkomst, altså PADs så der menes vist nok bare negre (eller folk der er ikke er kommet videre om man vil).

Tyrkiet kommer nærmere sine strukturelle udfordringer

Demografi, Erdogan, Forår?, Multikultur, Muslimer, Politik, Tyrkiet, islam, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 16, 2016 at 9:17 pm

“Hvem var det, der vandt i dag, det var dem fra IS af!” skrev en god ven på Facebook. Erdogan tænkte måske det samme, i hvert fald udtalte han at det sørgelig forsøg på et kup var “en gave fra Allah”. Nogen konspirationsspekulerer i at det var en gave fra ham selv, som han har fået det til at handle om mere end nogle utilfredse officerer, der stod til at blive udrenset, med fyringen af 2700 dommere. Uanset hvad, skal nogle nok betale prisen, måske i form af likvideringer. Andre spekulerer i at Erdogans regime er blevet svækket grundet det ydmygende i hele miseren.

David P Goldman tegner i Asia Times et andet og mere dystert billede af Tyrkiets situation end den

Turkey faces a perfect storm of economic, political and foreign policy problems.

First, Turkey’s much-heralded economic growth spurt of the 2000’s has come to a grinding stop. The Erdogan boom, which inspired predictions that Turkey might emerge as another China, resembled the Asian experience less than it did the Latin American credidt bubbles of the 1980s or the American subprime bubble of the 2000s.

(…)

Secondly, Turkey’s internal cohesion is at risk due to the rapid increase of its Kurdish-speaking minority and the relative decline of the ethnic Turkish population.

The Kurdish demographic problem has led Erdogan into a political swamp from which he may not emerge. He won last year’s presidential election by stirring up national ardor against the Kurdish minority, and has kept the Kurdish southeast of the country in a low-level civil war since then. The leader of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party warned last March that Erdogan had brought Turkey to the brink of an ethnic war.

To prevent the Syrian Kurds from controlling the northern border of their country and linking up with their Iraqi compatriots, Erdogan covertly supported Sunni terrorists, including ISIS, as Michael Rubin explained last March in Newsweek. Erdogan’s back channel to ISIS blew up in Turkey’s face–literally–when ISIS suicide bombers killed 42 people and injured hundreds at the Istanbul Airport June 29.

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the foundation of the modern state, Turkey’s army acted as the guarantor of the country’s secular state. The Islamist Erdogan attempted to reverse that, jailing hundreds of military officers on a spurious charge of plotting  a coup in 2012. Most were released in 2014. Erdogan could not do without the military, however; his failed foreign policy made him dependent on the Turkish army, which reasserted its influence this year. Erdogan proudly called himself a “black Turk,” that is, a devout Muslim from the Anatolian hinterland, in contrast to the “White Turks,” the Europeanized secular party who came to power under Kemal Ataturk and ruled the country until the 2000s.

Jeg har ingen forhåbninger til Tyrkiet som den sekulære løgn Atatürk på imponerende kreerede. Det er bedre at se sine fjender, som det de er.

Obama har vist ikke “helet nationen”

Politico skriver

The head of a law enforcement advocacy group lashed out at President Barack Obama in the wake of the Dallas shootings that left five police officers dead, accused the president of carrying out a “war on cops.”

“I think [the Obama administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,” William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.

(…)

“It’s a war on cops,” Johnson also said. “And the Obama administration is the Neville Chamberlain of this war.”

obama-black-lives-matter-meeting-getty-640x480

Billedet viser Obama der takker Black Lives Matter for deres “degree of focus and seriousness and constructiveness“, flankeret af grundlægger af Black Lives Matter, Brittany Packnett og DeRay McKesson. I samme ånd kunne han kun svinge sig op til at bemærke at det var kontraproduktivt at myrde politifolk

“Whenever those of us who are concerned about fairness in the criminal justice system attack police officers, you are doing a disservice to the cause,” Obama said at the Moncola Palace in Madrid.

Obama said that police and activists need to work together and “listen to each other” in order to mobilize real change in America.

The President added that in movements such as Black Lives Matter, there will always be people who make “stupid” or “over generalized” statements, but that a truthful and peaceful tone must be created on both sides for progress.

Og Hillary, der relativerede terrortruslen fra Islamisk Stat et al. med alt, inklusive politibrutalitet kommenterede  “White Americans need to do a better job of listening”. Og det, skriver Joel Pollak er “exactly the wrong message. It frames racism as the fundamental problem in American society, and encourages people to interpret events through that lens. It sows seeds of mistrust, when racism had largely been overcome.

And the answer is that our leaders made a deliberate choice to radicalize our politics, unnecessarily. The racism and mistrust followed, because they are necessary to sustain that radicalism.

The Tea Party arose not because of racism, but because President Barack Obama made clear he was going to push through his agenda regardless of the wishes of the opposition or the constraints of the Constitution, and because voters realized that the Republicans, left to their own devices, were not going to stop him.

That’s all. That had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but Obama and his party found it convenient to invent it — like the lies about the N-word being shouted at black legislators in 2010.

The reason Donald Trump exists as a political phenomenon is that there is a sizable constituency of conservatives who are tired of losing to that. They were tired of losing in 2000, too, but Republicans worried at the time about the moderate middle, and so a “compassionate conservative” like George W. Bush was their response.

The left demonized Bush anyway — partly because the 2000 recount convinced them they could, because he was “illegitimate” — and Obama rode that wave to office.

Trump fights back (though his statement about Dallas was remarkably measured, even presidential). The problem is that there is only so much more fighting the country can take. We abuse social media to fantasize about a dystopian America, and  in the process we are bringing it about.

Sheriff David Clarke uddyber den pointe. Ikke at der ikke er problemer i USA, et land med 320.000.000 indbyggere. David French skrev om forholdene i Ferguson, hvor Politiet grundlæggende holdt de mennesker, som de skulle “protect and serve” som gidsler og Reddit Hudson fortæller hårrejsende anekdoter her. Men de fleste steder udsætter politiet sig for gevaldige risici

[L]et’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs.

Mere kan læses på Power Online. Det er de progressive, der selv skynder på racespændinger

Hegn, bånd eller burka, kvinder skal beskyttes

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Muslimer, Saudiarabien, Sharia, Sverigetanic, islam — Drokles on July 10, 2016 at 4:44 am

I Sverige skal kvinder hegnes ind til festivaller. Indtil videre kun festivaller. Og det er for deres eget bedste. Grunden er at synet på kvinder, kvinders beklædning og kvinders opførsel, er under forandring i Sverige, således at de har behov for deres egne safe spaces. Ellers er der altid det beskyttende arm, som fortæller ‘mænd’, at de ikke ønsker at bliver voldtaget.

Og nu til noget helt, helt andet. I Saudiarabien holder man i modsætning til det foranderlige Sverige, fast i sit syn på kvinder, deres beklædning og deres opførsel, skriver Your Newswire

According to Al-Saqaby, husbands should not immediately attack their wives, but should discipline them ‘properly’ first. He then makes it clear that in marriage, there is nothing like equality, and that men should take charge and rule the home – using violent force if necessary.

In the event of a woman disobeying her husband, Al-Saqaby teaches in the video that the men should follow the steps below in making sure that the woman is corrected.

The first step is to remind her of your rights and of her duties according to Allah. Then comes the second step – forsaking her in bed. The third step, beating, has to correspond with the necessary Islamic conditions” before taking action. The beating should not be performed with a rod, nor should it be a headband, or a sharp object. Instead, husbands should use a ‘tooth-cleaning twig or with a handkerchief’ to beat their wife. The wife will feel that she was wrong in the way she treated her husband,” says Al-Saqaby.

The Saudi government endorsed doctor says his teachings of how to beat wives is not exhaustive, and that sometimes men should beat their wives without following his steps if the women go to extreme lengths in disobeying their husbands.

He also blamed women for provoking their husbands, expressing shock that some women are ‘stubborn’ to the point that only beatings can bring them back into line.

In addition, sometimes a woman makes a mistake that may lead her husband to beat her. I’m sad to say there are some women who say ‘Go ahead, if you are a real man, beat me’ She provokes them,” he adds in the video.

Critics of the video say,although some of the teachings Al-Saqaby espoused in the video concerning how husbands should treat their wives are found in the Holy Quran, they were used in a context. They accuse Al-Saqaby and the Saudi government of being selective with the verses of the Holy Book in order to satisfy their own interest.

Det lyder mærkeligt at islam skulle have et på nogen måde misogynt indhold og mere troværdigt at muslimer flest blot har misforstået deres egen religion. De svenske kvinder har det jo også hårdt og Sverige er ikke et islamisk land, så islam kan på ingen måde være indblandet i et negativt syn på kvinder, deres beklædning og deres opførsel. Måske man skulle spørge  David Wood, der her giver lidt hjælp med 3 koran-vers enhver kvinde burde kende

Jo mere muslimsk, jo mere forsvinder kvinder ud af det offentlige rum.

Økonomisk kaos på vej efter Brexit - bare ikke for Storbritannien

Brexit, Diverse, EU, England, Euro, Forår?, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 10, 2016 at 4:27 am

I Storbritannien ser det sort ud for den forrådte ungdom

Og hvordan er perspektiverne så for det forjættede EU?

The IMF did warn of economic chaos in the event of a Leave victory and has urged for a “smooth transition” for post-EU Britain.

The international organisation said: “The euro area is at a critical juncture. Muddling through is increasingly untenable.

“Unless collective problems are solved, the euro area is likely to suffer repeated bouts of economic and political instability leading to crises of confidence and economic setbacks.”

In the damning statement, it said the migrant crisis could even spell the end of free movement and warned that other countries in the bloc could want their own referendums following the Brexit vote.

A Nobel Prize winning economist even said that Europe may have to “abandon the euro”.

The economist, Professor Christopher Pissarides, has said that the uncertainty would reduce investment and hit job creation.

His warnings came as:

* French bank Societe Generale analyst warned Italy and France could quit the single currency EU

* Rating agency Moody’s said the future of the entire EU was at risk

* Banks across Europe came under increasing stress

* The world’s biggest hotel group predicted that the fall in the pound would lead to a tourist boom for the UK.

But the IMF has also said that the outlook would be even worse if there are long, drawn-out negotiations between the UK and the EU.

Super, altså business as usual. Imens ser Storbritannien mod nye horisonter

Xing Houyan, from the state supported Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, claimed the “situation in Western Europe will push China and the UK to make a trade treaty”.

Former Waitrose boss Lord Price claimed the two nations working together could “create a second Elizabethan golden age” while speaking at the Honk Kong chamber of commerce.

He said: “I’m optimistic about the future: particularly in helping create a second Elizabethan Golden Age.

“The first Golden Age was based on peace, prosperity, new trading markets and a flourishing of the arts.

“There’s also a prospect for striking new deals with Canada, New Zealand and Australia which could form the beginning of a Commonwealth trading pact.”

Ak ja, Storbritannien, isoleret sammen med resten af Verden.

Endnu en historie om dødelig og racistisk politivold fra USA

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Pressen, Racisme, USA — Drokles on July 8, 2016 at 6:10 am

Politiet beskytter os hver dag mod en syndflod af kriminelle og barbarer. Men det sker at politiet kommer til at skyde uskyldige mennesker. En politibetjent gik tilsyneladende i panik og skød og dræbte den 32årige Philando Castile, der ikke syntes at følge hans instrukser. Det tragiske optrin blev filme af Castiles kæreste Lavish Reynolds, kan man læse på Kristeligt Dagblad

Reynolds fortæller på videoen, at kæresten havde en våbenlicens, men da han rækker ud efter sit kørekort og bilens registreringspapirer, bliver han uden varsel skudt.

- Han forsøgte at hive sit kørekørt og pung op af lommen, og han lod betjenten forstå, at han var i besiddelse af et skydevåben, og han ledte efter pungen, og betjenten skød ham i armen. Han skød simpelthen hans arm af, fortæller hun til kameraet.

- Fuck, jeg sagde til ham, at han ikke skulle lede efter det. Jeg sagde til ham, at han skulle række hænderne op, kan man høre politimanden sig.

De næste minutter kan man på videoen høre Reynolds græde, indtil hun bliver hevet ud af bilen og lagt i håndjern og ikke længere kan filme.

Men da Castiles var sort bliver det straks en sag om racisme. Og Kristeligt Dagblad perspektiverer således

Videoen kommer dagen efter en filmet episode i Baton Rouge i staten Louisiana, hvor en sort mand og far til fem børn bliver overmandet af to betjente og herefter skudt af flere omgange og dør.

Torsdag indledes under stor bevågenhed en retssag i Baltimore i Maryland. En politimand er tiltalt for at være skyld i en sort mand, Freddie Grays død. Grays rygsøjle brækkede, mens han blev ført væk i et af politiets salatfade.

En stribe sager, hvor sorte er dræbt af politiet, er de sidste to år kommet til offentlighedens kendskab og det har fået det amerikanske justitsministerium til at rejse tiltaler. I flere tilfælde er det påvist, at der har eksisteret en racistisk kultur i lokale politistyrker.

Det burde nævnes at Freddie Grey var en narkohandler og ikke en almindelig bilist med en knust baglygte, som Philando Castile. Og det burde også nævnes at racismen i Baltimores politistyrker var mere konpleks, da 3 af de seks tiltalte i sagen om Freddie Grays voldsomme arrestation var negre, hvor den ene var en kvinde. Men journalister kerer sig ikke om fakta, men om historier og fortællinger. Mens vi endnu ikke ved, hvad der præcist skete, da Castiles blev skudt og dræbt af en politibetjent, der havde stoppe ham for en defekt baglygte, så kan Town Hall i hvert fald slå lidt koldt vand i blodet på fortællingen om det hvide racistiske USA, der mejer negre ned for et godt ord

Let’s start with 2014, the last year for which there are official records. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the police killed 261 whites and 131 blacks. The CDC also found that from 1999 to 2013, the police killed almost twice the number of whites compared to blacks, 3,160 and 1,724, respectively.

Activists promptly note that whites account for nearly 65 percent of the population and that, therefore, one would expect whites to comprise most of those killed by cops. And we are told that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, represent a much greater percentage of those killed by cops. Institutional, systemic, structural racism!

Here’s what those promoting the “police disproportionately kill black people” narrative consistently omit. Whites, despite being almost 65 percent of the population, disproportionately commit less of the nation’s violent crime — 10 percent. Blacks, at 13 percent of the population, disproportionately commit more violent crime. As to murders, black commit nearly half. Yet whites are 50 percent of cop killings.

Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were black. “Adjusted for the homicide rate,” says Moskos, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” So if anything, whites have more to complain about than Mr. Williams.

What about traffic stops and race? Surely cops racially profile blacks, wrongly and disproportionately stopping them? Not according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice. In its 2013 report, “Race, Trust and Police Legitimacy,” the NIJ found that 75 percent of blacks admitted that they were stopped for “legitimate reasons.” And it turns out blacks disproportionately commit traffic offenses, whether speeding, driving without a license, driving with expired tags, driving without the seat belt on or without a car seat for a baby, and so on. Numerical disparities, said the NIJ, result from “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

What about 2015, a year in which Black Lives Matter protested a number of high-profile police/black suspect encounters? According to The Washington Post, the police killed 965 people. But the Post found that “white police officers killing unarmed black men represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.” Remember, a black man, extremely popular among blacks, has been president for over seven years. He has nominated, and Congress has approved, back-to-back attorneys general. Nothing stops the Department of Justice from filing civil rights charges against the officers for “murder.” But the DOJ has not done so.

Lavish Reynolds udtalte senereNot black lives matter – all lives matter – every single life out here matters, no matter the color, the race, the nationality, we all deserve to be heard!” men i Dallas, Texas er 3 betjente blevet dræbt i, hvad der ligner en hævngerning.

Seeberg tilpasser sig Brexit

Gitte Seeberg er en af de emotionelle EU-tilhængere. Her, næsten to uger efter Brexit, er hun stadig i chokfasen og har svært ved at udtrykke en sammenhængende tanke.

Man kan vist med rette spørge sig selv, hvad i alverden det er for en verden, vi lever i i øjeblikket. Vælgerne i UK sagde ja til at forlade Unionen.

Ja, hvad i alverden er det for en verden, hvor nogle ikke vil være med i EU? Det er crazy. I samme ånd kaldes danskernes nej til at ophæve de retlige forbehold - de forbehold, der var betingelsen for at ændre vores nej til Unionen til et ja mindre end et år senere - for en “fuldstændig vanvittig disposition”. Men det er sammenbruddet i Seebergs logik, som fortjener lidt opmærksomhed

Camerons populisme har bragt landet ud i en dyb krise. Og dermed også EU.

Ved hun at hun skriver at det er UK, der dermed er den store i det forhold? Ikke det bedste forsvar, men selv om hun sikkert ikke vil indrømme det, er det den antagelse, der ligger bag hendes ræsonnement - og hendes emotioner. For hvorfor hidse sig op over at et land har kastet sig ud i en svær situation, hvis ikke man er den berørte part? “Egentlig kan man ind i mellem fristes til at give fanden i de englændere.” skriver Seeberg, før hun tvinges til at indrømme “Men desværre er UK jo rigtigt vigtig for os alle”.

UK er en stærk militær nation. Stort NATO land og vigtig spiller, ikke mindst i forhold til USA. USA og UK er mere enige end USA og Frankrig eller Tyskland. Den tætte relation gavner også os andre i EU ikke mindst, da både USA og UK gør det stærkt på terrorbekæmpelse.

Så Brexit er altså mest EUs tab. Mens englænderne har givet fanden i EU har Seeberg ikke samme luksus til at give fanden i englænderne. Og hvad er perspektivet?

For hvor går samarbejdet i EU hen, hvis vi får Marine Le Pen som ny fransk præsident i Frankrig? Ellers hvis en nationalist vinder omvalget i Østrig til præsidentposten? Måske lige suppleret af Donald Trump som præsident i USA. Ingen i Europa vil klappe af dette.

Måske nogen i Europa alligevel vil klappe. De såkaldt populistiske bevægelser er jo folkelige, og så meget de får magt, så mange klapper. Men som Seeberg blander sine sorger sammen, bliver den kommende amerikanske præsident til EUs problemer. Ak ja, et forsvar for en konstruktion, der hverken tåler dissens eller amerikanske præsidenter. Men der løber flere soger på i disse tider og de er hjemlige

På vores egen hjemmebane fører landets store aviser kampagne for at få Danmarks nye nynationalistiske parti i Folketinget. Partiet er mod skat, mod udlændinge og mod EU og sikkert rigtig meget mere. Taler til globaliseringsangste. Aldrig har så ukendte kandidater fået så meget spalteplads. Udfordringer er der nok af.

Seeberg har ret i, at medierne ikke giver Nye Borgerlige samme fjendtlige behandling, som var Dansk Folkepartis skæbne de første ti år. Her kunne man med jævne mellemrum se og høre diverse eksperter prøve at patologisere partiets vælgere, stille sig det spørgsmål, hvorfor nogen kunne finde på at stemme på dem. Allerede dengang vidste man ikke, hvad i alverden det var for en verden vi levede i. De samme spørgsmål stillede de undrende medier også til eksperter om EU-skeptikerne i 1992 og 93. De var sikkert bange for udviklingen, at det gik for stærkt, de havde ikke den fornødne uddannelse og det dertil hørende udsyn. Verden var global og det fordrede en snæver europæisk union, det kunne alle da forstå. Blot ikke i provinsen, hvor førtidspensionisten drikker bloktilskuddet op.

Jo, nye borgerlige er blevet behandlet med en hvis fascination og nysgerrighed af medier, der sanser at der sker noget i folkedybet, som det for nuværende kan være mere spændende at følge end bekrige. Men medierne har aldrig ført kampagne for et parti som de gjorde det for Ny Alliance. Ukritisk godtog de Seebergs nok-er-nok floskel og så det som et sandt folkeligt opgør med de pauvre masser, der havde stjålet sig en ufortjent opmærksomhed. Altså lige indtil partiet brændte sammen et par måneder efter under vægten af sine egne populistiske selvmodsigelser, personlige stridigheder og inkompetence. Men kendte, det var de.

Og intet ser ud til at have ændret sig i synet på folkedybet. Det er folk, der blot er imod sikkert rigtigt meget, globaliseringsangste og ukendte som de er. At de vil kunne danne flertal, vil ingen klappe ad, ingen værd at regne med i hvert fald. Seebergs tilpasningsreaktion kan meget vel overskride de 6 måneder.

Brexit og tonen

Der tales altid om emotioner, når man skal forklare EU-skepsis. Men som det er blevet demonstreret så tydeligt af reaktionerne på Brexit, så løber emotionerne af med EU-tilhængerne

Milton Friedman forewarned in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” Whereas “the argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument.” “The argument for individualism” and freedom, on the other hand, “is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

Margrethe Aukens emotionelle reaktion på Nigel Farages afgang som formand for sit parti UKIP vidner om at EU vækker de ikke så sofistikerede og subtile emotioner

margrete-auken-om-farage

Satyajit Das beskriver i Independent nogle flere reaktioner fra det angelsaksiske overdrev

The EU is circling the wagons, painting Britain as a reluctant European, and seeks to punish her to dissuade other nations from similar actions. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s tart summary reflects this view: “It’s not an amicable divorce, but it never really was a close love affair anyway”.

The intellectual response is framed by cognitive dissonance. Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, lamented the fact that the referendum outcome was the result of a complex question being reduced to “absurd simplicity”.

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University, saw it as “Russian roulette for republics”. He complained that the simple majority of those who voted (36 per cent of eligible voters voted for leaving) was an absurdly low bar – although that level is significantly higher than the average winning vote proportion in recent US presidential elections, for example. Such a significant decision, he said, should not be made without appropriate checks and balance.

And in an editorial for Business Insider, American columnist Josh Barro termed the decision “a tantrum”. British voters had made “a bad choice”. It was an “error of direct democracy”. Such important decisions should not be decided by voters but left to “informed” elected officials.

For those who believe they are born to rule, democracy should be for those who meet some standard set by them with the proviso that the vote coincides with what they think ought to happen. For this group, the Brexit vote signals the need to limit democracy to ensure that important decisions are left to self-certified experts.

I National Review har David French talt med en EU fortaler, der ikke forfalder til emotionerne og som giver en dyster strukturel beskrivelse af EU

It was a system that worked remarkably well for the international upper class. Men and women dedicated to commerce enjoyed unprecedented access to international markets. Activists dedicated to social justice could engineer their societies without ever truly facing the accountability of the ballot box. The logic of the system was self-proving. It would triumph through the sheer force of its virtue.

Unable to grasp the extent to which the new international order had endured and prospered not so much through its self-evident goodness but through the protection of American arms, it proved completely incapable of meeting the challenge when America chose to retreat. Vladimir Putin wanted no part of a system that sidelined Russia and viewed it as just one more economic and bureaucratic entity in a global superstate and decided to exert raw power to shape the world. He put boots on the ground in Crimea, and he dared the world to move him. He exerted his will in Syria, and he dared the world to stop him.

In response, John Kerry actually said, “You just don’t, in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.” It’s a comment that would be hilarious if it weren’t so impotent. Putin did as he liked, and “history” had nothing to say about it.

Det er den kølige analyse af EU. Man kan anse EU som at gode, når alt tages i betragtning, men indvendingerne imod det træge bureakrati og dets grundlæggende svigt. Men ‘er’ og ‘bør’ forveksles for venstrefløjens elite, med dens kollektivisme og flyvske idealer, hvor diffuse de så måtte være. Peter Hitchens leverer en fejende beskrivelse, af en elite uden nytte eller opfattelse af forpligtelse

The part of the referendum campaign that has angered me most is this: the suggestion, repeatedly made by pro-EU persons, that there is something narrow, mean and small-minded about wanting to live in an independent country that makes its own laws and controls its own borders.

I can think of no other country where the elite are so hostile to their own nation, and so contemptuous of it.

I have spent many years trying to work out why this is. I think it is because Britain – the great, free, gentle country it once was and might be again – disproves all their theories.

Most of our governing class, especially in the media, politics and the law, is still enslaved by 1960s ideals that have been discredited everywhere they have been tried.

These are themselves modified versions of the communist notions that first took hold here in the 1930s. But the things they claim to want – personal liberty, freedom of conscience, clean government, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, a compassionate state, a safety net through which none can fall, and a ladder that all can climb – existed here without any of these airy dogmas.

How annoying that an ancient monarchy, encrusted with tradition, Christian in nature, enforced by hanging judges in red robes, had come so much closer to an ideal society than Trotsky or Castro ever did or ever could.

The contradiction made the radicals’ brains fizz and sputter. How could this be? If it was so, they were wrong. Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth. Two and two must be made to make five, if it suits them.

So, rather than allow their hearts to lift at the sight of such a success as Britain was, and ashamed to be patriots, they set out to destroy the living proof that they were wrong.

(…)

They declared themselves ‘Europeans’. They regarded this as superior to their own country. ‘How modern! How efficient!’ they trilled. I have heard them do it. They did not notice that the EU was also a secretive, distant and unresponsive monolith, hostile or indifferent to the freedoms we had so carefully created and so doggedly preserved.

They failed to see that its ‘parliament’ does not even have an opposition, that its executive is accountable to nobody. They inherited jury trial, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights – the greatest guarantees of human freedom on the planet – and they traded in this solid gold for the worthless paper currency of human rights.

If they win on Thursday, the process of abolishing Britain will be complete. If they lose, as I hope they do and still think they will, there is a faint, slender chance that we may get our country back one day.

Som bekendt vandt de ikke og bitterheden luftes stadig. Måske fordi de frygter at festen er forbi. Hvis EU falder fra hinanden, som følge af en dominoeffekt udløst af Brexit, mister denne moralske overklasse et væsentligt våben mod en rationel og nødvendig politik, nemlig henvisning til den højere orden, som EU repræsenterer. Javist, FN og diverse konventioner vil stadig eksistere, men der vil ikke længere være en EU justits eller en fortælling om en europæisk offentlighed hvori et land kan blive paria. Pludselig vil vi kunne gennemføre Dansk Folkeparti og Nye Borgerliges forslag, hvis vi lyster.

På et mere prosaisk plan er der selvfølgelig også en frygt for at festen med overflødige jobs ender.

Brexit forstyrrer en filmanmeldelse

Brexit, Diverse, Kunst og kultur, Politik, USA, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 4, 2016 at 11:13 am

Det er svært at læse venstresnoede medier uden at blive konfronteret med deres chok og afsky over at et flertal af briter ikke mener det er en god ide at være medlem af suprabureaukratiet EU. I The New Yorkers filmanmeldelse af Steven Spielbergs seneste børnefilm, Big F****** Giant, sniger galden sig ind med en næsten parodisk forståelse af samspillet mellem børn og fiktion

Children’s worst new lesson in the British political process comes not from the Brexit fiasco but from Steven Spielberg’s live-action adaptation of Roald Dahl’s “The BFG.” When the titular Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance) and the little girl, Sophie (Ruby Barnhill), who lives in his lair need the help of the British Army, they visit the Queen (Penelope Wilton), who summons her generals and orders a commando raid on behalf of the beleaguered duo—but before she does so she makes phone calls to two political leaders. She lets “Boris” know that she might need airspace clearance and tells “Nancy” that she needs to talk with “Ronnie.” (“Well, wake him!”) Yet Spielberg offers no sense whatsoever that the British have an elected government and that it’s the Prime Minister’s job, not the monarch’s, to call out the troops.

Maybe Spielberg is just being subtly subversive. It’s easy to imagine a child, after seeing this movie, wondering why—with Great Britain facing a traumatic withdrawal from the European Union and its own possible even-more-traumatic internal breakup into independent countries—the Queen doesn’t just put her foot down and bring an end to this nonsense. And, if Her Majesty (or, as the language-garbling giant says, “Her Majester”) can’t or won’t do so, then why have a monarchy at all?

Vreden over at et andet folkefærd har afholdt en folkeafstemning over hvilken retning, de gerne ser deres land bevæge sig i (mod suverænitet, nu beder jeg dem fru Heilbundt) er så indgroet at den endda forkludrer evnen til at forholde sig sagligt til fiktionens univers. Kan man virkeligt undre sig over at Spielberg ikke forvandler et eventyr for børn til en politisk thriller? Skulle der være noget særligt eventyrligt ved at følge en eventuelt nedsat kommisions arbejde eller måske høre oppositionens indveninger i forhold til økonomiske omkostninger og sikkerhedspoltiske analyse særligt med henblik på forholdet til allierede og samhandelspartnere. Måske man kunne snige en charmerende gennemgang dans om de socioøkonomiske konsekvenser ind?

Negerderoute: “Black fathers matter”

Fight Turns into Madness” hedder en af mange, mange videoer på Liveleak, hvor sorte amerikanere slås som galninge. Deres venner og naboer hujer og ægger på løjerne, der optages på smartphones. Alle slås, men negerkvotienten (et glimrende udtryk jeg har lånt) er tårnhøj. “FIGHT* ?-DOWNTOWN NEWARK MADNESS“, “Another Fight In The Hood* (10 Minutes Of Hood Madness)“, “ghetto fight“og måske en opfølger “epic ghetto fight part 2“, eller er det “another ghetto fight“? Og er “Woman Ghetto Fight” en spinoff? Piger er godt med og eksemplerne følger på hinanden i en sørgelig playliste.

Kay S. Hymowitz beskrev for City Journal sammenbruddet af den sorte familie og betydningen for adfærd

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.

Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.

Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.

Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.

Det er de gamles skyld

Brexit, Demografi, Diverse, England, Forår?, Satire, Uddannelse — Drokles on July 1, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Der er mange ungdomsreaktioner på Brexit, hvor unge studerende på venstrefløjen efter et kort liv, hvor de har bidraget med intet mod at få alt forærende, reagerer med vrede mod ikke at blive regeret af eurokrater

Brexit er et generationstyveri

Det er overvældende så mange mærkværdige reaktioner på Brexit, der fortjener en kommentar. Hvis EU var en almindelig sund konstruktion af samarbejde, ville unionens repræsentanter reagere med en form for vemodighed over at briterne ikke syntes det var godt nok. De ville sige tak for denne gang, bytte telefonnumre og sørge for at holde kontakten så meget som det nu synes at være til fælles bedste. Med et sundt og givtigt samarbejde ville de fortsætte den gode form, nu uden briterne, og se frem til den samme gyldne fremtid, som de hele tiden kunne. I stedet reagerer de med vrede, bitterhed og trusler om altings ende. Kurserne rasler ned og økonomierne er usikre, 3. Verdenkrig står måske for døren og klimaet, hvad med det?

I en glimrende argumentation op til valget, sagde Daniel Hannan vittigt at stemme for EU fordi man holdt af Europa var som at støtte FIFA fordi man kunne lide fodbold. Engelske Guardian forstår som typisk eksponent ikke den slags skelnen mellem skæg og snot og den forstår ikke at uenighed kan være ærlig og uden sinistre bagtanker. Dissens er bagstræberisk og den skriver harmdirrende om et intergenerationelt tyveri

This generational gap is among the many parallels between Brexit and climate change. A 2014 poll found that 74% of Americans under the age of 30 support government policies to cut carbon pollution, as compared to just 58% of respondents over the age of 40, and 52% over the age of 65.

Tilsvarende undersøgelser viser at kendskabet til holocaust er langt mere fremtrædende blandt ældre generationer end yngre (og helt grelt havde det set ud, hvis ikke Spielberg havde givet lidt substans til popkornene). Klimabenægtere, betegnes dissidenter fra den herskende ortodoksi og der henvises til for længst afviste undersøgelser, som de famøse 97% enighed blandt forskere (og embedsmænd og aktivister) der

Guardian tikker bokse af for hvor loyale mennesker er for vedtagne fortællinger og her er ungdommen blot bedre fordi den godtager fortællingen om EU som Europa og fredens projekt og fremskridt og fællesskab, som også fortællingen om menneskets katastrofale påvirkning af klimaet på en nederen måde. De ældre generationer roses modsat ikke for deres selvstændige tankegang og deres store modstandsevne mod en vedvarende strøm af ensidig mediedækning. De ældres erfaring og deres ræsonnementers kvalitet underkendes helt og aldeles som et moralsk og intellektuelt svigt.

The problem is of course that younger generations will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make today for much longer than older generations. Older generations in developed countries prospered as a result of the burning of fossil fuels for seemingly cheap energy.

Ja, hvad har de gamle nogensinde gjort for de unge, bortset fra alt? Det er fri fantasi, og en ondsindet en af slagsen, at de ældre generationer handler mere egoistisk end de yngre. Enhver kan spørge sig selv om man regner sin egen dømmekraft, evne til at ræsonnere eller viden som stærkere end den var for år tilbage. Og de fleste der får børn og lærer at betale egne regninger, tenderer også til at se samfundet i en større helhed end den tåkrummende veksling mellem flyvske idealer og og militant egoisme, der præger den venstredrejede ungdom over det meste af den vestlige verden,

Guardian har samlet nogle videoreaktioner fra nogle unge mennesker der lufter deres frustrationer. De er ikke de mest opsigtsvækkende, men det er hvad Guardian mener er valide indvendinger fra en generation de forrige. Så vi giver flygtigt ordet til de unge mennesker, hvis liv allerede ligger i ruiner, berøvet som de er for enhver meningsfuld fremtid

“We are europeans! We’re citizens of the world.” indleder den anden pige med selvmodsigende selvretfærdighed. Enten er de europæere eller også er de verdensborgere. Hvis man kan anse sig som begge dele, kan man også se sig som brite og verdensborger. Og nej, det er rigtigt at de 16-17 årige ikke blev spurgt, som heller ikke de 5 årige. For det er som at høre børn mere end verdensborgere, når harmen får luft. Som fyren lige efter, der spørger, hvorfor andre generationer skal have indflydelse på hans fremtid. Eller den unge mand, der er bange for LGBT personers fremtid, eller hende der er sur over at universiteterne er blevet dyrere, eller hende der ser verden som en 24 årig kvinde eller hende hvis generation er DØMT til en usikker fremtid af 90 årige (der allerede havde bekæmpet Hitlers visioner for et samlet Europa) fordi verden er global (England kan nu lave handelsaftaler med BRIC landene) til den sidste fyr, der udlægger en pro-EU stemme som medfølelse og progression, hvilket implicit de gamle røvhuller har stemt imod, egoistiske og regressive som de er.

Der er dog en som kerer sig om sygehusvæsenet som nu vil blive underfinansieret som følge af alle de økonomiske ulykker som et Brexit vil trække med sig, men her kan man berolige med at markedet allerede har overstået sit umiddelbare hysteri.

Men hvornår blev det ansigtsløse bureaukrati af big business og big regulation og lukket heteronormativ hegemon EU, til alle ungdommens drømme og visioners moder? De plejede at være noget med regnbuer, tolerance, multikultur og indtil for nyligt opgør med big government og big business i allehånde eat the rich metastaser udskudt fra Occupy Wall Street. Så stor var vreden at selv når disse ansigtsløse fjender mødtes for at redde klimaet skulle byens smadres i afmægtig vrede over at blive taget alvorligt. Breitbart har været til en pro-EU demonstration, der tro mod venstrefløjens røde tråd var anti-altmuligt

They chanted: “EU, We Love You”, “EU Forever”, “Love Not Hate”, “Racists Out, Migrants In”, “Say it Loud, Say it Clear, Refugees are Welcome Here”, and, “Who’s Future? Our Future!”

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-07-01-kl-112356

EU er det nye sort.

De økonomiske konsekvenser af Brexit

Demografi, EU, England, Euro, Fascisme, Forår?, Historie, Politik, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 26, 2016 at 3:41 am

Michael Caine talte for et Brexit, fordi han ikke mente at det var sundt at blive dikteret af en proxy-regering af “faceless civil servants”, der ikke stod til regnskab. Og han fortsatte at selv om risikoen for at fejle som selvstændig var til stede, så var det blot en mulighed for at prøve igen, “get better, work harder, try harder and then you’ll be a succes!”

Larry Kudlow skriver i National Review at EU har mere brug for United Kingdom end omvendt

The EU’s tax and regulatory policies, climate-change and welfare spending, and free immigration even in wartime are gradually ruining Europe. That’s why I believe Brexit is good for British freedom, political autonomy, and the survival of democratic capitalism.

The business elites told British voters that leaving the EU would lead to economic catastrophe. Well, in England, Main Street defeated the establishment elites by sending a populist message.

And there need be no economic catastrophe. The EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. The London Stock Exchange is one of the most powerful financial centers in the world. Frankfurt will never replace it.

Trade is the key to the economic outlook in Britain and the EU. Many corporate chieftains joined large bank CEOs and the fearmongering IMF to suggest that the EU will deal harshly with Britain if it leaves and stop all trade. That’s mutually assured destruction — MAD. A tariff-driven trade war would destroy both power centers.

Not only does the EU need Britain’s financial capabilities, Britain itself is major importer of EU goods and services. If sanity prevails, there’s no reason why the EU and Britain can’t hammer out a free-trade agreement in the two years allotted by the Lisbon Treaty.

And if the EU wants to go with MAD, the whole set up will burn in flames.

American Thinker sætter de første tal på at EU har mere brug for United Kingdom end omvendt

The economic lesson emerging from the Brexit vote is consistent with what those who favored the Leave campaign long suspected: continental Europe needed the U.K. far more than the U.K. needed Europe.

The globalist dominoes will ideally begin to fall after Brexit as other leading nations realize they have unwisely hitched their economic wagons to parasites for the past several decades (see, e.g., the U.S.-Mexico relationship in NAFTA).

The Brexit hysterifiers almost uniformly predicted that it would be a Black Friday indeed for the U.K. if they voted to leave, and the other members of the EU promised to punish Britain if it chose a divorce.

Looks as though it was Britain that had the last laugh on the day after Brexit. It wasn’t the British markets that took the real hit. That was borne by the continental Europeans:

- The FTSE 100 finished down 3.1%

- Germany’s Dax dropped 6.8%

- France’s Cac closed 8.0% lower

- Spain’s Ibex ended down 12.4%

- Italy’s FTSE MIB fell 12.5%

- In Greece, the Athens market lost 13.4%

Og de store økonomier har heller ikke været sene til at indlede handelsaftaler med United Kingdom, skriver Sunday Express. That’s what it’s all about!

Overklassens forælede unge er færdige med at grine ad Little Britain

Ian Tuttle beskriver i National Review, de barnlige reaktioner fra taberne af Brexit

In the wake of the U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the anti-Brexit crowd has leaped to explain the vote in stark terms. “The force that has been driving [‘Leave’ voters] is xenophobia,” wrote Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, and at Esquire Charles Pierce explained: “Some of the Oldest and Whitest people on the planet leapt at a chance to vote against the monsters in their heads.” The Guardian’s Joseph Harker mused: “It feels like a ‘First they came for the Poles’ moment.” And blogger Anil Dash managed to squeeze all of these dismissive opinions into a single tweet: “We must learn from brexit: Elderly xenophobes will lie to pollsters to hide their racist views, then vote for destructive policies anyway.”

(…)

Both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other worldview than their own. The anti-Brexit crowd cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security — that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly. And President Obama seems incapable of recognizing that there are reasonable, non-bigoted grounds on which to oppose his executive actions — for example, to preserve the principle of separation of powers that is a pillar of the American constitutional order.

Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats and tempered by “compassion” and “tolerance” — all of which aims at the maximal amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will all, eventually, be “citizens of the world,” and assumes that everyone will be happier that way.

It’s not unreasonable to think otherwise. Anti-EU movements and renewed nationalism in the United States are on the rise precisely because they offer alternatives to this self-assured order. It’s not clear whether a United Kingdom withdrawn from the EU will be better off. But it’s entirely defensible to think that it might be. Likewise, it’s not unreasonable to prefer loyalties rooted in close-knit interactions among people who share a particular space and a particular history. Or to prefer local rule to government outsourced to distant bureaucracies. Or to prefer a richer sense of belonging than interaction in a common market. There are alternatives to a transnational super-state that are not fascism.

En gammel klassekammerat ‘linkede til nogle bitre tweets fra unge Remain-tilhængere, som BuzzFeed havde samlet. Og ungdommen, den ungdom, selvsikker si sin egen selvretfærdighed, mistænker ældre mennesker for kortsynet egoisme. “I know it’s not very “politically correct” to say it out loud but in the wasteland of ruined Britain I am going to hunt and eat old people“, skriver en og “I’m not giving up my seat to the elderly anymore. Eye for an eye.” skriver en anden. Noget for noget, hva’, de generationer der gik forud, hvad har de nogen sinde gjort for mig? Billedet med de forræderiske ældre mennesker, der trods den større erfaring åbenbart er blevet mindre vidende illustreres også med gammel kunst

inforgraphic

Og historiske refererencer

medieval-reactions

Selvfølgelig, vi ved alle hvor egoistiske bedsteforældre er. (Psst, universiteter og den moderne videnskab blev opfundet i middelalderen).

brexiters-er-nazier

Brexiter er nazister fordi de ikke vil lade deres land diktere af fremmede magter.

channel-tunnel

Psst, Channel Tunnel er ikke EU, men fransk-britisk halløj. Så lad os slutte via Daily Mirror med den tidligere Liverpool og Arsenal wing, Jermaine Pennant og hans bekymringer for fremtiden

jermain-pennant

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

Tilfældige reaktioner på Brexit

Diverse — Drokles on June 25, 2016 at 7:12 am

England vil forlade EU, selv om systembevarerne gjorde hvad de kunne

Jeg kan huske, at da vi stemte nej i 92′, havde DR - eller var det TV2? - 3-4 unge mennesker i studiet, der arbejdede som studenter-medhjælpere i EU, til at sidde og være i chok over det skamløse Folk. De forsøgte at forklare hvorledes EU var så misforstået og hvor hårdt embedsmændene egentlig arbejdede dernede. Og det slog mig dengang, at uanset hvordan systemet ville møde virkeligheden, ville de ikke forstå den, men istedet fortsætte med at træffe forkerte konklusioner. For ingen var jo interesserede i hvor hårdt de arbejdede ‘dernede’, vi var interesserede i, hvad de arbejdede på. Var unionen stendød, som vi var blevet lovet? Var det den sidste suverænitetsafgivelse med et nyt nærhedsprincip, eller var subsidaritetsprincippet et underinddelingsprincip? Unionen var ikke stendød og EUs principper handler kun om at kunne tage sig stadig større friheder med færre formaliteter.
Engang da Danmarks kommunistiske Partis sidste formand Ole Sohn holdt foredrag om hans dengang nye bog Kære Stalin. Som alle hans bøger handler Kære Stalin med Sohns opgør med sin kommunistiske fortid og er hans soning, en soning, hvor kommunistiske idealister, såsom Arne Munch Petersen, der sad og skrev forvirrede breve til Stalin over hans fejlagtige fængsling og systematiske tortur i et af NKVDs fængsler, er ofrene. Ofrene i Ole Sohns og andre idealister som han, er ikke de mange millioner almindelige mennesker, kulakker, klerikale, nationens lort, som blev ombragt af idealisternes blodige visioner. Danmarks Radio har et interview med et dansk offer for Brexit

- Min kæreste er på barsel, og det vil måske ikke være muligt om nogle år, når vi er ude af EU. Vi ejer et hus, og det er ret scary, for kurserne er faldet, og selvom de kommer op igen, vil renterne måske gå op. Og det er i forvejen dyrt at bo her, siger han.
Mads Perch bor i London-kvarteret Lower Clapton, der ligger i Hackney-området, som ifølge meningsmålingsinstituttet Yougov er et af de 10 mest EU-positive områder i Storbritannien.
Her mærker man tydeligt, at der er dårlig stemning. Mens der i går var god stemning i kvarteret med fællesskab, hvor der blev delt flyers ud, er der nu meget forladt og stille.
- Min agent skulle aflevere sine børn i skole, og hun sagde, at nogle forældre var gået helt nedom og hjem. Hun siger, at stemningen er rystet. Det er også den stemning, der er her – det er som om, vi lige har tabt Europamesterskabet, siger Mads Perch.
Også i vennekredsen er man overrasket over resultatet. - Folk er helt chokerede, og de går amok på Facebook og Instagram.

Sohn gav dengang også en indsigt i hvorledes et nederlag tager sig ud når forrådnelsen sætter ind, selv hos de mest stålsatte idealister da han fortalte om de sidste måneder han mødte på arbejde i DKPs overdimensionerede hovedkvarter. Her bemærkede han at der dag for dag forsvandt designermøbler, lamper, kunstværker og alt andet af værdi. Lige nu sidder embedsmænd og parlamentarikere rundt omkring i EUs enorme komplekser og tænker på, hvad de kan tage med sig andet end deres erfaringer.
Nykredits direktør fortalte TV2 News at “hvis nu vi havde haft et terrorangreb, så havde vi alle løbet forvirret rundt om hinanden og sagt, ‘uh, hvad skal vi nu gøre?’, men dette har vi haft tid til at forberede os på”. Vi er jo flere der vil mene at alle også har haft rigelig med tid til at forberede sig på terrorangreb, som udviklingen taler sit tydelige og mere højrøstede sprog. Men det væsentlige er at Brexit er at sammenligne med et terrorangreb.
Subsidaritetsprincippet, det var en stor ting engang. Det blev kaldt nærhedsprincippet herhjemme og udlagt som et bolværk, en sidste instans, hvor Folkestyret kunne trække grænsen for EUs indblanding. Men da det var EU, der bestemte indholdet, betød det i realiteten at Kommisionen traf alle de afgørelser de var interesseret i og overlod alt de ikke var interesseret i - for nærværende i hvert fald - til medlemslandene selv. Altså at Kommissionen bestemte. Og det krævede ingen studenterhue at gennemskue at Kommisionen ville være stadig mere interesseret i detailstyring, efterhånden som den blev færdig med at ’sætte rammerne’ for ‘det europæiske samarbejde’. Lykketoft var ikke i tvivl om sin fortolkning af den rette magtdeling i den europæiske pyramide, som han forklarede TV2

David Cameron har helt uansvarligt - både i forhold til sit eget land og det europæiske projekt - bragt den europæiske enhed i stykker. Måske også enheden i det Forenede Kongerige (Storbritannien, red.) og i sit eget parti. Det her er en historisk, tragisk situation. Der er ikke rigtig noget godt at sige om det, siger Mogens Lykketoft til TV 2.

Man lærer meget i Lykketofts uforblommede reaktion højt fra FN-tårnets tinde, som jeg vil give sin egen lille postering i morgen. Både at Grundlovens fædre forudså det fjollede i at Folket skulle spørges når politikerne ville forære suverænitet væk og at Europas enhed står i modsætning til flertallet af befolkningen. Eller med Mette Frederiksens ord “Jeg vil ikke anbefale en folkeafstemning ganske enkelt fordi, jeg ikke ønsker, at Danmark skal træde ud af EU.
Men Lykketoft er også et udtryk for det skizofrene forsvar for ideen om EUs herligheder, hvor den indlysende nødvendighed er en svag konstruktion. Som da Euroen først blev solgt som en gylden mulighed for Danmarks Økonomi til, da virkeligehden foldede sig ud, blev en appel om at være solidariske. Når der ellers ikke trues med direkte repressalier fra de resterende medlemslande, som skulle et exit-projekt være nødvendigt.
Uffe Ellemann mente med en slidt humor at han var for pænt et menneske til at kalde den engelske konservative leder af Brexit kampagnen for en løgner. Han kendte Johnson fra dengang han vær journalist og allerede der nærede “sig ved at lave den ene fantasifulde historie efter den anden” og Uffe måtte derfor bringe lidt fakta på banen

- Den megen snak om demokratisk underskud opfatter jeg som et udtryk for mange af myter, der har fået lov at gro frem. De får lov at gro frem, fordi de politiske ledere i Europa ikke i tilstrækkelig grad har forsvaret det projekt, de selv er en del af, siger den tidligere udenrigsminister.

Der er ikke mange Boris Johnsoner blandt nutidens upartiske journalister, der modtager Junckers benægtelse om at Unionens dage er talte, med spontan og stående jubel

Donald Trump tilbage i kampen?

Demografi, Diverse, Forår?, Politik, USA, Ytringsfrihed, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 23, 2016 at 6:42 pm

Der er noget South Park over Donald Trumps fremtoning. Men han er ingen grå politiker, ingen bureaukrat. Han taler klart når det kræves af ham og denne tale menes at bringe ham tilbage i kampen mod Hillary Clinton om præsidentposten.

Breitbart har samlet nogle bekræftelser på anklager fremført i den kommende dokumentarfilm Clinton Cash

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.

Jeg stoler ikke på Trump, men han siger sandheder, som så desperat trænger til at blive sagt og det i sig selv kan rykke den politiske diskurs. Og han kan måske stoppe Hillary Clinton fra at begrave USA i en sump af vest-europæiske sygdomme.

Nigel Farage havde advaret

Demografi, EU, England, Euro, Folkevandring, Forår?, Historie, Indvandring, Tyrkiet, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 23, 2016 at 4:53 am

Det bliver tæt, ifølge meningsmålingerne. Englænderne forlader EU, fortæller Express, Mens Mandag Morgen mener at at de bliver i suppedasen. Hvis englænderne bukker under for frygten, skal de ikke sige de ikke var advaret. Denne hyldest til Nigel Farage illustrerer, hvor tydelige tegnene på EUs sammenbrud har været

Hvis man de seneste par år har hørt Farage skose EUs kommisærer, parlamentarikere og apologeter husker man også, den hån de udviste overfor hans præcise advarsler, som rygere der afviser lægens advarsler mens de grinende hoster blod op.

2 historikere og en sandsiger om Brexit

Diverse, EU, England, Forår?, Historie, Indvandring, Racisme, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 22, 2016 at 4:52 am

Historikeren Anthony Beevor advarer i Guardian, at et Brexit kan gøre England til det mest foragtede land, ikke bare i Europa, fordi alliancer uagtet hvad man end måtte mene om EU er skøbeligt og svære at opbygge, sårbare som de er for mistillid og foragt. Ikke desto mindre giver han en lektion i den gustne historie bag EUs ideologiske arkitekt Jean Monnet

IT was Monnet who, while based in London in the dark days of June 1940, working on the integration of the British and French arms industries, came up with the suggestion of an Anglo-French union to continue resistance to Hitler. The idea excited both Charles de Gaulle and Winston Churchill, but was crushed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, who described the plan as a “marriage to a corpse”, since France was about to surrender. It was Monnet, now in the US at the behest of the British government and acting as an adviser to Franklin D Roosevelt, who persuaded the president to turn the US into the “arsenal of democracy” and to introduce the “victory plan” for the mass production of armaments to defeat Nazi Germany. And it was Monnet who, in 1943, ensured De Gaulle’s ascent to power as head of the French government in exile in Algiers, despite Roosevelt’s opposition.

That August of 1943, Monnet also decided that European states would be so enfeebled after the war that they must unite into a federation. And yet theMonnet plan, which he expounded in 1945, proposed the French takeover ofRuhr coal production to rebuild France at the expense of Germany. De Gaulle supported the idea fervently, but then resigned because the infighting of French politics failed to live up to his own impossible dream that the country’s conflicting views would become unified under his leadership.

On 2 January 1946, just before his departure, De Gaulle appointed Monnet to head the Commissariat Général du Plan. This was to provide centralised planning writ large. Monnet brought in almost the whole team from the Délégation Générale à l’Equipement National, even though it had been created by the collaborationist Vichy regime. These bright young “technocrates” from the top schools of the French administration had worked on projects to modernise France within the “new European order” of the Third Reich. After the war they were the very same people who were to run the European Coal and Steel Community, headed of course by Monnet, and then in 1958, the European Economic Community. Thus the top cadres of the European bureaucracy were not merely elitist from the start, they had little patience for democratic consultation. They knew best what was needed.

(…)

So why this current existential threat to the EU project? The principal insoluble problem comes from the disastrous decision to accelerate unification through a common currency across countries and economies that were fundamentally incompatible. The European currency unit, or ecu, in 1979 was the first step towards the dream of full unification, and would eventually turn into the euro. To prepare for the new system, currencies were to be stabilised within the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). This meant that individual countries would lose all flexibility since they could not allow their currency to rise or fall beyond narrow parameters. (This was what led to Norman Lamont’s humiliation on Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, when Britain had to pull out of the ERM.)

The principal insoluble problem comes from the disastrous decision to accelerate unification through a common currency

Optimism following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war encouraged more detailed planning. Exchange controls were abolished in 1990. The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 established economic and monetary union as a formal objective. By 1998 the European Central Bank had been established, and on 1 January 2002, euro notes and coins replaced existing currencies in 11 countries. But during the whole of this preparatory period, intense discussions had been held behind closed doors between central bankers and political leaders. Private doubts about the system’s potential weaknesses were dismissed as a failure to believe in the great project. The idea that a united Europe would be economically and politically powerful enough to overcome any problem assumed unwisely that all countries had the same interests.

Et land skal kunne bestemme sin egen skæbne. “Brexit isn’t nostalgia. It’s ambition“, formoder historikeren Tim Stanley i Telegraph, fordi “it gives us the chance to start over again, to write a new chapter in our country’s history

The Remainers say that the EU has brought peace to Europe. What kind of half-baked history is that? It was the bomb that brought an uneasy peace to Europe until 1989. In the 1990s there was the bloodbath of Yugoslavia, which the EU did nothing about. And now the EU flirts with Ukraine and talks about creating its own army. This is dangerous fantasy, like children playing with matches.

(…)

Get back to the basics. What does the EU offer? Does it deliver?

Remainers say we should give up some of our democratic accountability in exchange for access to the single market and, they claim, greater economic stability. Leavers say the deal is a bad one. We lose too much democracy in exchange for access to a declining market and a political union that is fraught with risk.

Let’s not talk about the past but the future: the EU is planning to create a unitary state. Its leaders have said as much – higher taxes, an army, greater authority for the bank are all on the table. The EU has decided that only faster integration will see it through the present crisis. They might be correct: what the EU wants to be it can only be if it is effectively one country. But that is not in Britain’s national interest, something we’ve signalled by remaining outside the Eurozone.

So we can either ride this train as far as the driver wants to go or we can jump off now. A so-called leap in the dark actually gives us back control of our policy making. It’s a vote for democracy, a vote to say: “We govern, we are in charge.” We can make the choice of whether to take more or less migrants; we can write new trade agreements and we can reaffirm our strategic interests in the developing world.

Tidligere på året forklarede skuespillere Michael Caine med en statsmands logik, hvorfor han vil stemme for Brexit (i dette klip er der inkluderet hans syn på ‘den sorte boykot’ af Oscar uddelingerne)

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress