Når muslimer bygger samfund

Diverse — Drokles on May 20, 2018 at 10:32 pm

Islamisk Stat var ikke en undtagelse, der var et ganske velovervejet og planlagt eksperiment, som skulle prøve islams opskrift på et samfund imod virkeligheden. Det gik som det gik fordi det ikke kunne gå anderledes, så langt som begejstringen holdt.

Krigerne var høje på Tramadol, der tillod dem at torturere folk ihjel, fortalte en kurdisk officer i Raqqa CBC News, som han viste dem rundt i tidligere torturkamre. Islamisk Stat var (også) meget optaget af papirarbejde og havde rapporter på alle de myrdede og torturerede. Historieløse, som man er uden for Europa og især i den del af Verden, stod arkiverne for at skulle brændes. Det handler kun om hævn.

New York Times har gennemgået 15.000 dokumenter, Islamisk Stat efterlod, som de blev drev væk fra deres kalifat. Dokumenterne viser at Islamisk Stat “wielded power through two complementary tools: brutality and bureaucracy”. Alle embedsmænd blev kaldt tilbage på arbejdet, som terrororganisationen erobrede den ene by efter den anden, og skulle genoptage deres hidtidige funktioner, for ellers…

Ledgers, receipt books and monthly budgets describe how the militants monetized every inch of territory they conquered, taxing every bushel of wheat, every liter of sheep’s milk and every watermelon sold at markets they controlled. From agriculture alone, they reaped hundreds of millions of dollars. Contrary to popular perception, the group was self-financed, not dependent on external donors.

More surprisingly, the documents provide further evidence that the tax revenue the Islamic State earned far outstripped income from oil sales. It was daily commerce and agriculture — not petroleum — that powered the economy of the caliphate.

The United States-led coalition, trying to eject the Islamic State from the region, tried in vain to strangle the group by bombing its oil installations. It’s much harder to bomb a barley field. It was not until last summer that the militants abandoned Mosul, after a battle so intense that it was compared to the worst combat of World War II.

While the militants’ state eventually crumbled, its blueprint remains for others to use.

“We dismiss the Islamic State as savage. It is savage. We dismiss it as barbaric. It is barbaric. But at the same time these people realized the need to maintain institutions,” said Fawaz A. Gerges, author of “ISIS: A History.”

“The Islamic State’s capacity to govern is really as dangerous as their combatants,” he said.

De kristne og shiitterne flygter, kvinderne fyret. Langt skæg og korrekt islamisk kåbelængde bliver obligatorisk. Og gradvist kommer der nye forordninger og ministeriernes navne og funktioner bliver ændret; ministeriet for moralpoliti, ministeriet for plyndring af antikviteter, ministeriet for krigsbytte og landbrugsministeriet skal ikke længere måle døgnets regnmængde - regn er en gave fra Allah og hans gaver skal ikke måles. Gradvist blev det hele mere og mere muslimsk mod undergangen.

Alle Præsidentens Mænd

Diverse — Drokles on May 19, 2018 at 8:47 pm

FBI havde en ‘informant’ plantet i Trumps valgkampagnestab, det står nu fast. FBIs efterforskning sigtede ikke mod et kriminelt forhold, da de ikke kunne samle nok indicier, der kunne retfærdiggøre en sådan. I stedet indledtes en kontraspionagesag, som egentlig burde rettes imod de ‘russere’, man havde besluttet sig for at mistænke som skyldige i amerikanernes fejlvalg af præsident, imod egne statsborgere, nemlig imod Trump og hans stab. Kontraspionage kræver kun sandsynligheder og foretages, selvfølgelig, i hemmelighed, forklarer Andrew C McCarthy

Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

That’s your crossfire hurricane.

Og siden kontraspionage handler om landets sikkerhed, var det “With the blessing of the Obama White House”! Og det bringer igen to to afskedigede FBI ansatte, agenten Peter Strzok og juristen Lisa Page på banen. De to delte deres støtte til Hillary Clinton og had til Trump som de delte kropsvæsker, skriver Matt Vespa

This was the investigation signed off by FBI agent Peter Strzok. Sztrok was a top counterintelligence agent before being transferred to human resources after his extramarital affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page was made public and the two’s texts, which numbered in the tens of thousands, were riddled with anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiments. Once then-FBI Director James Comey was fired by President Trump in May of 2017, Robert Mueller took over the investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversees him.

The Page-Strzok texts formed the basis of inquiry into the FBI’s role in all of this. How impartial were they? The texts were so problematic that Mueller removed him in August of 2017. The two discussed how they felt the FBI was going too hard on Hillary as well; Strzok was also involved in that investigation as well. Was the bureau in the tank? The optics weren’t good, especially when reports came that Strzok was presented with evidence that the former first lady’s email server was breached and did nothing about it. But the main focus was the text Strzok sent about a meeting with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe in which he referenced an “insurance policy” against Trump. Many have alleged this is a reference to the Trump dossier, which was used to obtain a spy warrant against Carter Page, who was a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign. This is unsettling because the dossier was a bankrolled project by Democrats. The Clinton campaign hired research firm Fusion GPS, who then contracted former MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile dirt on Trump. Still, the counterintelligence probe into Russian collusion and the Trump team, in which there is still zero evidence, moved forward:

To historier om energi

Diverse — Drokles on May 18, 2018 at 5:41 pm

Nøje udvalgt, cherry-picked hedder det vist, for at understrege en pointe. Pierre L Gosselin fra No Tricks Zone skriver

A few days ago I reported here how the German solar industry had seen a monumental jobs-bloodbath and investments had been slashed to a tiny fraction of what they once had been.

Over the years Germany has made approvals for new wind parks more difficult as the country reels from an unstable power grid and growing protests against the blighted landscapes and health hazards.

Now that the wind energy boom has ended, the Baseler Zeitung reports that “the shutdown of numerous wind turbines could soon lead to a drop in production” after having seen years of ruddy growth.

Vindmøllerne er gamle, er stadigt dyrere at vedligeholde og subsidierne rinder gradvist ud. Og nu foreligger der en regning, når man skal rydde op efter alle de øjebæer. Vingerne er svære at brænde af, hvilket gør det fristende at dumpe dem i tredieverdenslande og det armerede betonfundament er dyrt at fjerne, skriver Gosselin videre.

Imens i USA, er Trump ved at frigøre naturens ressourcer på en anderledes produktive og miljøvenlig facon - drill baby, drill! Stephen Moore argumenterer i Townhall for at OPEC er dødt fordi USA har fravristet  Saudiarabien for dens alt-afgørende indflydelse på olieprisen og dermed olieproduktionen.

The Wall Street Journal confirms that U.S. oil production “is expected this year to surpass Saudi Arabia’s” and that we will rival Russia for No. 1 in the world. American production will rise to almost 11 million barrels a day, the most ever in American history. Doesn’t it seem like yesterday when the left was running around shrieking about “peak oil”? More like peak idiocy.

Last week Reuters argued that the American shale boom should be called “Donald Trump’s Revenge.” The story reported that U.S. oil “now floods Europe at the expense of OPEC and Russia.” Couldn’t have happened to a couple of nicer guys. America is now selling more than a half-million barrels a day, thanks in no small part to the end of the oil and gas export ban in 2016.

Det er Trumps optimisme der er afgørende - og den grundlægger muligheden for en midtvejsvalgsejr til Republikanerne.

Bedrageriske protester

Diverse — Drokles on May 17, 2018 at 8:19 am

Hamas Mahmoud Al-Zahhar fortalte Al-Jazeera at ideen om de fredelige protester er en løgn der skal tjene til at ‘bedrage offentligheden’. Og offentligheden vil bedrages. En CNN journalist tweeter et billede af Trump i et sigtekorn, BBCs Mellemøstredaktør kalder Gazastriben for et åbent fængsel, Trumps datter kaldes ‘fars lille dæmon‘, som hendes smilende kontrafej taget ved den festlige indvielse af USAs ambassade i Jerusalem retorisk og visuelt forbindes med de voldelige optøjer, Russia Times kaldte det en ‘forfærdelig massakre’ og ingen af dem lægger mærke til den bevidstløse mands faste greb eller viser manden på krykkers mirakuløse helbredelse.

En analyse i den venstreorienterede israelske avis Haaretz hedder det at protesterne ikke er fra Hamas hånde men titusindvis af mennesker, villige til at dø. Så store tal mangler vi stadigt at komme op i dette seneste folkemord på palæstinenserne. 50 af de dræbte er Hamasfolk, ifølge Hamas selv og Elder of Zioyn skriver bl.a

With all the trouble Hamas is going through, they are very determined. When Israel tried to impede the riots by warning bus companies in Gaza not to bring people to the border, Hamas threatened to imprison the drivers - leaving them no choice.

Similarly, in order to encourage the largest possible of participants in what was supposed to be the last day of the riots, Hamas declared a general strike and even UNRWA complied and closed down.

Den engelske oberst Richard Kemp har udfærdiget en rapport om Hamas’ bedrageriske strategi, skriver Algemeiner

“Hamas’s use of actual smoke and mirrors to conceal its aggressive maneuvering on the Gaza border is the perfect metaphor for a strategy that has no viable military purpose but seeks to deceive the international community into criminalizing a democratic state defending its citizens,” Kemp wrote.

As part of the HLMG’s ongoing project to assess the impact of Western armies facing enemies deploying terrorist tactics — including deliberate war crimes such as hiding military personnel and infrastructure among a civilian population — Kemp has been observing Palestinian activity and the IDF’s response on the Gaza border since the current spate of violence broke out on March 30. The strategy pursued by Gaza’s Hamas rulers “includes creating situations which compel the IDF to respond with lethal force so that they are seen to kill and wound ‘innocent’ Palestinian civilians,” Kemp said. “In some cases, including during the current wave of violence, we have seen Hamas present their fighters as innocent civilians; numerous fake incidents staged and filmed which purport to show civilians being killed and wounded by Israeli forces; and films of violence from elsewhere, eg. Syria, portrayed as violence against Palestinians,” Kemp continued.

Jerusalem underkender muslimernes virkelighedsopfattelse, det er ‘Katastrofen’. “We will not allow today to be the day the Muslim world loses Jerusalem” sagde Erdogan midt i en tirade, hvor Israel belv beskyldt for at være en terrorstat, der begik folkemord, som optakt til en ny Verdenskrig - hvis nogen, andre end medierne, skulle være i tvivl om, hvad der er stridens kerne.

Sagen mod Trump, ‘unraveling faster than a mummy on a merry-go-round’

Diverse — Drokles on May 15, 2018 at 10:01 pm

Det er Gutfelds beskrivelse af arven fra Obamas udenrigspolitik. Og det ser ud til at være en passende beskrivelse af sagen mod Trump, som stadigt flere amerikanere ser som en heksejagt. Ingen ved, hvad Mueller mener Trump har gjort, om han overhovedet har overtrådt loven og i givet fald hvilken lov, skrev Andrew C McCarthy i en lærd indføring i sammenstødet mellem amerikanske retsstatprincipper og de politiske checks and balances. FBI er bare gået igang med at undersøge alle ting Trump, hans venner og disses hund.

Anledningerne til disse efterforskninger bliver stadigt mere spegede. Meget tyder på at Steele-rapporten, den med de tissende Moskva-ludere, som Hillary Clintons kampagnemaskine bestilte som et led i at finde smuds på modkandidaten Trump, blev brugt som basis for dommerkendelse til overvågning af en af Trumps kampagnemedarbejdere. Rapporten er fuld af u-verificerede og nogle gange højt kulørte oplysninger om Trump og russere og FBI tabte hurtigt tiltroen til den og til ophavsmanden, den tidligere engelske efterretningsagent Christopher Steele, men fortsatte uagtet med præsentere den for en dommer, for at få opretholdt overvågningen.

Og nu viser det sig angiveligt, at den også har været anvendt som begrundelse for at plante en spion i Trumps kampagne. Sådan en rigtig fysisk een. Ædruelige Andrew C McCarthy argumenterer i en lang og kompliceret klumme om hvorfor han mener at det er det sandsynlige ud fra de oplysninger, der er tilgængelige. Oven i det, viser det sig sandsynligvis også, at FBI har forsøgt at kapre en russisk rigmand, til at vidne imod Trump qua hans dårlige relation, til trumps tidligere kampagneleder Paul Mannafort

‘Deep State’ er ikke en historie uden kød, det ser ud til at være inficeret med særinteresser, der går imod det siddende præsidentskab. Baggrunden for undersøgelsen af Trumps tidligere sikkerhedsrådgiver, Michael Flynn, har været svært gennemskueligt fordi FBI og Justitsministeriet kun har villet, og det er under pres fra Kongressen, frigive censurerede dokumenter af hensyn til statens sikkerhed. Men de ucensurerede dokumenter viser, at det mere var af hensyn til den ‘dybe stats’ sikkerhed, rapporterede Sean Davis. Andrew C McCarthy skrev i National Review

They tell us that their lack of transparency is necessary for the protection of national security, vital intelligence, and investigative operations. But what we find out is that they were concealing their own questionable judgments and conflicting explanations for their actions; their use of foreign-intelligence and criminal-investigative authorities to investigate Michael Flynn, Trump’s top campaign supporter and former national-security adviser; and their explicitly stated belief that Flynn did not lie in the FBI interview for which Special Counsel Robert Mueller has since prosecuted him on false-statements charges.

Flynn erklærede sig skyldig i at have givet et forkert vidneudsagn til FBI, altså løjet, om samtaler med den russiske ambassadør i USA Sergej Kislyak. Men

Flynn pled guilty “even though the [FBI] agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview.” There was no elaboration on this point — no discussion of why Flynn was interrogated by FBI agents in the first place; no insight on deliberations within the FBI and Justice Department about whether Flynn had deceptive intent; no explanation of how he came to be charged months later by Mueller’s prosecutors even though the trained investigators who observed Flynn’s demeanor during the interview did not believe he’d lied.

This news that Flynn’s interrogators had not sensed deception was not altogether new. It had been reported that then–FBI director James Comey had made this revelation in closed-session testimony before the committee on March 2, 2017. (See my column.) Yet, during media interviews to promote his just-released memoir, Comey — who has rebuked the House Intelligence Committee report as an effort to tear down our law-enforcement institutions — repeatedly expressed bafflement that anyone could possibly have construed his testimony to imply that the agents believed Flynn had not lied.

Det er ikke det eneste, der er censureret. Også i den interne kommunikation mellem de to Trump-hadende FBI medarbejdere, der blev fyret i skændsel, Lisa Page og Peter Strzok, har FBI sløret information, der f.eks. kunne kaste lys over, hvilken sammenhæng deres kommentarer om en ‘forsikringspolitik’ i tilfælde af en Trumpsejr kunne dække over. Ifølge McCarthy (jeg ved det, men han er altså skarp) leverer Pages og Strzoks dialog “a day-to-day narrative of the goings-on in the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations by two of the highest, most plugged-in officials in the government”.

Strzok and Page are singularly well-informed, central players in the Clinton and Trump investigations. They tell us exactly what is going on and why — or at least they would if the Justice Department had not blacked out key parts of their running conversation.

Thanks mostly to the dogged work of Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, hundreds of pages of the Strzok-Page texts have been released publicly — trust me on that: I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.

Og efter en del indsigt, spørger MaCarthy: “[A]re they telling us that Hillary Clinton was investigated — and given a pass — for the unauthorized transmission of classified information by FBI officials who were themselves actively engaged in the unauthorized transmission of classified information?”

Nogen husker nok at Mueller fandt frem til at der rent faktisk var 13 russiske rigmænd (og et firma der ikke eksisterede), med en eller anden forbindelse til det russiske magt apparat, som på den ene eller anden måde havde stået bag påvirkning af amerikanske sind midt i valgkampe og umiddelbart derefter. Udover ‘bot’s’ og mem, hvad de angiveligt hafttvivlsomt held til at forsamle nogle mennesker til demonstrationer for og imod Trump - og Hillary. Ved en lejlighed havde de endda sat to sådanne i stævne i håbet om lidt gang i gaden. Men da alle disse russere ikke var bosat i USA var der ikke mere at gøre ved det, ingen kunne retsforfølges, Mueller havde gjort sit arbejde så godt han kunne og det væsentlige var at han havde afdækket russisk indblanding i det amerikanske valg.

Men havde Mueller nu også det?  En af de anklagede russiske rigmænd har taget anstød af anklagerne og har hyret amerikanske advokater for at rense sit gode navn og rygte. Disse advokater kræver derfor nu at Mueller beviser sine anklager i en retssag eller trækker anklagerne tilbage. Mueller har svaret, at han ikke er parat til en retssag, men dommeren holder på at Mueller selv har startet retssagen ved sine anklager - hvilket forekommer logisk

I sagen mod Trumps tidligere kampagne-leder Paul Manafort, leverede dommeren en sønderlemmende kritik af Muellers efterforskning. Mens Mueller ledte efter russiske forbindelser fandt hans folk nemlig ud af at Mannafort flere år tilbage havde lobbyet på vegne af ukrainske interesser uden at have oplyst myndighederne om sin fortjeneste. Dette er ulovligt, men bliver sjældent straffet og Mannafort indviglede i at samarbejde med FBI og overdrog alle dokumenter og servere de forlangt. Alligevel stormede FBI, med skarpladte våben, Mannaforts hjem midt om natten og gennemførte en visitation af hans kone, der var i nattøj. Ingen kunne være i tvivl om at det var et forsøg på at presse Mannafort til at besværte sin tidligere arbejdsgiver Trump

“The vernacular is to sing,” he said.

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” the judge said. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead to Mr. Trump” and his eventual prosecution or impeachment.

“It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants,” Ellis, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing on Manafort’s motion to dismiss the Virginia charges.

Film: Katyn massakren

Diverse — Drokles on May 13, 2018 at 8:07 am

Der er en god film i bunden af denne post, så man kan roligt springe min indledende tirade over.

Jeg diskuterede Sovietunionens rolle i sejren over Nazityskland et sted på Facebook, der hedder In The Now. In The Now laver små videoblogs, hvor unge mennesker siger de særeste ting. En ung kvinde ved navn Anissa Naouai undrede sig over at amerikanerne ikke fejrede V-Day (VE-Day eller VJ-Day skulle det sikkert have været), som man gjorde i andre lande, som Frankrig, England og især Rusland, med store parader. Det ironiske for Naouai var at amerikanerne ellers så sig selv om de ultimative nazibetvingere og at det ifølge amerikanerne var dem, der var endestående ansvarlige for sejren over Hitlertyskland. Ifølge kvinden var det endnu et eksempel på, hvor latterlig amerikansk selvbevidsthed var og hvor historieløse de er. Sandheden var nemlig, at det var Sovjetunionen der mere end noget andet land, havde æren for at Hitler blev besejret. Eller med In The Nows ord “Stalin was a monster. But the dude won.”

Hendes argument? At russerne tabte så mange liv på og udenfor slagmarken. Mellem 25 og 30 mio, mod de samlede angelsaksiske tab på 1 mio. Ja, det har rigtigt gjort ondt på Stalin, the dude that won, sådan at få fravristet sit årsagsmonopol på den sovjetiske befolknings lidelser.

Det var Stalin selv, der var ansvarlig for at Den Røde Hær var så ringe forberedt, da han selv havde fået myrdet og fængslet i tusindvis af officerer og mistet en enorm militær ekspertise og fordi at han stolede på at Hitler ikke ville angribe. Dermed var de fra starten på hælene og da Stalins automatreaktion var at forbyde tilbagetrækning uanset hvad, blev hele divisioner omringet og nedkæmpet. Senere lærte han, i modsætning til Hitler, at stole på at hans generaler træf bedre strategiske beslutninger end ham og Soviet kunne langsomt slide sig tilbage til en vinderposition.

Den Røde Hær mistede omtrent 9 mio mand, resten af de døde skal findes blandt de civile da aksemagterne, som Victor Davies Hanson bemærker, mest brugte deres bevæbnede mænd til at føre krig mod fjendens ubevæbnede befolkninger. Men krigen blev ikke afgjort på ofre og det er ikke et udtryk for effektivitet af miste mange soldater på slagmarken. Krigen blev, som Hanson også bemærker, afgjort på produktion.

‘Amerikanerne kom for sent til festen og drak bare alle øllerne’ er et af Naouai påstande, der skal understøtte hendes stråmand. Men det er ikke helt rigtigt. 11 marts, 40 dage før Operation Barbarossa, underskrev præsident Roosevelt Låne-leje aftalen, der grundlæggende betød at USA ikke længere var et neutralt land. Så omend de ikke havde erklæret krig mod Tyskland, havde de allerede valgt side. Og låne-lej aftalen var ikke nogen ligegyldig støtte. Både Stalin, the winning dude, og hans øverste militære kommisær, Nikita Khrusjtjov, mente begge, som dagens fremmeste russiske historikere, at den, i sig selv, var afgørende for at Sovietunionen ikke fik bank af tyskerne.

Og det er der god grund til at tro på. Udover at levere mere end 40.000 køretøjer (næsten 1/3 af alle køretøjer, den Røde Hær havde til sin rådighed), 12.000 pansrede køretøjer og tanks, 11.400 flyvemaskiner og 1.75 mio ton fødevarer, leverede amerikanerne også 92% af alt jernbaneudstyr inklusiv lokomotiver, skinner og fladvogne, der blev produceret fra 42 og frem til Krigens slutning udover ammunition, aluminium, telefonkabler, tøj og 1/3 af flybrændstoffet. Så amerikanerne havde ikke blot meldt deres interesse før end Russerne modvilligt ankom, det var oven i købet dem der tog øllerne med.

Det vil sige, at amerikanerne har direkte andel i russernes del af sejren. Dertil kom af amerikanerne sammen med briterne bombede den tyske industri, hvilket hæmmede krigsproduktionen og bandt 60% af Luftwaffe til Reichsverteidigung, som jo nok kunne have ændret slagets gang i Kursk. De sidste 40% blev delt fortrinsvis mellem Sydeuropa og Østfronten, så et betydeligt handicap for wehrmacht. Ydermere blev tyskerne banket ud af Afrika og Amerikanerne fik med briternes hjælp åbnet en front fra Italien og senere Frankrig, da de brød igennem den atlantvold, som i sig selv repræsenterede et enormt spild af ressourcer. Fik jeg nævnt at ikke blot Luftwaffe blev totalt nedkæmpet af amerikanerne og englænderne, men også den tyske flåde, fra de i starten frygtindgydende ubåde, til de to latterlige slagskibe Bismarck og Tirpitz. Alt imens Amerikanerne stort set egenhændigt bankede den japanske flåde blandt andet ved at producere 21 hangarskibe og 70 eskort-hangarskibe. Åh, og to atombomber med flere på vej.

Det er kedeligt med en ungdom, der henter så meget af deres viden på nettet, at den slags er så prominent. Man midnes Boris Pasternak, der skrev i Doctor Zhivago om tiden med duden Stalin ”And when the war broke out, its real horrors, its real dangers, its menace of real death were a blessing compared with the inhuman reign of the lie, a relief because it broke the spell of the dead letter”.

Nå, men midt i et vælde af kommunister, Holocaustbenægtere, muslimer og andre, der blot hadede amerikanerne, var der også noget så eksotisk, som en benægter af Katyn massakren. Kapitalistisk propaganda, kaldte han det. Og da man i denne tid mindes Katyn massakren, hvor Stalin, den sejrende dude, myrdede den store dele af polske officersstand og en masse intellektuelle, i den del af Polen havde havde taget efter venlig aftale med Hitler - den tabende dude. Så her er en polsk film, der forsøger at bearbejde det traume krigen, undertrykkelsen og løgnene gjorde ved folkesjælen. Og det er ikke den polske Bornedahl, der har instrueret.

Karl Marx, en dårlig vane

Diverse — Drokles on May 11, 2018 at 9:48 am

I dette Karl Marx år tales diskuteres det hvor meget hans tanker har rodfæstet sig i vores tænkning. Det er selvfølgelig svært at sige, da Marx ikke udtrykte nogle originale tanker, andet end hans forfejlede økonomiske analyser, som kun akademikere kan tale varmt om. Social indignation, klasseidentitet, kollektivisme og ideen om den sociale arv er alle ældre end ikke blot Marx og den socialistiske bølge han var formet af. Et af argumenterne for Marx store indflydelse på den politiske tænkning er, hvorledes selv borgerlige ikke blot afstår fra at trampe hjemløse ihjel, som deres hjerte egentligt lyster, men endda omfavne dele  af velfærdsstaten og tankerne bag.

Da jeg var ung, var det den gængse opfattelse blandt datidens marxister, at anskue velfærdsstaten som Kapitalens måde at bestikke arbejderne fra den nødvendige revolution. I denne udlægning var det oftest Bismarck, der var arneskurken, da han skabte konturerne af den moderne socialstat, for småligt at holde socialisterne fra revolution imod Kejservældet. I Danmark voksede fattigvæsnet fra at bekæmpe generne ved tiggeres eksistens over til en egentlig omsorg for sognenes fattigste i 1708 ved forordningerne om betleri. En god kristen moral lå bag - hvad ellers, man kendte ikke til andet. Socialisterne fik først resultater, da de afsvor revolutionen, blev demokrater og med Stauning appellerede bredt til ‘Danskerne’, især de virksomme, og lagde grundstenen til den moderne velfærdsstat med Kanslergade Forliget. Klasseforrædere!

De russiske kommunisters forbillede var de russiske bønder, der ikke kendte til ejendomsret over jorden andet end, hvad den lokale herremand kunne tæske dem til når han skulle have dem til at arbejde på hans marker. For dem tilhørte jorden det kollektiv, der dyrkede det og fordelingen af lodder blev afgjort af ‘miren’ efter en nødvendighedsnøgle. Da nødvendigheden hele tiden forandrede sig som landsbyens familier voksede og skrumpede, var det en konstant omfordeling, hvor ingen havde interesse i at udvide samfundskagen ved at gøre sig det besvær at opdyrke ny jord, der blot ville blive fordelt blandt alle de andre.

Forbilledligt, men kommunisterne forestillede sig blot at erstatte landsbyens fællesskab med koorporativets under ledelse af en kommisær. Bønderne ville selvfølgelig ikke erstatte den ene herremand med den anden, de gjorde vrøvl så kommunisterne begyndte at myrde løs på bønderne. Det var derfor revolutionen var en nødvendighed for marxister, for når de ikke kunne præsentere et bedre alternativ, end den måde folk allerede havde indrettet sig på, uanset hvor uhensigtsmæssigt det syntes, kunne man kun gøre det ubærligt ikke at underkaste sig marxismens dogmer.

I dagens debat er det ikke meget man hører om revolutionens nødvendig, store spring fremad eller hele forkromede samfundsmodeller. Ingen citerer Marx i diskussioner for at slå hovedet af tandbørsten. End ikke Enhedslisten vil være ved Revolutionen, dels fordi halvdelen ikke ved at det står i deres program og dels fordi den anden halvdel kun taler om den fordi det er en gratis omgang at kunne vrøvle høfligt selskab til - høfligt undtaget er den ægte marxistklenodie, som kan findes ved Nordkoreaboden hver 1. maj.. Men det er alligevel her man finder de sidste reminiscenser af den engang så brovtende ideologi. 1. maj foreslog Københavns Teknik- og Miljøborgmester, Enhedslistens Ninna Hedeager Olsen, at sætte beboerlicensen op fra nogle hundrede kroner til 10.000 kroner og argumenterede således

I virkeligheden synes jeg ikke, at det lyder så vanvittigt højt. De 10.000 kroner er om året, og hvis man tænker på, hvad det koster at have en bil i vægtafgifter, reparationer, værksted og så videre, så er en beboerlicens på 10.000 kroner ikke særligt meget sammenlignet med ens øvrige udgifter til bil.

Hedeager (Hvilket navn til en Mir!) mente det var vanetænkning at slippe så billigt for at parkere sin bil. Men det er hende, der vanetænker når hun retfærdiggør endnu en urimelig udgift med, at alle de andre udgifter er urimeligt høje. Og ikke overraskende har hun fået beregnet, at det vil betyde et fald på 6.100 licenser, “hvis det koster 10.000 kroner om året at have en bil stående foran ens hoveddør”. Ja, for så er der nogle, de lave indkomster, for at være mere præcis, der ikke længere har råd.

Men Hedeager vil gerne omfordele ressourcerne og  bruge de ekstra penge på pædagoger og sosuer. Penge der altså skal hentes på at presse selvsamme løngruppe ud af deres biler. Det er mest passende at en bilejer også er en person af en hvis substans. Hedeager retfærdiggør den analyse, som Marxister gør sig i, som ren vanetænkning ved blot at gå ud fra, at de bedre kender de svedende massers egentlige interesser end de svedende kender deres egne behov, med deres opiumdøllede falske bevidsthed

Når vi ved, at en fjerdedel af bilerne ikke flytter sig hele ugen, så virker det ikke til, at det er et hverdagsbehov at have en bil.

For en bil skal man kun have, hvis man har behov og det har de lavere klasser ikke, for dem er det bare spads, hvis ikke det ligefrem er småborgerlige aspirationer. For dem er der andre løsninger, bedre svarende til deres behov, “Der er delebilsordninger og alle mulige andre muligheder for at bruge bil engang imellem, når behovet opstår” forklarer hun pædagogisk uden tanke på, hvorfor københavnerne allerede har fravalgt sig disse i det nuværende omfang selvom “man tænker på, hvad det koster at have en bil i vægtafgifter, reparationer, værksted og så videre”.

Hedeager kan ikke præsentere folk for et bedre alternativ. Derfor afgiftens nødvendighed, der skal gøre det ubetaleligt ikke at underkaste sig kommunens dogmer. Der ligger dog ingen større ideologisk tænkning bag Hedeagers forslag, bare en dårlige vanetænkning.

The art of cancelling the deal

Diverse — Drokles on May 9, 2018 at 3:47 am

National Review, der var det ideologiske arnested for #neverTrump, roser i deres leder præsident Trump for at trække USA ud af Iran aftalen - “to his great credit

The Iran deal is a travesty and a boon to the regime. In short, Iran entered into years-long negotiations with the West over whether it would have a nuclear program, during the course of which it developed a nuclear program. The deal allowed it to preserve a temporarily curtailed program in exchange for the shipment of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran — part of it clearly a ransom payment for the release of U.S. hostages — and relief from Western sanctions that had begun to bite.

For the mullahs, it was the deal of the century. It was less a nonproliferation agreement than a deal to pay for its proliferation.

The economic benefits of the accord were predictably poured into Iran’s expansion around the region. Rather than a new era of peace, the deal has coincided with more widespread conflict in the Middle East. Iran is now at the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia via its own forces and proxies in Syria and Yemen. It has aided Bashar al-Assad’s destruction of his own country so he can continue to rule the hollowed-out remains. It continues its attempted takeover of Iraq. It supports terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Taliban. Wherever there is discord in the region, there are the Iranians, fueling the conflict and supporting the nastiest actors.

The Iran deal takes no account of this activity in exchange for what is, in the best case, a pause in the Iranian nuclear program. Since the West isn’t allowed to inspect military sites, it is entirely possible that Iran is flagrantly cheating on the deal. Even if it isn’t, the deal allows the Iranians to bide their time — mustering their economic strength, cementing commercial ties with Europe — until restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse in less than a decade.

The deal does nothing to check Iran’s missile program, indeed gives it more running room, even though it would be easier to verify a stoppage in missile activity than the nuclear program.

Det er den bekymrede ros. Den optimistiske kan man læse i Free Beacon, hvor Matthew Continetti skriver

By reimposing sanctions, President Trump will weaken an already ailing Iranian economy. The Iranian currency, the rial, has plummeted in recent weeks. Inflation is rampant. The financial system is corrupted, dysfunctional. Strikes are proliferating, and often turn into displays against the government. This is a situation the United States should seek not to mitigate but to exacerbate.

Removing ourselves from the deal puts Iran on the defensive. Its people and government are divided and uncertain how to respond. Its leverage is minimal. Iranian citizens have seen their leaders use the money from the deal not to improve the economic lot of the average person but to fund the military, IRGC, and other instruments of foreign adventurism. Implicit in the deal was recognition of the Islamic regime as a legitimate member of the so-called “international community.” President Trump has rescinded that recognition and the standing that came with it. The issue is no longer Iranian compliance with an agreement that contained loopholes through which you could launch a Fateh-110 heavy missile. The issue is whether Iran chooses to become a responsible player or not, whether it curbs its imperial designs, cuts off its militias, abandons terrorism, opens its public square, and ceases its threats to and harassment of the United States and her allies. That choice is not Donald Trump’s to make. It is the Iranian regime’s.

Obamas Iran politik var et fatamorgana mens “Trump opposes privileges therapy and dialogue over realism and hard decisions.” Obamas politik hvilede på hans dekreter, da han var mere villig til at forhandle med mullaherne end med republikanerne, skriver Continetti videre, og derfor trævles den let op. Og, som Andrew C McCarthy peger på, så underminerer netop dekreterne, to argumenter for at honorere Iran-aftalen

(…) Obama apologists posit two other objections to Trump’s cashiering of the former president’s legacy agreement: abandoning the deal (1) isolates the United States and (2) suggests that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word.

What nonsense.

Far from isolating the United States, President Trump is proving that the United States is the indispensable nation. Nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the U.S. economy or you can have commerce with Iran — not both. Our European allies know this is not a real choice: They can’t isolate us, they need us, our markets, and the umbrella of our protection. They’re angry because they’d like to pocket the benefits they get from us while cutting profitable deals with our enemies. That’s not “isolating us”; that’s a tantrum. They will get over it in short order if the president is steadfast about enforcement.

Moreover the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret. Our European allies know full well that a president has no power unilaterally to bind the United States to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislation that cements commitments. Obama did not seek to make his deal a treaty precisely because he knew America was not giving its word — the public did not support the deal, which would have been roundly defeated if subjected to the Constitution’s process for ratifying international commitments.

Continetti funderer videre, at selv om Trump fører traditionel republikansk udenrigspolitik, skal man ikke regne med at andre kandidater, der ville være født ud af det politiske system, end outsideren Trump ville have haft modet til at gå imod “ the foreign policy establishment”.

Victor Davis Hanson legede for nogen tid siden med tanken om at Trump kan ende som den tragiske helt. Manden til tiden, som gennem sine grove metoder redder de civiliserede og efterfølgende udstødes fordi de civiliserede ikke kan indeholde hans grovheder. Det kan meget vel være og vi krydser fingre. Trump vil da være 78, i fantastisk fysisk form, milliardær og Nobelprismodtager.

Hvad Trump udløser

Diverse — Drokles on May 9, 2018 at 1:27 am

Andrew P McCarthy noterer at Trump slår hårdt ned på alle fjender, men “the harder you fight against small stuff, the bigger it appears if your story collapses”. Og det er lige, hvad Trumps historie om sit stævnemøde med den tidligere pornostjerne Stormy Daniels ser ud til at ville gøre i den nærmeste fremtid.

Men ved at benægte anklager, der snart viser sig at være sande, spinder Trumps sig ind i et net af løgne og selvmodsigelser. Hvem betalte fru Daniels, Cohen selv eller på vegne af en vidende Trump? Og hvis Cohen betalte af egen lomme på eget initiativ, blev han så kompenseret for sine udgifter senere, hvilket vil kunne tolkes som et lån, der ikke er blev indberettet til de rette myndigheder. Og blev fru Daniels betalt for ikke at skade Trumps forhold til ægtefællen Melania, eller for ikke at skade hans chancer i valgkampen, og dermed et inddirekte kampagnebidrag, der ikke var blevet korrekt anmeldt til myndighederne? Det er ikke århundredets forbrydelse, som McCarthy pointerer, men pressen vil elske en sådan chance for ikke at tage et opgør med sig selv, om hvorledes man dog kunne dyrke den afsindige russerhistorie og istedet vælte sig i saftige historier om

…hush money before the election, the implausible denials of the conduct, the implausible denials of knowledge about the payment, the specter of cheating on Melania right after the birth of Barron Trump, Stormy’s allegation of an extortionate threat, the laugh-out-loud details of the non-disclosure agreement (Trump as “David Dennison” and Stormy as “Peggy Peterson”), and…

(…)

…wall-to-wall coverage to prove it happened, including coverage of Trump’s flings and interactions with women over the years (some of which are alleged to involve unwanted advances), until he admits it. If he does, he will look terrible for inducing Stormy to sign a false denial letter and for relying on it. In the meantime, he will look terrible for appearing to threaten Stormy with the punitive NDA damages, which will lend credibility to her thus far uncorroborated claim that, in 2011, an unidentified man threatened that she would be killed if she did not keep quiet. And the cherry on top: Trump’s tweet calls renewed attention to the NDA. While such agreements may be “very common” as Trump says, how “very common” is it to do them under silly pseudonyms instead of the parties’ real names? That question, as night follows day, will lead to more media discussion of the fact that Cohen used the very same pseudonyms in yet another hush-money arrangement with a major GOP donor and Trump supporter.

Der er langt fra Hitler og starter af atomkrige i lommen på Putin til disse sladderbladsskandaler. Men det er, hvad Trumps modstandere i medierne har tilbage så det er hvd der præger den offentlige debat - og det er bare en del af den politiske virkelighed. Men kernen i politik er stadig vælgerne og de er ved at være trætte af, hvad de i stigende grad ser som en politisk heksejagt, på en præsident der både skaffer jobs i USA, fred i Korea og retfærdighed i Mellemøsten, skriver Jeff Crouere i Townhall

In an April Rasmussen Reports poll, only 46% of Americans believed that the Special Counsel investigation was an “honest attempt to determine criminal wrongdoing.” This is a decrease of 6% from October, when 52% supported Mueller’s investigation.

With an out of control Special Counsel and a public becoming more disgruntled, one Congressman finally decided to act.On Thursday, U.S. Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN) introduced a resolution calling for the Mueller investigation to endwithin 30 daysunless evidence of Russian collusion is introduced. According to Rokita, he proposed the resolution to “preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions.”

Rokita is disturbed by both the scope and the $17 million cost of the Mueller investigation. He believes it is “an attempt by the Washington elite to destroy President Trump.” However, it is also an unprecedented political and legal assault on the 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. The Special Counsel and his team of partisan Democrat attorneys are attempting to overturn the results of the last election, and enact, in essence, the first political coup d’état in American history.

Modstanden mod Trump har for længst fået sit eget liv, der helt har løsrevet den fra politisk indhold til fordel for personlige idiosynkrasier. Hans tidligere politiske modstandere er forblændet af personaen Trump og vil blot se ham skandaliseret uanset, hvad det betyder for nationens ve og vel. Men det bliver der ikke så meget af, som de håber og det pæne National Review gruer for.

Alle vidste hvilken levemand Trump, der selv pralede af sit høje energiniveau i valgkampen, var. Hans vulgariteter er kun interessant for folk på de bonede gulve. Historien om en præsident, der i sin tid som reality stjerne, knaldede en halvt så gammel pornostjerne til almuens store forbløffelse og beundring vil snart blegne i skyggen af de politiske skandaler, der vil komme rullende, som følge af afsløringerne af efterretningsvæsenets metoder, pressens løgn- og følgagtighed og korruptionen i det Demokratiske partis top.

200 året for Karl Marx, 100 året for hans elendigheder

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2018 at 10:08 am

det er 200 år siden Karl Marx blev født og derfor er der en overflod af priviligerede mennesker, der takker manden bag de tanker udfra hvilke mellem 70 og 100 mio mennesker blev myrdet og hele samfund destrueret. Som et eksempel kan jeg anbefale at læse Ben Shapiro hudflette en New York Times hyldest. Eller en udfordring, se om De kan se forskel på en filmkritiker og en marxist i Informations artikel om filmen ‘den Unge Karl Marx’.

Svaret er at De kan ikke ikke, når kritikeren savler over den “menneskeligt og politisk engagerende film om den nødvendige kamp for at forandre verden”. Og ironien tabes også når marxisten udtaler

Et af Marx’ mange vigtige bidrag til videnskaben var afvisningen af ’stor mand’-teorien’ om historien, altså den (ofte implicitte) forestilling, at sociale forandringer har sin oprindelse i enestående individer og deres ideer.

Så Marx er falsificeret, Marx forandrede Verden, endda tilskyndede til dens forandring fordi det er muligt - om så vi skal sætte ild til den. Er det ikke ironisk, som hans samfund kollapsede under vægten af deres egne indre modsætninger, vælter hans egen succes hans teorier omkuld. Kun ‘nationens lort’ kan falde for den slags. Anyways, vi skal have lidt sanddruelighed.

Dominic Sandbrook undrer sig i Daily Mail over at tilsyneladende begavede mennesker, kan gøre noget så dumt, som at se op til Karl Marx. Trods massegravene overalt i Verden, hvor marxismen har været prøvet gennemført og kollapset næsten hver gang (hold ud Kammerat Nordkorea, der er ikke langt igen), så friholdes Marx fra ansvaret ud fra en tanke om at Lenin, Stalin, Mao og Pol Pot, der alle havde studeret Marx nærgående og skrevet tykke bøger om ham, at de alle, samt deres tilhængere, fuldkommen havde misforstået Marx teorier. De var ikke monstre, der blot var marxister, det monstrøse var marxismen

As a young man, Stalin studied Marx’s theories with obsessive dedication. Then, after winning power, he put them into practice.

Stalin did not kill millions of his own people because he was mad. He did it because he believed Marx’s theories required it.

He thought their deaths were a price worth paying for the collectivisation of agriculture, the end of private farms and the coming of a socialist society.

Although Marx’s acolytes will never accept it, Stalin was not perverting his hero’s vision.

In fact, violence had formed part of Marx’s worldview from the very beginning.

‘There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated,’ wrote Marx in 1848, ‘and that way is revolutionary terror’.

Here is Marx a year later, addressing his conservative adversaries: ‘We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you,’ he writes. ‘When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.’

The truth is that Marx’s vision was inherently violent. How could it be otherwise? How, without bloodshed, would you get your revolution? How would you abolish private property?

Here is a crucial distinction between Marxism — which is often called a ‘political religion’ — and genuine religions.

Christianity, for example, abjures violence and Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek.

But Marxism is violent by definition. If Marxists turned the other cheek, they would never get their revolution.

The other difference is that most religions venerate the individual.

In Judaism and Christianity, the wellsprings of mainstream Western politics, individual life is sacred, because man is made in God’s image.

But, for Marxists, the individual is irrelevant. Man is merely the servant of history. All that matters is the collective, the grand sweep.

And if that means some people — Russian landowners, Chinese merchants, Cambodian teachers, Cuban dissidents — end up in mass graves, prison camps or psychiatric hospitals, that is just their tough luck.

This sort of thinking strikes me as obscene.

Yet, thanks to the sheer force of Marx’s intellect, it has attracted some very clever people.

Og det er et intellektuelt kollaps, som er iboende venstrefløjen, som man kan se på dens seneste fascination af en kollektivistisk ideologi, hvis terrorgrupper og dysfunktionelle samfund bliver bortforklaret med at de, med ideologiens eget sprog, har byttet rundt på ordene.

‘Want me to draw you a picture?’

Diverse — Drokles on April 29, 2018 at 9:23 am

For første gang er en nordkoreansk leder trådt over grænsen til Sydkorea for at erklære sig forpligtet på at gøre halvøen atom-våben fri og endeligt slutte Koreakrigen. Trump får næppe Nobels fredspris for sin rolle for denne overraskende optimisme på at et gammelt sår og en stadigt mere ulmende trussel kan få en snarlig ende.

Der er endnu ikke fred og stadig atomvåben, kun håbet og det kan ikke siges hvem der er ejermanden til det. Men freden sikres bedst, hvis man bereder sig på krigen. Victor Davis Hanson peger i sin seneste bog, The Second World Wars, på tre faktorer der forudsatte Anden Verdenskrig. Sovjets samarbejde med Nazityskland, amerikansk isolationisme og fransk og engelsk eftergivenhed. Noblesse oblige, men Vesten svigtede sine forpligtelse skønt dens styrke og myndiggjorde således de totalitære og supremacistiske ideologier.

Trumps udenrigspolitik har taget udgangspunkt i et styrket og selvbevidst USA. Kineserne trakterer ham beundrende i Den Forbudte By, mens de vænner sig til tanken om at alle uretfærdige samhandelsaftaler får en ende. Araberne trakterer forelsket Trump, der flytter den amerikanske ambassade til Jerusalem under larmen fra skuldertrækkets dag. Og russerne lader som ingenting, mens de får et symbolsk pulver i Syrien. Det kan sagtens tænkes at Nordkoreas regime har lugtet at Trumps USA ikke kerer sig om den gode tone eller trusler fra andre og mere veludrustede atommagter.

Trump er ikke en sofistikeret fyr, der ikke tør kalde fjenden islamisk, han underskylder ikke for vestlig eksistens, men anerkender derimod at “The world is a mess“. Forleden sagde Trump, der ikke så ud til at “care whether he is acting “presidential””, mens han på direkte morgen TV lystigt svinede sit eget justitsministerium, om iranerne at

…all they are doing is screaming ‘Death to America! Death to America!’ - and by the way, they are not screaming it so much anymore. They where screaming it with him [Obama], they are not screaming it with me. We have’nt seen their little boats circling our ships in the ocean lately because they know that if they do circle the ships, they are not going to be there any longer!”

“The [threat of] nuclear war would have happened if we had weak people!” fortsatte han sit ræsonnement.

Forudsat han får succes med sin politik, kan Trump se frem til at være den tragiske helt, skrev Victor Davis Hanson for et par uger siden, der udelukkes fra den civilisation hans brutalitet og viljestyrke forudsætter

Perhaps we could not withstand the fire and smoke of a series of Trump presidencies, but given the direction of the country over the last 16 years, half the population, the proverbial townspeople of the western, wanted some outsider, even with a dubious past, to ride in and do things that most normal politicians not only would not but could not do — before exiting stage left or riding off into the sunset, to the relief of most and the regrets of a few.

The best and the brightest résumés of the Bush and Obama administrations had doubled the national debt — twice. Three prior presidents had helped to empower North Korea, now with nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at the West Coast. Supposedly refined and sophisticated diplomats of the last quarter century, who would never utter the name “Rocket Man” or stoop to call Kim Jong-un “short and fat,” nonetheless had gone through the “agreed framework,” “six-party talks,” and “strategic patience,” in which three administrations gave Pyongyang quite massive aid to behave and either not to proliferate or at least to denuclearize. And it was all a failure, and a deadly one at that.

For all of Obama’s sophisticated discourse about “spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that,” quantitative easing, zero interest rates, massive new regulations, the stimulus, and shovel-ready, government-inspired jobs, he could not achieve 3 percent annualized economic growth. Half the country, the more desperate half, believed that the remedy for a government in which the IRS, the FBI, the DOJ, and the NSA were weaponized, often in partisan fashion and without worry about the civil liberties of American citizens, was not more temporizing technicians but a pariah who cleaned house and moved on. Certainly Obama was not willing to have a showdown with the Chinese over their widely acknowledged cheating and coerced expropriation of U.S. technology, with the NATO allies over their chronic welching on prior defense commitments, with the North Koreans after they achieved the capability of hitting U.S. West Coast cities, or with the European Union over its mostly empty climate-change accords.

Moving on, sometimes fatally so, is the tragic hero’s operative exit.

Under Anden Verdenskrig var det folk som Patton, LeMay og Bomber Harris, der var villige til at gøre det nødvendige, stærke mænd eftertiden skammede sig over.

Deep state in deep s***

Diverse — Drokles on April 28, 2018 at 8:26 am

“A new report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee shows there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.” skriver Townhall.

Det viser sig bl.a, skriver Sean Davis i The Federalist, at James Clapper, den tidligere direktør for National Intelligence, beordrede den daværende FBI direktør James Comey til at underrette Donald Trump, der endnu stadig kun var kandidat til præsidentposten om Steele rapportens eksistens. Medierne kendte allerede rapporten, men anså den for uvederhæftig og havde ingen anledning til at offentliggøre den uden selv at miste troværdighed. Comey fortalte dog ikke Trump, at rapporten var bestilt og betalt af hans modkandidat Hillary Clinton, da det ikke tjente Comey egentlige mål og nøjes altså blot med at lade Trump vide, at FBI ligger inde med snavs på Trump.

Clapper lækkede derefter oplysningen om, at Trump er blevet oplyst om de slibrige detaljer i Steeles rapport til CNN. Og derved fik CNN en anledning til at rapportere at Trump muligvis havde været i Rusland for at betale ludere for at lege tisselege i hotelsenge hr. og fru Obama skulle have sovet i. Nu var Steels rapport nemlig ikke længere modkandidatens smuds, men oplysninger, som efterretningsvæsenet tager alvorligt. Og sådan gik det til at Clapper fik et fast job på CNN.

Det er et af de helt forbløffende åbenbaringer i denne sørgelige affære, nemlig hvor let karriereembedsmænd tager på deres embedsmisbrug, at de end ikke gør anstalter til at skjule det. CIA direktøren John Brennan tweetede endda “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”, som Victor Davis Hanson minder om. Og ingen blev forargede for således fyldte the Resistance det offentlige rum med celebriteter, Demokrater og medier, der brugte alle midler for at delegitimere Trumps præsidentskab, når de altså ikke ønskede ham død. Alt kunne lade sig gøre, når blot Trump stod for skud.

George Neumayr minder i Spectator om, at det var Paul Brennan, der overbeviste medierne om at Rusland givetvis lå inde med kompromiterende oplysninger om Donald Trump, u-verificerede rygter, som mange i CIA, ifølge Brennan selv, bifaldt blev spredt.

A leaker, liar, and subversive, Comey is now off to teach “ethical leadership” at William and Mary (his alma mater, for whose basketball team he once falsely claimed to play, according to the book’s review in the Washington Post), while Brennan, who urges members of the federal government to disobey the chief executive, keeps an eye on Trump’s “moral turpitude.”

Their delusions of grandeur show no signs of dissipating. Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s, has even taken to speaking up for the “deceived,” as if he is the voice of an oppressed and unenlightened proletariat. Comey is operating off a similar conceit, seeing himself as a figure simply too singular to be fired. For some reason, Comey thought it sympathy-inducing to tell Stephanopoulos that he drank wine from a “paper cup” on the flight back after his sacking — an image of Comey not as a moral giant but a pathetic partisan drunk on his own rectitude.

Men tiden rinder ud, Trumps økonomiske politik sætter gang i hjulene hvorfor medierne klynger sig til at “Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot”.

Michael Goodwin siger i New York Post, at der er udbrudt “civil war among anti-Trumpers”, som løgnene er kommet ud af kontrol og nu hvirvler rundt blandt kup-magerne selv

The news that Inspector General Michael Horowitz is probing whether former FBI Director James Comey mishandled classified information with memos he wrote and leaked is the second bombshell in two days. It follows the IG’s recommendation of criminal prosecution against Comey’s former top deputy, Andrew McCabe, on charges that he lied repeatedly to investigators.

These are not secondary issues. Getting the truth of biased actions against Trump by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration is as critical as the Mueller investigation. To let Comey and others get away with abusing their power for partisan purposes would further damage public trust in law enforcement.

Comey, of course, is on a book tour that has served a dual function: making him rich while also making him less trustworthy to both Democrats and Republicans. He and McCabe are trading accusations of lying, which is remarkable when you realize how many ordinary Americans they prosecuted for lying to them.

Comey is also attacking former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who responds by accusing him of making up a conversation.

Mark Dice om Facebook

Diverse — Drokles on April 26, 2018 at 6:36 am

Jeg har skrevet kapitlet om Facebook af, fra den konservative Youtube kommentator Mark Dice seneste bog The True Story of Fake News

Facebook slowly morphed from a website people could use to look up old friends from high school or college and share photos with family members, to a place where most people now get much of their news and keep up with current events. At one time Facebook only showed users what their ‘friends’ was posting, but that changed when they added the trending module - and with this simple little box they harnessed the power to introduce thei one billion user to news stories that their friends hadn’t posted - stories the company feels users should know about, and overnight Facebook transformed from just a social networking site to a news company.

With this change, combined with the algorithms which filter out certain content people post by limiting its distribution, Facebook has become a powerfull gatekeeper that can decide which stories will go viral, and which ones will remain virtually unknown. Facebook also poses a danger to free speech by policing and censoring what people post, and if something is deemed ‘too politically incorrect’, then posts are automatically deleted users may have their accounts completely shut down.

Most news websites now rely on Facebook for the majority of their traffic from users posting links to their articles. An internet analytics firm showed that Facebook was responsible for driving 43% of web traffic to over 400 major sites in 2016.

According to their study, in 2014 Facebook was responsible for 20% of all traffic to news sites, and in just two years that figure more than doubled as people became accustomed to scrolling through their Facebook feeds to see what articles their friends had posted and because they where now ‘following’ news websites on Facebook instead of bookmarking the websites in their internet browser and visiting them directly.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said one of his goals is, “To build the perfect personalized newspaper for every person in the world.” Facebook even began hosting articles from major publishers so users who clicked on a link wouldn’t leave the Facebook ecosystem and could now view the content within Facebook’s app.

The company wants to be the primary hub of the internet, bypassing search engines and web browser altogether. For those who where using the internet of the 1990s and early 2000s, we recall most companies encouraging people to visiting their websites at the end of their commercials, but those calls to action have been replaced by now encouraging people to follow them on Facebook instead, making Mark Zuckerberg one of the most powerful (and unnecessary) middlemen in the history of the internet.

As the 2016 election approached, many media analysts and tech bloggers began to realize that with so many people relying on Facebook as their primary news aggregator, that the site could leverage their power hoping to influence the election. New York Magazine published an article wich asked, “Could Facebook help prevent Donald Trump?”, and went on to say Not through lobbying or donations or political action committees, but simply by exploiting the enormous reach and power of its core products? Could Facebook, a private coorperation with over a billion active users, swing an election just by adjusting its News Feed?”

Paul Brewer, a communications professor at the University of Delaware, said “Facebook would, like any campaign, want to encourage turnout a,ong the supporters of its preferred candidate, pursuade the small number of genuinely uncommitted likely voters, and target apathetic voters who could be convinced to get out to the polls.”

Josh Wright, the executive director of a behavioral science lab also admitted, “There’s lots of opportunity, I think, to manipulate based on what they know about people.” Whrigt pointed out how the site could fill people’s news feeds with photos or stories showing a particular candidate engaged in activities that Facebook knows they like in order to use “in-group psychology” to get people to indentify with a candidate who shares some of their interests.We tend to judge someon by what other people we like are saying about them, and so Facebook could highlight statements made by celebrities that people follow, or even our own friends, about a candidate in order to influence our opinion of that person. If you think Facebook wouldn’t engage in this kind of personalized high-tech manipulation, you would be wrong, because they already have.

A secret study Facebook conducted during the 2010 midterm elections, with help from researchers at the University of California, San Diego, investigated what’s called social contagion wich is how behavior or emotions are copied by others. Facebook included over 60 million of their users in an experiment and found that they could influence peopleto actually get out and vote by showing people that their friends had voted, which then influenced others as well. “Our study suggest that social influence may be the best way to increase voter turnout,” said James Fowler, a UCSD political science professor who conducted the study.”Just as importantly, that what happens online matters a lot in the ‘real world’.” Their experiment increased voter turnout by 340.000 people.

Facebook obviously have a political agenda. They’ve hosted af Q & A for Barak Obama, they hung a huge BLack Lives Matter banner at their headquarters, Mark Zuckerberg have been very outspoken about his support for illegal immigration, gay marriage, and other liberal causes, The company conducts internal polls of employees where they submit questions and vote on them in hopes of getting Zuckerberg to answer, and one poll in march of 2016 that a bunch of employees asked if the company should help prevent Donald Trump from winning the election.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Gizmodo, “Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants. Facebook has the same First Amendment right as The New York Times. They can completely block Trump if they want. They can block him or promote him.”Technically the First Amendment only prevents the U.S. government from supressing someone’s speech, not a coorperation.

Gizmodo’s report on the political bias of Facebook pointed out, “Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company - an outlet designed to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine og news website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its algorithm - altering what we see - it’s akin to an editor deciding what to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on.”

Wether they are legally allowed to do such a thing is one issue, wether such favoritism and censorship is deceptive and immoral is another.

“If Facebook decided to,” professor Volokh says, “it could gradually remove any pro-Trump stories or media off its site - devastating for a campaign that runs on memes and publicity. Facebook wouldn’t have to disclose it was doing this, and would be protected by the First Amendment.”

“If Facebook was actively coordination with the Sanders or Clinton campaign, and suppressing Donald Trump News, it would turn an independent expenditure(protected by the First Amendment) into a campaign contribution bercause it would be coordinated,” he said. “But, if they’re just saying ‘We don’t want Trump material on our site,’ they have every right to do that. It’s protected by the First Amendment.”

Censorship of Trending Topics

In May of 2016, tech blog Gizmodo confirmed what many had suspected and what was obvious to those with common sense - that Facebook was systematically suppressing news stories from conservative outlets and those which represented a positive conservative message. “Facebook workers routinely supressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section, according to a former journalist, who worked on the project,” reported Gizmodo.

The whistleblower revealed that the company suppressed stories about CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee conference), Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other topics from showing up on the trending module, even though they would have appeared there originally from so many people posting about them.It wasn’t just one whistleblower, but several, and they also revealed that employees would manually insert topics into the trending list that they wanted to get more attention. One former employee said that the positive stories about Black Lives Matter were often inserted into the trending box  to help them go viral when they didn’t originally trend from people posting about them.

“In other words,” Gizmodo reported, “Facebook news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values on to the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing - but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists ‘topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.’”

They also called the news section “some of the most powerful real estate on the internet” that helps dictate what hundreds of millions of people are reading.One of the news curators said they used a notebook to document stories that were censored which included ones about Lois Lerner, the IRS officiel who targeted conservatives for audits; stories about the Drudge Report, Ted Cruz, Steven Crowder, and more.

A second curator said, “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is. Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

If a story was on Breitbart, The Washington Examiner, Newsmax or other conservative sites and was going viral and qualified to be included in the trending module, curators would wait until an outlet like CNN or The New York Times covered the story before it would be allowed to show up as a trend. One insider revealed that Facebook injected the latest Black Lives Matter protests into the trending module, giving them a special preference to further their cause. The editors also prevented negative stories about Facebook itself from showing up in the trending section.

The very next day after the story broke about Facebook manipulating the trending topics list, the US Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees interstate commerce and communications, sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg with a list of detailed questions demanding answers about who determines which stories are included in the Trending Topics section. They also wanted to know details about the process of selection, oversight and wanting answers to the allegations of politically motivated manipulation.

Mark Zuckerberg then invited severel conservative media figures including Glenn Beck, Fox News host Dana Perino, Tucker Carlson, and others to Facebook’s headquaters to try and save face, prevent conservatives from abandoning Facebook, and to ‘talk about their concerns’.But since our world moves so fast most people quickly forgot all about the scandal and continue to blindly believe that what they see trending is what people are talking about most, not even giving it a second thought about the legitimacy what they are seeing.

“Boosting” Posts

Most people think that what they and their friends post (and what news sites they follow post), shows up in their feed unless they choose to hide posts from a user they are still following, but Facebook openly admits limiting the distribution of posts unless users pay them (in most cases, hundres of dollars for each post). It’s called “boosting” a post and is mostly for people like me who have a “fan page”wich is what all public figures, TV shows, News outlets, and bands use. It has a few more features than standard Facebook pages, such as not having to approve a friend request every time someone follows the page.

My page, at the time I’m writing this has about 500.000 followers. But each status update I post only show up on a few thousand people’s news feeds. Thisisn’t some conspiracy, it’s just a method Facebook uses to generate money, by encouraging administrators of fan pages to “boost” their post, or pay to actually show up in the feeds of people who af following the page. For administrators of “fan pages,” when we post something, we are alerted with af button that says”Boost this post” wich take us to a checkout page showing various prices and the corresponding number of people Facebook will then allow to se the post.

For example to boost a post so that it will reach at least 100.000 of the 500.000 people following my page, the cost is $4.000. That’s for one status update. I mention this because a lot of people wonder why they miss posts from pages they follow, and this is the reason. You may only ber seeingone out of every four posts because of the limitation Facebook puts on the posts that aren’t being “boosted.”

Experimenting on Users

Aside from the previously mentioned secret study into Facebook’s effectiveness of getting out the vote in the 2010 midterm elections by using 60 million people as unknowing guinea pigs, Facebook has conducted other experiments on it’s users as well. In 2012 they manipulated the news feeds of 700.000 people by both limiting and boosting the number of positive and negative posts showing up in some people’s feeds to determine whether they could alter their moods. They then monitored what those users posted to see if they where either more negativ og positive as a result of what what they where regularly seeing in their own feeds. All Facebook users actually consent to this kind of manipulation by agreeing to terms of service when they sign up.

Leaked documents also revealed that Facebook experimented on what they considered to be emotionally vulnerable teenagers who felt “useless.” The documents show that the companys algorithms can determine which users are feeling “Worthless,” “insecure,” “useless,” “overwhelmed,” and other depressed feelings, and then they use this assesment to allow advertisers to target those people with adds for products they think they will be able to get them to buy.

Because of the continued instances of people committing horrific crimes while broadcasting them using Facebooks ‘Live’ feature, the company is developing an artificial intelligence system to watch live streams in real time , and monitor peoples posts in order to remove any ‘offensive’ og violent contend. If their A.I. is able to monitor all posts and live stream in near real time, it opens the door for Orwellian censorship straight out of a science fiction film, because those who control the parameters for having content be removed could choose to use the system to prevent the spread of certain views, as we have already seen with the Trending Topics scandal.

In May of 2017, Facebook hired another 3000 people to monitor live streams, and other posts that are flagged for potentially violent or ‘hateful’ content in an attempt to have such posts removed more quickly. So there is now a virtual army of moderators ready to not just delete post or videos, but to shut down livestreams if someone i talking about an issue in a way Facebook deems ’sexist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ or any other number of buzzwords that indicate ‘Thought Crime.’

A Threat to Free Speech

Relying on Facebook to communicate with friends and family has become a threat to free speech around the world as fewer people actually talk on the phone (let alone meet face to face). People are now being arrested for ‘hate speech’ for posting criticism about their government’s policies on Facebook. This isn’t just happening in Third World countries or Orwellian dictatorships like Communist China or North Korea; it’s happening i England, Scotland, Germany, Canada, and other supposedly ‘free’ countries. Facebook also frequently deletes users’ posts and lock their accounts (or deletes their accounts entirely) for posting statements critical of illegal immigration, the LGBT agenda and other policies the Leftists are pushing.

These alleged ‘terms of service’ violations aren’t for posting threats, they’re for simply criticizing the liberal agenda, or for using certain words that social justice warriors deem ‘hateful.’ This kind of Orwellian censorship is the equivalent of your phone company listening to every conversation you have, and then turning of your phone if they didn’t like what you were saying.

Facebook has deleted several of my posts and locked me out of my account for three days for such ‘violations’ after I criticized anti-white racism and a bizarre pro-transgender soap commercial. I expect that any day they may hust delete my account altogether for what they will claim is a ’serious violation’ of their terms of service.

When logging on one morning I was told, “We removed the post because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards,” and I found that Facebook had deleted a post I made that was critical of a Dove soap commercial featuring ‘Real moms’ which included a transgender ‘woman’ holding ‘her’ new little baby, and the person ‘identified’ as the child’s ‘mother’ even though he was the biological father. All I did was post a link to a story about the commercial, along with the comment, “Excuse me now while I go grab some Irish Spring to clean up my puke,” a sarcastic joke, referencing Irish Sprig, a competitor’s soap.

People often call this being put in a “Facebook Jail” which means you can’t log in or post anything for up to 30 days, depending on how many times you’ve been suspended for ‘violating’ their terms of service. Facebook has suspended people for simply posting Bible verses that are critical of homosexuality. Other post critical of of illegal immigration, black crime, LGBT extremists, or radical Muslims are regularly deleted as well.

Facebook employees have actually pressured Mark Zuckerberg to delete some of Donald Trump’s posts for violating their ‘hate speech’ rules for his stance on immigration. Again, imagine the phone company canceling your service because they didn’t like what you and your friends talked about. That’s basically what Facebook and the other social media giants are doing by policing what people post and then shutting down their pages if they feel something is too ‘offensive’ or violate their terms om service.

Facebook quietly admits censoring content for the Chinese government. The website was banned in China in 2009, so Facebook developed new censorship tools to appease the communist government there, an so they allowed the website back. The day befor Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding in the UK, Facebook suspended a bunch of pages of people and groups they suspected were going to ’cause trouble’ during the event. And Mark Zuckerberg has admitted working with various European countries in order to censor criticism of the mass influx of muslims into Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden.

Some are calling for Facebook (and other social media sevices, including search engines like Google) to be treated as public utilities. One of the arguments is that using them in today’s society is as necessary as having acces to traditional utilities like telephone, water, electricity and natural gas.

After the historic flooding Houston after Hurricane Harvey in 2017, many victims took to social media begging to be rescued, posting their address an pictures of the rising floodwater, and many were rescued by volunteers this way. One may argue that banning people from such sites could put their lives at risk, and is one more reason Facebook Twitter, and other social media services should be considered utilities that can’t be shut off just because someone is posting things the companies don’t agree with.

The Future of Facebook

Not only does Facebook want to be the middle man on all internet traffic, but they’re getting into commerce by enabling financial transactions, original content creation like Amazon and Netflix, and they hope to lead the virtual reality revolution. Mark Zuckerberg has even created flying solar-powered Wi-Fi routers to bring the internet to remote parts of Africa, and envisions a world where instead of physically going ti a friend’s house to watch a football game, everyone will stay at their own homes and put on their VR headsets to watch television ‘together’ while communicating with each other through avatars. They are calling it Facebook Spaces.

If you’re starting to think Facebook’s vision of the future looks like something right out of The Matrix, you wouldn’t be wrong. Zuckerberg himself says that in 50 years we’ll all be “pluggerd into the Matrix” through his mind-reading machines and using virtual reality headsets as part of our daily lives. He said, “I think you’re going to be able capture a thought [and take] what you’re thinking or feeling, in its kind of ideal and perfect form in your head, and share that with the world.”

Such themes have been explored in science fiction films like Surrogates (2009), eXistenZ (1999), and The Thirteenth Floor (1999), all of which warn about the dangers of this kind of society, but Zuckerberg is determined to make such a thing a reality.

Facebooks forsøg på at fremstille en kunstig intelligens, der kan censure øjeblikkeligt skal ses sammen med at kineserne råder over teknologi, der kan genkende ansigter i selv store menneskemængder og Google arbejder på teknologi der vil være i stand til at genkende menneskestemmer blandt mange.

Rygtebørsen

Diverse — Drokles on April 24, 2018 at 6:37 pm

The Last Refuge, næres den mørkeste frygt i skyggelandet mellem konspiration og plausibilitet. Nej, Deep State styrer ikke USA, men efterretningsvæsenet og justitsministeriet er magtfuld organer, og spørgsmålet er, hvor mange rådner æblers motiverede indsats, hvad de kalder “the smal group”, der overhovedet skal til, for at sætte statsapparatet op imod Folkets valg.

Adding fuel to the multidimensional motive, the U.S. media apparatus, writ large, is in alignment with the “small group” objectives.

The evidence of the media motive surfaces amid dozens of leaks surrounding the FBI raid against Michael Cohen.  From those leaks hundreds of stories are being written regardless of accuracy.  What each of those stories has in common is a baseline the FBI took information from the raid. This is the critical point to understand.

The actual content recovered from the FBI raid is irrelevant.  What the media needed was the raid itself.  The raid presents the factual cornerstone of every written article – from which any false assertion can be made about the content.  The media needed the raid, the media does not need the content.  See how that works?  We are seeing this in hundreds of articles based on anonymous sources who frame the narrative of content.

Accepting this reality we discover the big-picture “small group” motive.  That motive facilitated by the same ideological allies who conducted the 2016 campaign against the candidacy of their enemy, Donald Trump.

Leaking is inevitably” medgiver Alan Dershowitz, der forklarer at det bare er således justitsministeriet og dens organer opererer. Men nu ender det snart

Hvorfor Israel?

Diverse — Drokles on April 21, 2018 at 3:50 am

Det spørgsmål stiller Brendan O’Neill i Spiked Online og kommer frem til følgende konklusion

The treatment of Israel as uniquely colonialist, as an exemplar of racism, as the commissioner of the kind of crimes against humanity we thought we had left in the darkest moments of the 20th century, really captures what motors today’s intense fury with Israel above all other nations: it has been turned into a whipping boy for the sins of Western history, a punch-bag for those who feel shame or discomfort with the political and military excesses of their own nations’ pasts and who now register that shame and discomfort by raging against what they view, hyperbolically, as a lingering expression of that past: Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. They heap every horror of the past on to Israel, hence their denunciation of it as ideological, racist, imperialistic, even genocidal – in their eyes, and courtesy of their campaigning, Israel comes to symbolise the crimes of yesteryear. So when 18 Palestinians are killed, it is not simply a tragedy, it is not simply excessive, it is certainly not something that requires serious, nuanced discussion, including about the role of Hamas in organising such protests in order to shore up international sympathy for Palestinian victimhood. No, it is an act that reminds us of the entire history of colonialism and racial chauvinism and of concentration camps and genocide, because this is what Israel now reminds people of; they project their post-colonial guilt and scepticism about the Western project on to this tiny state in the Middle East.

The rage against Israel is actually more therapeutic than political. It is not about seriously addressing the reality of life and conflict in the Middle East, but rather is driven by the narrow needs of Western observers and activists for an entity they can fume against in order to give release to their own sense of historical and political disorientation. But the impact of this therapeutic rage, this almost primal-scream therapy against Israel, is dire. It contributes to the growing conspiratorial view that certain people, you know who they are, have a uniquely disruptive influence on international affairs, political life, and everyday safety and security. ‘It isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’, observers say, and they are absolutely right. Every nation state must be open to criticism and protest. But if you only criticise Israel, or you criticise Israel disproportionately to every other state, and if your criticism of Israel is loaded with Holocaust imagery and talk of bloodletting, and if you boycott Israel and no other nation, and if you flatter the dark imaginings of the far right and Islamists and conspiracy theorists by fretting over a super powerful Israel Lobby, and if the sight of an Israeli violinist is too much for you to stomach, then, I’m sorry, that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism.

Imens i Yemen, som også er “a barbaric sea, land and air blockade since 2015 that has resulted in devastating shortages of food and medicine, causing famine and the rampant spread of diseases like cholera

Stemning fra Gaza striben

Diverse — Drokles on April 15, 2018 at 4:24 am

“Despite Israel’s threats of violence” begynder en overskrift i Mondoweiss “Gaza protesters have peaceful dream”. Det er marchen mod Israels grænse, der tænkes på, den march som i sig selv, selv om den skulle have været fredelig, er en afvisning af Israels eksistensberettigelse. “Not only niggers have dreams“, som Dan Park bemærkede

It all started in 2011 with that Facebook post, the dream of a 33-year-old man in Gaza named Ahmed Abu Ratima. Gazing at a tree on the other side of the barbed fence that separates the Strip from the land now known as Israel, Abu Ratima thought, “Why can’t I go and sit under that tree just for a while, like a free bird?”

Ja, hvorfor lige det træ af alle træer i verden? I 2012 besøgte VICE, der ikke ligefrem er konservatismens bannerfører, Gaza, for at se på hvorledes Hamas håndhævede loven seks år efter dens folkevalgte magtovertagelse.

Selv om Vica kolporterer den almindelige historie om de 6-700.000 arabere der i 1948 forlod og blev fordrevet fra Israel - hvoraf der af de overlevende fra dengang, som endte i Gaza, nu kun er lige under 2.000.000 tilbage - så kan man konstatere flere småvigtige detaljer, hvis man vil forstå denne koncentrationslejrs dynamik og bevidne anatomien af israelernes folkemord på palæstinenserne.

Suroosh Alvi og hans medarbejdere rejser ind via den ægyptiske grænse, der på daværende tidspunkt var blevet delvist åbnet fordi daværende præsident Mursi og hans Muslimske Broderskab ønskede et tættere forhold til den palæstinensiske sag imod ‘besættelsesmagten’. Ved grænsen står der hundreder der er desperate for at kommen IND i koncen… Gaza. Suroosh Alvi udtrykker en vis uro ved at skulle interviewe Hamasfolk i deres kontorer af frygt for om Israelske droner skulle smide en hilsen - altså målrettet gengældelse. Gadebilledet i Gaza ligner gadebilledet i et hvilket som helst arabisk land. Hamas nægter nogensinde at anerkende Israel og omtaler bare landet som ‘besættelsen’, hvilket er en permanent krigstilstand. Hamas største problem synes dog at være ungdommens misbrug af alkohol, narko og Tramadol. Det sidste laves af indiske medicinalfirmaer, kontrolleret af jøder og alt sammen smugles ind via de tunneller som især børn bruges til at grave ind til Ægypten.

Og uden at reflekter fortæller Mondoweiss at The situation in Gaza today is at its worst in recent history”

“The streets are full of beggars,” says Hasan Ahmed (who asked that his last name not be used), a member of the coordinating committee for the Great Return March. “Our goal is to put the crises of Palestinians on the table for everyone to see, and we will do so by the gathering of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees close to the border line.”

According to a January report of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor:

  • 97 percent of Gaza water is unfit for human consumption.
  • 45 percent of medicines are absent from the warehouses of the Gaza Ministry of Health, along with 28 percent of needed medical equipment.
  • 50 percent of Palestinian children need psychological counseling.
  • Only 54 percent of requested medical transfers to outside hospitals in 2017 were approved—the lowest since 2006.
  • 44 percent of the adult Gaza population is unemployed. Among youth, it’s 62 percent and among those with disabilities, it’s 90 percent.
  • 65 percent of families live in poverty (95 percent among fishermen) and more than 72 percent don’t have enough food.

I 2006 sagde araberne i Gazastriben altså JA til den permanente krig.

“[A] whole new level of unfairness”

Diverse — Drokles on April 13, 2018 at 2:26 am

Trumps advokat har fået sit kontor og sit hjem ransaget af FBI, da Muellers efterforskning af Trump, tilsyneladende har ført til mistanker om slet spil. Ifølge Cohen var FBI meget høflige, hvilket de ikke var, da de med skarpladte våben, stormede Trumps tidligere rådgiver Paul Manafort midt om natten i dennes hjem, og visiterede dennes kone i sengen. Måske de lave forventningers taknemmelighed?

Alan Dershowitz mente derimod at det essentielle var den trussel, ransagningen af Cohens kontorer udgjorde mod advokaters fortrolige forhold til deres klienter

I deal with clients all the time. I tell them on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct. And now they say, just based on probable cause, even though there was cooperation with Cohen, they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent, and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.’ You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.

Mark Levin mente ”the entire department’s out of control now”. Newt Gingrich mente at det var en politistats metoder og ikke en retsstat og Scott Adams ville af samme årsag blive skuffet over Trump, hvis ikke hele banden blev fyret. Stormy Daniels advokat mente derimod, at Cohen ville blive den første dominobrik, der ville falde og at “history is going to look back upon this day and this is going to be a monumental day when the president on a Thursday refers everyone to his personal attorney, and Monday, that attorney’s offices are raided by the FBI”.

Men det er måske ikke rigtigt, skriver Andrew C McCarthy, der allerede for to uger siden, som han beskedent bemærker, “tried to explain that the Stormy Daniels scandal could be more perilous for Trump than the Russia investigation has been”. Hverken tolkningen af politistatsmetoder eller at Mueller skulle kunne bruge Sormy Daniels sagen til at afpresse Cohen til at vidne imod Trump, selvom de i den sag, som det skal forklares senere, sidder med et stort forklaringsproblem.

Ifølge McCarthy er man meget opmærksomme på de Forfatningsstridige komplikationer, der ligger i at ransage advokatkontorer, der kræver tilladelse fra de øverste lag i Justitsministeriet efter at have afsøgt mindstemiddelpricippet. Og han hæfter sig ved at ransagningen “related to several topics, including a payment to a pornographic film actress” og han minder om at “a federal judge found probable cause that evidence of at least one crime would be uncovered in Cohen’s premise”.

Det er vigtigt for McCarthy at påpege at Mueller ikke selv efterforsker Cohen, men altså har fundet noget snavs af en hvis substans, han ikke kan sidde overhørig. Derfor har han, som led i de forskellige depardementers naturlige samarbejde overdraget sagen til FBI og Statsanklageren for Southern District of New York (SDNY). Hvis SDNY finder noget af relevans for Muellers efterforskning, stakke af rubler, vil de selvfølgelig blive overdraget til ham. McCarthy, der selv har arbejdet for SDNY, har ingen tvivl om at der er vandtætte skotter imellem de forskellige efterforskere.

As I explained last November, when we learned that Mueller had forced an attorney who had represented Manafort to testify against him, there is a so-called crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. If a client’s communications with a lawyer are for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, they lose any claim to confidentiality. Theoretically, then, Trump and Cohen have a legal as well as a factual problem. Legally, if they conspired to execute a payment in violation of campaign laws in order to silence Clifford, their communications in this regard would not be privileged. Factually (if implausibly), both Cohen and Trump claim that the former did not tell the latter about the payment to Clifford; and that Cohen made the payment in his personal capacity, not as Trump’s lawyer. How, then, can they now claim attorney–client privilege in connection with the transaction?

(…) Even if it’s not nearly as consequential as the specter of “collusion” with a hostile foreign power, the porn-star payment undeniably happened. I argued then, and I’m even more convinced now, that “the best argument in Trump’s favor is one that claims mitigation, not innocence.”

Compared with other possible campaign-finance infractions that have been settled without criminal charges, this one — if it is one — is a trifle. And while the underlying behavior is debauched, it happened a decade before Trump was elected. While extramarital, the tryst was consensual by Clifford’s account. (The White House half-heartedly denies it happened.) As for Trump’s fitness for the presidency, the scandal tells us exactly nothing that we didn’t already know about the flawed man that Americans chose to elect.

Det har altså taget at år for Muellers efterforskere, at finde beviser på, at Trumps “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary“. Men McCarthy giver dog Dershowitz, Levin og Gingrich ret i, at det ville se anderledes ud for Hillary Clinton. “Michael Cohen”, skriver McCarthy, “has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now”

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

(…)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Og det er den sørgelig konklusion på en uhæmmet undersøgelse, som Dershowitz fra starten advarede imod, Berias ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen’ diktum.

Klynk fra gode mennesker

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 4:26 am

De gode mennesker vånder sig over at Israel har den frækhed at forsvare deres egne grænser. Indtrængende skal belønnes og ynkes, ikke skydes på. Man reagerer stærkt på udvalgte billeder der viser de forhutlede og fustrerede unge mennesker i deres kamp modpolitistatens overmagt. Tablet Magazine sætter konflikten, hvor mindst 10 terrorister er blevet bekræftet dræbt

Having withdrawn from the strip in 2005, Israel no longer has any territorial claims on Gaza; but Gaza, as this weekend makes painfully clear, still has territorial claims on Israel. In its continuous attacks on their neighbors to the north, and in its most recent efforts to cross into Israel, Hamas has again proven what the organization’s charter so clearly states, namely that its singular goal is the utter and absolute destruction of the Jewish state. It wants all of the land, not peace or coexistence or any other sensible and reasonable goal, which is why any territorial compromise on Israel’s behalf is nothing more than an invitation to the next, even bloodier conflict.

Think that’s Zionist propaganda? Here is the leader of Hamas himself, explaining the point of last week’s protests: The “March of Return,” said Yahya Sinwar, “affirms that our people can’t give up one inch of the land of Palestine. The protests will continue until the Palestinians return to the lands they were expelled from 70 years ago.”

Imens trækker småting overskrifter. Et par israelske soldater jubler højlydt, som de skyder en tilsyneladende ubevæbnet palæstinensisk araber i hovedet. Hvorfor og hvad der er gået forud får man ikke at vide. Det er også lige meget, de barske mænd står under anklage fra de veludhvilede gode mænd, for at have begået vold på deres vegne på en uæstetisk måde.

En palæstinensisk-arabisk journalist filmer i den tætte røg fra de brændende bildæk og bliver ramt i brystet af en israelsk snigskytte. Reporters Without Borders skal ikke bruge flere oplysninger end det til at anklage Israel for at have gjort det med vilje. Forsvarsminister Lieberman hævder den brystskudte journalist styrede en drone ind over grænsen (med et kamera eller en bombe?), mens hæren, IDF, klogeligt vil udtale sig når man er færdige med at undersøge hændelsesforløbet. Det kunne jo være et forståeligt uheld

Ofir Gendelman, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted on his Twitter account last Friday that the protesters burned tires to provide cover for Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who he said “will try to storm the border, infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis.”

For palæstinensernes løgne falder tættere end røgen fra bildækkene.

pallywood-2pallywood-1

In the beginning was the lie

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 3:23 am

Trump gik til valg på sit America first slogan og det er ikke svært at se den indenrigspolitiske interesse i at ægge ham til en krig imod Assads Syrien på grund af en mistanke om regimets brug af giftgas. Tucker Carlson med nogle eftertænksomme ord, midt i hysteriet

“What we do know for sure is that the rationale for going to war was based on lies” skriver Matthias von Hein for Deutche Welle om beslutningen i 2003 om at banke Saddams Irak

Six weeks before the war began, Powell spent 76 minutes influencing international public opinion in favor of war. The core of his speech was that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, that his regime was supporting international terrorism, and that it aimed to build nuclear weapons.

The presentation culminated in a claim, backed up by detailed illustrations, that in order to evade strict controls by UN weapons inspectors Iraq had converted a fleet of trucks into mobile chemical and biological weapons labs. We remember Powell’s speech primarily because all of these claims turned out to be false. In 2005 Powell himself described the speech as a lasting “blot” on his career.

Ray McGovern is a security services veteran. He worked for the CIA for 27 years, and held senior positions within it. In 2003, he and some colleagues from the CIA and other intelligence services founded the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which critically examines US policy. McGovern told DW, “The intelligence was not mistaken; it was fraudulent — and they knew it.” And a significant part of Powell’s presentation was based on intelligence provided by Germany.

Codename ‘Curveball’

In 1999 the Iraqi chemist Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi came to Germany as a refugee. Alerted to his presence, Germany’s foreign intelligence service (the BND) interrogated him. They were hoping for information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Al-Janabi — referred to by his codename, “Curveball” — realized that the more information he provided, the more his status improved. He was given a German passport, money and his own apartment.

Så kan jeg ikke planke mere fra den forudsigelige historie. Min personlige holdning var og er at vi havde og har al mulig grund til at slå til, hvis vi føler os truede på vores eksistens. Og Saddam gjorde alt for at holde Verden i den tro da det gav ham et godt navn i den arabiske gade. Og han havde brugt giftgas i rigelige mængder, både i krigen mod Iran og mod civile kurdere. Han havde også haft store ambitioner om en superkanon og et atomvåbenprogram, begge projekter israelerne stoppede effektivt. Og disse ambitioner var aldrig døde, blot sat på vågeblus under truslen fra amerikanerne.

Men en krig bygget på en løgn er en krig uden formål og en sejr defineres af om man når sit mål. Ergo kan den slags krige ikke vindes selv om man nedkæmper en fjende man har defineret. Man bytter blot et onde ud med et andet, som man endnu ikke kender og ved, hvorledes man skal forholde sig til. Stay out!

Et angreb på retsstaten

Diverse — Drokles on April 6, 2018 at 11:21 am

Det er ikke så tit man læser noget nyt om det Trump-russisk samarbejde. Men i Townhall skriver Byron York, at efterforskningen af Trumps stab, i sig selv er et angreb på retsstaten i og med at brudene på lovens principper begås af den aller øverste top af politifolk, embedsmænd og politikere. Først og fremmest, skriver York, er der brugen af the Logan Act, en lov fra 1799, der gør det forbudt for andre end Præsidenten af føre udenrigspolitik. Men the Logan Act strider samtidig mod Forfatningens forståelse af borgernes frihed og er derfor kun forsøgt taget i brug to gange i løbet af første halvdel af 1800 tallet. Ingen tager den seriøst og den teoretiske mulighed for en juridisk argumentation for, at Trump skulle have overtrådt den, er for længst knust under vægten af præcedens.

Ikke desto mindre opviglede Demokraterne en stemning, der i forvejen var ond med voldelige overfald på Trumps tilhængere, om at Trump forbrød sig imod USA ved at føre udenrigspolitik i samarbejde med russerne bag ryggen på den siddende præsident. Og derfor pressede de på for, at justitsministeriet skulle indlede en efterforskning. Ingen eksperter tog det for andet end “political posturing”, men det var der andre der gjorde

[U]nbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn’t; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act.

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when, in fact, the new administration’s real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor’s policies.

Derefter er der FBIs brug af den uvederhæftige rapport, Hillary Clintons valgkamps maskine bestilte hos den engelske tidligere efterretningsofficer Christoffer Steele, til at opnå dommerkendelser til at aflytte et par af Trumps medarbejdere (og alle de kommunikerede med, hvilket vil sige de fleste af Trumps medarbejdere). På daværende FBI direktør Jim Comeys første møde med Trump, inden Trumps indsættelse, informerede han Trump om, at FBI var i besiddelse af Steeles rapport og hvad den i grove træk indholdt. Det er velkendt, men jeg har aldrig tænkt over implikationerne af dette møde

Imagine that. The very first time the incoming president met the FBI director face-to-face, the FBI’s message was: We know about you and those hookers in Moscow.

In their new book “Russian Roulette,” authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:

“Trump had seen this sort of thing before,” they write. “Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn — the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols — knew how this worked. So too did Comey’s famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute.”

The intel chiefs’ briefing of Trump soon leaked to the media. And the fact that top officials had seen fit to tell the incoming president about the dossier made it a legitimate news story. Within hours, Buzzfeed published the entire dossier on the internet.

Så toppen af lov og orden bruger en dubiøs lov og en uvederhæftig rapport til at efterforske, aflytte og offentligt tilsvine den indkomne præsident. Det kan godt være at den tidligere så glimrende Jonah Goldberg forkaster dette som endnu en konspirationsteori, men det er der ikke tale om. Der er tale om et miljøs selvopfattelse, hvor den enes overtrædelse af god skik retfærdiggør den andens og gradvist og umærkbart forandres arbejdskulturen, hvor de betroede embeder. “If there is such a thing as a dangerous “deep state” of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy” skriver Victor Davis Hanson i National Review

On March 17, former CIA director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you.”

That outburst from the former head of the world’s premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Brennem, der skulle have lækket Steeles rapport til et Demokratisk medlem af Senatet, beskrives som en politisk opportunist og vendekåbe, der manøvrerer i et betændt system.

Former national-security adviser Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi tragedy, the nature of the Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo detainee exchange, the presence of chemical weapons in Syria, and her role in unmasking the identities of surveilled Americans.

Andrew McCabe, recently fired from his job as FBI deputy director, openly admitted to lying to investigators, claiming he was “confused and distracted.” McCabe had said that he was not a source for background leaks about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. He wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that “some of my answers were not fully accurate . . .”

Former FBI director James Comey likely lied about not drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in her email scandal before interviewing her.

Comey misled a FISA court by not providing the entire truth about the Steele dossier. He falsely assured the president that he was not under investigation while likely leaking to others that Trump was, in fact, under investigation.

Former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he said that the National Security Agency did not collect data on American citizens. When caught in the lie, Clapper claimed that he had given the “least untruthful” answer to the committee that he could publicly provide.

In the past, Clapper had also misled the country about the “secular” nature of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Og ikke en af dem, er holdt ansvarlig, bemærker Hanson.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress