Med jøden er det anderledes

Muslimer i Europa råber Allahu Akbar mens de stikker folk ned på gaden, kører dem ihjel eller hugger deres hoveder af. De har muslimer gjort længe i Israel

Men inden muslimernes opførsel blev så spektakulær at den ikke længere kunne skjules, skosede europærere Israel for ikke at være eftergivende nok. Når muslimer myrdede jøder var der jo nok en god grund til det - det er der jo altid. Mosaic Magazine mindede forleden om et af de mange europæiske hyklerier når det drejer sig om Israel

Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.

When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.

Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.

Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.

Der er nu ikke noget der ikke er for ‘galling’ for EU, som Evelyn Gordon skriver

Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.

The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.


Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.

And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation…  and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.

The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.

In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.

No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”

If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.

Det er bare anderledes med jøden. Tag denne formulering fra BBC, som fremhævet af Campaign Against Antisemitism

Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.

Før ramte terror mest jøder og blasfemikere, men nu rammer det uden at diskriminere. Hmm, måske der efterhånden er nogle europæere, der skylder Israel mere end en undskyldning.

Her er en tanke. Som muslimer fortsætter med at myrde europæere og som det politiske landskab nok (og forhåbentligvis) kommer til at ændre sig vil forståelsen for Israels problemer sandsynligvis udvikle sig i en mere solidarisk retning for den europæiske offentlighed. På Jerusalem Post kan man læse at Israels næste krig “will be far more brutal” end den seneste for 10 år siden. Hvis Israel til den tid ikke skal bekymre sig om europæernes fine fornemmelser til den tid, står Hezbollah til en giga røvfuld - just saying.

Presset på Hillary Clinton vil øges

Diverse — Drokles on July 26, 2016 at 6:25 am

Wikileaks Julian Assange vil frigive endnu flere og mere belastende emails fra Hillary Clinton, der endda burde kunne få hende tiltalt.

Clintons støtter mener at russerne har hacket Demokraternes servere fordi Putin er forelsket i tanken om en Trump i Det Hvide Hus - Hey, 80erne ringede, de ville have deres fjendebilleder tilbage! Det er et forgæves forsøg på at fjerne fokus fra indholdet af Clintons og Demokraternes interne kommunikation og selvom de skulle få lidt held med det, lægger truslen fra fremmede magters datatyveri blot ved til anklagerne imod Hillary Clinton for hendes lemfældige omgang med hemmeligt klassificerede dokumenter.


Daily Show manipulerer med virkeligheden

Jon Stewart var god til det, Trevor Noah er det ikke. Satire er svært fordi det er indhold og ikke blot en ironisk form. Men når man driver et dagligt satire-program bliver presset på at finde nok satirisk materiale oftest så stort at man alt for ofte presser det materiale man nu engang har ind i den opøvede ironiske form. Og dette bliver uhæderlighed.

Noget af det sjoveste er at udstille repræsentanter for sine idiosynkrasier så alle kan svælge i, hvor tåbelige og usammenhængende de er. Men det kræver at man finder dem. Hvis ikke man finder dem, men i stedet er så uheldig at rende ind i intelligente velovervejede mennesker lidende af en anden politisk observans end ens egen må man manipulere med sit offer. Ved det republikanske konvent faldt en medarbejder fra Breitbart over en sådan manipulation i sin skabelse

A crew from The Daily Show — which plunged in the ratings after Trevor Noah took over as host— set up outside the event and approached people as they left the party, asking them for interviews.

At 12:30 a.m., Pollak was leaving the party when The Daily Show approached. “I was on the phone anyway,” Pollak recalled, “so I ignored them, but then I saw them pulling someone aside, so I stopped to watch.” The Breitbart senior editor-at-large ended his call, and turned on his video camera.

The Daily Show didn’t like that. Their attempt to stop Pollak wasn’t funny, and included physical intimidation and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.

“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.

“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.

“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”


The actions of the thugs from The Daily Show are shocking, and they rip the lid off the real purpose off the show: political propaganda disguised as entertainment. They weren’t trying to hide their “jokes” but were trying to keep their dwindling viewership from seeing how they make the sausage.

It’s as ugly as (insert politically incorrect Leslie Jones joke here) — and it’s no laughing matter.

Men metoden er ikke ny og den er ikke opfundet at Trevor Noah. Daily Shows Jon Stewart var dygtigere end Noah, men han kunne også lyve om virkeligheden for at passe sin ironiske form og lefle for sine tilhængeres idiosynkrasier. Og Stewart er et rimeligt præcist udtryk for hvorledes en stor del af venstrefløjen ræsonnerer, undvigende virkeligheden uden at stå til regnskab, som Daniel Greenfield skrev i Frontpage Magazine

It was Bush’s victory that took a flailing cable show hosted by an irritating little standup comedian with more neurotic tics than a flea-bitten Woody Allen and turned him into the voice of liberalism. Stewart’s nervous smirk and his passive aggressive mockery became the zeitgeist of urban Democrats nervously responding to Bush’s popularity and the rise of American patriotism after September 11.

The Democratic Party was out of ideas. The politicians who would become some of Bush’s most fevered critics were still following the president’s cues. A newly serious America was confronting a world war.

Stewart’s disingenuousness, veering from ironic detachment to self-righteous hectoring, undermined real sincerity with fake sincerity. The Daily Show’s audience of hipster yuppies cheered their newfound faith in sincere cynicism while the calculated ironic distance of his comedy kept him safe from critics. Even while he attacked the media’s dishonesty, his own routine was the most dishonest of them all.

His fake news was real news, biased and spun with punch lines. It was fake news that was real and just as fake as the rest of the news. The truth was that the lie was still a lie.

What Stewart offered a party dragged down by a morose Gore and Kerry was the promise of cool. Their former figurehead had started out playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show only to decay into a bloated red-faced mess. With towers burning and wars rising, Stewart was to be their bridge to a cooler and younger 21st century that an aging Democratic Party no longer seemed able to grapple with.

Jon Stewart didn’t actually have cool, but he could offer it up inversely by way of mockery. Like a school paper’s drama critic, he might not be cool, but by railing against others, he could deny coolness to them.


What Stewart offered Democrats was an evasive viewpoint without accountability. And nothing quite appeals to the cowardly instincts of a political hack like being able to take a political position without being held accountable for it. But it was Obama who truly embraced politics without accountability, transforming every issue into a joke or referencing it back to his own biography.

While he may have come out on the stage with a unique personal story, what kept Obama competitive was his skill at refracting everything through layers of irony and self-awareness. His approach was to borrow Stewart’s own routine without any of its ambiguity. Stewart’s pretense of triangulation became Obama’s obsession with turning his radical left-wing politics into an imaginary middle ground.

Stewart and Obama had come out of a political movement trying to respond to September 11 without having the first idea how to do so. Stewart’s comedy paved the way for minimizing the threat while inflating the absurdity of those trying to fight it. It is an approach that Obama continues to embrace.


Generation X cynicism fused with millennial brand awareness to create a political monster who might not be able to lie to the people all the time, but who cynically made the existence of his lies irrelevant.

Stewart’s Daily Show had offered an antidote to the Bush era of patriotism, sincerity and decency. Its antidote was passive aggressive ridicule and political satire as sincerity. After the Bush era ended, Stewart and his fellow comedians had little left to do except take on the job of defending Obama, while occasionally critiquing him. They had become the official court jesters of the Democratic Party.

Et eksempel. Under Israels seneste krig med terror-regimet Hamas i Gazastriben latterliggjorde Stewart Israel for ikke at beskytte fjendens civilbefolkning helt lige så meget som sin egen civilbefolkning. Som David Horovitz beskrev i Times of Israel

Stewart: “Both sides are engaging in aerial bombardment, but one side appears to be bomb-better-at it. (Studio laughter at the wordplay.) Most Hamas rockets are neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome technology, and Israeli citizens can even now download a warning app. (Cut to clip of Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer explaining how Israelis can know where and when they’re being attacked.) So Israelis seem to have a high-tech, smart-phone alert system.”

Let me see if I understand the point he’s making here: Having falsely implied that Israel is as keen on killing as Hamas is, Stewart now seems to be criticizing Israel for not being as vulnerable as Hamas would like it to be to those Hamas rockets that are sent to kill us. He seems to be bashing us for having those tech smarts. It’s a bad thing that we developed a unique, astonishing Iron Dome missile defense system, without which hundreds of us would be dead? It’s a bad thing that we developed an app to warn us that the rockets designed to kill our citizens are heading this way?

Stewart: “How are the Gazans notified? (Cut to a clip explaining that Israel carries out “a small mortar explosion” on the roof of a building that is to be bombed “which serves as an Israeli warning of an upcoming airstrike.” Back to Stewart.) “Hmmm. So the Israeli military warns Gaza residents of imminent bombing (pause for comedic effect), with a smaller warning bombing! (Laughter). An amuse-boom, if you will.” (Studio laughter, clapping, cheering.)

What’s my problem with that bit (once I’ve registered the witty play on amuse-bouche). Oh, where to start? Stewart fails to explain which buildings in Gaza are being targeted: This is not the mirror image of Hamas’s arbitrary rocket attacks on any and every Israeli target. These are Israeli airstrikes on Gaza homes where Israel says terror chiefs live, where weaponry is stored, from where rockets are fired.

Furthermore, whereas Hamas, out to kill, does not generally warn Israel of imminent rocket attacks (thus rendering every missile fired at Israel from Gaza “a crime against humanity,” according to the Palestinian Authority’s own UN representative), Israel, trying not to kill noncombatants, fires that warning mortar shell to alert civilians — even though it knows this is more than likely to lead to the terrorist fleeing. Would Stewart rather Israel not warn Gazans that, in its efforts to prevent rocket fire on its civilians, it is about to strike back?

Mark Levin luftede dengang også sin harme over Stewarts manipulerede virkelighed.

Trumps sammenhængende tale

Donald Trump fører ifølge CNN i meningsmålingerne over Hillary Clinton. Der skal tages det forbehold at Trump har fået ekstra opmærksomhed som han blev kåret til Republikanernes præsidentkandidat på der republikanske konvent. Nu er det så Hillarys tur til at højne opmærksomheden om sit kandidatur, men hun skal tage højde for en opmærksomhed der indtil videre er centreret om hvorledes Demokraterne har modarbejdet Bernie Sanders den anden kandidat til Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i en blanding af almindelig Clintonsk korruption og generel venstreorienteret antisemitisme (og så er der den almindelige dyrkelse af race-deling). Hillary har allerede ansat Demokraternes skandaleombruste partiformand til (forsat?) at lede hendes kampagne.

Og man kan håbe at Trump ender med nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Muligvis er han en charlatan og muligvis vil han være en katastrofe, men i forhold til alternativet, så har vi brug for en mand der kan sige sandheder. Om terror-angrebene mod Frankrig - og man kan inkludere alle europæiske lande i denne ligning - siger Trump

- Det er deres egen skyld, fordi de i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium, siger han.

Det gør ondt at læse og nogle er faldet over ham for at bebrejde ofrene. Men det er desværre sandheden. Hvis ikke man værger for sig inviterer man problemerne ind i sit land. Man kan meget vel beskylde “eliten” eller “venstrefløjen” eller “venligboerne” eller “politikerne”, men alt i alt har de europæiske nationalstater, og de er jo summen der indeholder elite, folk og fjolser, ikke taget var på sig selv. Det er tid til at se virkeligheden i øjnene.

- De er blevet kompromitteret af terrorisme. Her er, hvad jeg vil gøre: Ekstremt grundige undersøgelser. Det er et hårdt ord. Ekstreme undersøgelser. Vi skal stille hårde krav. Hvis en person ikke kan bevise det, de skal kunne bevise, kommer de ikke ind i det her land, siger Trump, der dog ikke besvarer mere uddybende spørgsmål om hans model for undersøgelserne.


- Folk blev så vrede, da jeg brugte ordet muslim. Uh, man må ikke sige muslim. Og det er okay, for nu taler jeg om territorier i stedet for muslimer, siger han.

Det er en helt anden indstilling end den europæiske, der klart spejler sig i crooked Hillary. Jean-Claude Juncker “the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump”, skriver Breitbart. Tro mod sit formål ræsonnerer formande at uanset omkostningerne er åbne grænser et gode

Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.


Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

Det verdensfjerne udsyn, renset for de grimme realiteter gennemsyrer både ekspertise, medier og myndigheder. Her sad jeg med kaffen og læste en ganske almindelig artikel på Danmarks Radio om noget af det seneste terror

Der er åbenlyst ingen sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland. Men for mange tyskere føles det som terror, selv når det ikke er det, siger DR’s Tyskland-korrespondent Michael Reiter.

- Det giver en følelse af, at man ikke kan gå ud i det offentlige rum uden at blive ramt af et eller andet forfærdeligt til hver en tid, siger Michael Reiter og tilføjer, at utrygheden kommer til udtryk på de sociale medier, i de tyske avisers ledere og hos dem, han taler med.

- Der en udpræget følelse af, at verden er at lave. Sådan var det allerede efter i fredags, hvor tyskerne oplevede blodbad nummer to på en uge.

Angreb gavner højrefløjen

De voldomme begivenheder kan meget vel give den islam- og indvandringskritiske tyske højrefløj ekstra vind i sejlene, vurderer Michael Reiter. For alle gerningsmænd har anden etnisk baggrund end tysk.

- For det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschland er det vand på møllen, når der er tale om terror. For det bekræfter dem og deres vælgere i deres meget heftige kritik af kansler Merkels flygtningepolitik, siger Michael Reiter.

Det er altså kun for det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschlands vælgere at der er en sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland alle begået af indvandrere og at denne sammenhæng har at gøre med Merkels flygtningepolitik, hvor man “i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium”. Det borger jo ikke godt for det samlede elektorat.

Skæggede mænd lavede tumult på nøgenbaderstrand” var en overskrift på Ekstrabladet, der i artiklen gav et lille hint ved at disse skæggede mænd “beskrives som værende ’sydlandske’ og som værende omkring 25 år gamle.” Som Møller på Uriasposten spekulerer i “kunne det godt være et efterspil til en fugtig kongres for kristen-arabiske julemænd, men nej”. Møllers sarkasme er desværre sørgelig præcis, hvis man læser de svenske medier, hvor det i ægte Camusks ånd er solen der var skyldig i de mange voldtægter. Midt i al det gejl kan man ikke fortænke den almindelige borger i at miste sin sunde fornuft


Myndighederne i både Tyskland og Frankrig har haft travlt med at dække over problemets omfang og essens.

Der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem muslimsk indvandring og terror og vold. Trumps tale er sammenhængende, mens europærernes, med et engelsk udtryk er unhinged.

Finter, frygt og arbejdsdeling

Frederik Stjernfelt skriver fjernt fra positionalisterne om troendes diversificerede tilknytning til deres tro og religion

Der er tale om en art arbejdsdeling: Man har hellige mænd til at drive institutionen og udvikle teologien, man har almindelige troende til at udgøre dens skattegrundlag, og man har aggressive unge mænd til at tage sig af sammenstødene med de vantro og de konkurrerende konfessioner.

Og så er der dem, der luller os i søvn, ved at foregive at terroransatster er dagligdag. Som sagen med Alisiv Ceran, den unge studerende, der blev forvekslet med en terrorist fordi han opførte sig besynderligt. Eller hr. Tara, med det uskyldige fornavn Jihad, der pludselig ville overvære et Trykkefrihedsarrangement i skyggen mordforsøget på Trykkefrihedsselskabets daværende formand Lars Hedegaard. Eller tag dette eksempel fra Daily Mail

A Muslim teacher called Islam was told to remove a hoodie with his name on it because a barman said it was upsetting customers.

Humiliated Nurul Islam, 32, had arrived to meet fellow teachers at a local pub when the man told him his top was ‘offending people’ after last week’s Nice atrocity.

84 people killed were in a terror attack in the French city, with a further 303 injured.

Nurul, a father-of-three who is not practising, refused and has now reported the incident to police who are investigating it as a possible hate crime.

Ja, ikke? Det var bare hans navn og hans navn må han da vel bære på sin hættetrøje når han skulle have sig en muslimsk kæp i øret. Det ville jo være lige så normalt som hvis man hed, åh skal vi sige Adolf Hitler og besøgte synagogen. Så næste gang de ser noget uhyrligt, så antag venligst at det er helt naturligt eller risiker et sagsanlæg og udskamning som racist. David Wood forklarer her, hvorfor man ikke skal dølle sig i søvn ved ideen om de mange fordrukne muslimer, som ellers foregiver at være sækulariserede og integrerede (og det er en dyster advarsel om hvor umuligt det er at integrere muslimer ind i liberale samfund)

USA har brug for Trump

Diverse — Drokles on July 24, 2016 at 6:56 am

“[V]ærre end Donald Trumps megalomani er den autoritære stemning, han dyrker og hylder” skriver Politiken i en leder og at han “som præsident vil være en katastrofe“. Men når Politiken mener at “Valget af Donald J. Trump som præsidentkandidat er udtryk for en dyb krise i det republikanske parti” så overser de, hvor galt det står i USA og den vestlige verden. Derfor bliver de opstemte tea-party republikaneres tilråb også fejltolket

Konventet har med hjælp fra Trump og flere af talerne opfundet sit eget slogan, som har lydt igen og igen fra salen: »Spær hende inde!«, råber de med henvisning til demokraternes kandidat, Hillary Clinton.

LÆS OGSÅ Flere republikanere kræver Clinton fængslet - eller ligefrem henrettet

Ja, enkelte Trumpstøtter har ligefrem luftet tanken om, at Clinton bør henrettes for forræderi.

Hvor trist, at det stolte, republikanske parti synes at have glemt, at det er diktaturstater – ikke demokratier – der låser deres politiske modstandere inde.

Kravet om at låse Hillary Clinton inde bunder nemlig desværre ikke et vulgært ønske om blot at kunne smide sine politiske modstandere i kachotten. Blandt mange sager om korruption har Hillary Clinton også gjort sig kriminelt skyldig i lemfældig omgang med klassificerede oplysninger som udenrigsminister. Dette blev bekræftet af FBI, der dog alligevel valgte ikke at anbefale en rigsretssag mod Hillary Clinton, siden hun var præsidentkandidat. Med det stærkt Trump kritiske National Reviews ord

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

Eller med den altid fremragende Bill Whittles ord

Og så er der jo omfanget af Det Muslimske Broderskabs infiltration af Obamas og Hillary Clintons administration. “Hillary Clinton’s top aide and confidante Huma Abedin” er fra Saudiarabien

In the late 1990’s, while Huma Abedin was interning in the Bill Clinton White House and began her long association with Hillary Clinton, she served as an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Students Association.  Huma Abedin also worked at the aforementioned Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Huma Abedin, who was raised in Saudi Arabia during her formative years and was exposed to Saudi Wahhabist ideology, gravitated to Islamist organizations with ties to radical Saudi entities when she returned to the United States as a young adult.

Years later, with the prospect of an influential White House position side by side with her patron Hillary Clinton in sight, Huma Abedin still puts Islamist interests first. Evidence that the “Muslim Minority Agenda” espoused by the journal she once worked for is still her key priority is a video of Huma Abedin advocating unlimited admission of Syrian refugees into the United States.  She said that “we cannot turn these people away.”

Huma Abedin has operated within the same network revealed in the Congressional Joint Inquiry Report. She will be a carrier of “civilization jihad” into the inner circle of the White House if Hillary Clinton is elected president.


…both Huma and Hillary have a lot of explaining to do about Saudi Arabia, the big money that the Kingdom has given to the Clintons, and why Hillary knew the Saudis were funding terrorism and didn’t do anything about it. The public will have questions about Saudi Arabian-raised Huma Abedin, a woman who I’ve already said I believe is a Saudi plant.

If our media even TRIED to do their job and tell citizens the truth, the 28 Pages would sink Hillary Clinton faster than Ted Kennedy’s car sank in the dark waters of Chappaquiddick one July night.

An issue like the Saudi influence on the government and the Kingdom’s support for terrorism is where Donald Trump’s populism comes into all its glory. I don’t care whether you’re a staunch conservative or proud progressive, almost nobody likes or trusts Saudi Arabia. Everyone knows that the Saudis are out for themselves and are our “ally” in the same way a scorpion is an ally to a frog when it needs to get across the river.

The 28 Pages report confirms this in a section that’s title says it all: Lack of Cooperation in Counterterrorism Investigations.

The problem has been that Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all been in Saudi Arabia’s pocket. (Do those bedsheets they wear even have pockets? I’m a fashion expert, so I SHOULD know these things!)

When you have an issue with the political elites of both parties on one side and most of the American people on the other, it’s exactly why Donald J. Trump is the ideal man for his time.

Hillary and Huma won’t be able to avoid questions — like the three questions I said Hillary must answer about Huma — forever. It’s a time for answers.


Ja, Trump er højst sandsynligt en charlatan. Det ligner han i hvert fald fra mit kældervindue og mange har givet sober kritik, som Jim Tracher og Daniel Pipes. Trump siger hvad som helst ofr at blive valgt, men heri også sandheden. Og det er hvad USA, ja den vestlige verden, hvis jeg må være så flyvsk, har brug for. For alternativet ser meget, meget være ud. Victor Davis Hansen beskriver Trump således afvæbnende i National Review

By any definition, Trump is not a classical populist. His traction derives from opposing unchecked and cynical illegal immigration, not diverse and measured legal immigration. And he is rebelling not so much against a flabby, sclerotic status quo as against a radical, even revolutionary regime of elites who are now well beyond accustomed norms. It is hardly radical to oppose the Confederate doctrine of legal nullification in more than 300 sanctuary cities, or a de facto open border with Mexico, or doubling the national debt in eight years, or ruining the nation’s health-care system with the most radical reconstruction in the history of American health-care policy, or systematically running huge trade deficits with an autocratic China that does not adhere to international norms of free trade and predicates expanding political and military power in the South China Sea on its commercial mercantilism. Trump seemed incendiary in the primaries, but as he is juxtaposed to the official Clinton extremist agenda, he will likely be reinterpreted increasingly as more mainstream — a probability enhanced by his selection of Mike Pence as his running-mate.

Og Townhall skriver optimistisk at Trump haler godt ind på Clinton i meningsmålingerne.

The whole Clinton email affair and subsequent preferential treatment was viewed very negatively by the American people. According to a ABC News/Washington poll, 56% of the American people disagreed with Comey’s decision not to charge Clinton, while only 35% expressed support.

The American people know preferential treatment when they see it and in this situation it was clear that Hillary’s political influence was a major factor in the Department of Justice decision. It reminded the public of the double standard of justice that exists in our country, a condition that is anathema to Americans who care about fairness in our criminal justice system.

Not surprisingly, Hillary’s already low ratings for trustworthiness and honesty plummeted. The result was that Hillary’s national poll numbers versus Trump started to drop significantly. In the latest Rasmussen poll, Trump received a new high of 44%, with a strong 7% edge over Clinton. He is also leading in the latest LA Times poll by a 43-40% margin and is tied with Clinton in the most recent New York Times poll. Most importantly, in the new Quinnipiac University battleground state polls, Trump enjoyed a slight lead over Clinton in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio and was tied with Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state Republicans have not won 1988.

Blot en lille detalje om forskellen på de to kandidater. Mens Hillary inviterer moderen til den småkriminelle Michael Brown, der efter at have røve en kiosk blev skudt og dræbt da han forsøgte at overfalde en politimand,   havde Trump inviteret Susan Smith, moderen til en af de dræbte amerikanere ved angrebet på den amerikanske ambassade i Benghazi .

Mere blod på Obamas hænder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama har vist ikke “helet nationen”

Politico skriver

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hegn, bånd eller burka, kvinder skal beskyttes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Økonomisk kaos på vej efter Brexit - bare ikke for Storbritannien

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

I Storbritannien ser det sort ud for den forrådte ungdom

Og hvordan er perspektiverne så for det forjættede EU?

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

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

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

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

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

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

His warnings came as:

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

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

* Banks across Europe came under increasing stress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnu en historie om dødelig og racistisk politivold fra USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeberg tilpasser sig Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit og tonen

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Brexit forstyrrer en filmanmeldelse

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

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

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

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

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

Det er de gamles skyld

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

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

Brexit er et generationstyveri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EU er det nye sort.

Tilfældige reaktioner på Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump tilbage i kampen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 historikere og en sandsiger om Brexit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

Obama-administrationen vil ikke associere islam med terrorangrebet på bøsse-baren i Orlando, der kostede 49 mennesker deres liv. Det vil efter Obamas opfattelse dæmonisere for mange muslimer og overlade definitionsretten til islam til de forkerte mennesker. Derfor var det meningen at transkribtionen af Orlando-morderens opkald til alarmcentralen ikke skulle indeholde det egentlige motiv, nemlig islam. Hårdt presset må den fulde tekst dog offentliggøres, skønt man stadig havde oversat Allah til Gud. Obama vil dog gerne gøre alle legale våbenejere, samt republikanerne til hovedproblemet. Venstrefløjen hader højrefløjen for at have ret.

I England vil Juliet Samuel gerne definere den yderste højre, når hun i Telegraph slår fast at mordet på den engelske labor politiker Jo Cox var højreorienteret terror. Jeg er ikke kommet langt nok i denne kedelige sag til at kunne konkludere, hvad der drev Cox morder Thomas Mair. Selv talte han efterfølgende om hævn, så helt forkert virker Samuels påstand ikke. Men Samuel fortæller om Jo Cox “The killing of a serving MP who had so much to contribute to our democracy has triggered a national period of sorrow, sobriety and reflection.” At Cox havde masser at byde på på er grangiveligt rigtigt, men hvis man med “our democracy” mener England er det tvivlsomt. Annie Dieu-Le-Veut skriver i The Holistic Health Store at Jo Cox “was so busy paving the road with good intentions that she didn’t look up to see that they were leading to Hell.” og citerer Francis Carb Begbie i Occidental Observer

Jo Cox wanted to make the world a better place and it was a cause for which she was willing to travel halfway across the globe. Whether consoling rape victims in Darfur or bombed out villagers in Afghanistan, it seemed the jet-setting international aid worker was rarely far from the action.

Lately it had been the struggle of Syrian war refugees to get to the West that touched her heart, and their plight was a subject she returned to again andagain after becoming a Member of Parliament. It seemed there was no victims anywhere she could not empathise with.

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

And that would be the White child rape victims of Muslim grooming gangs in her own back yard. For her West Yorkshire constituency is near the epicentre of the Muslim child rape epidemic that has been sweeping the Labour heartlands of northern England, largely ignored or covered up by social services workers, police and politicians.

For it is a striking omission that of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them. One cannot help wonder if this shrewd silence was connected to the fact that her lavishly paid MPs job in the constituency of Batley and Spen largely depended on the support of the local Muslim community.

Co-incidentally, just as Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death outside her constituency office in Birstall last Thursday,  sentencing was about to take place at Leeds Crown Court after a long trial involving a horrific case of Muslim child exploitation.


Tribute after tribute bore witness to Jo Cox’s uniqueness. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth.  In fact, women like Jo Cox are ten a penny across the West these days — bland, compliant functionaries who have been marinated in political correctness and are happy to regurgitate the platitudes and attitudes of their political masters. And are well-rewarded for doing so. Elizabeth Warren (AKA Pocahontas) in the US comes to mind.

She was that toxic combination of self-rightousness and entitlement which believed itself possessed of a special moral insight into the moral shortcomings of their own people. Never slow to parade her compassion, she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria. Bombing and babies; it was all business for Jo Cox.

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

Today, with her body barely cold,  her husband Brendan Cox is tweeting out a Go Fund Me link to his wife’s ‘favourite causes’ and one of those is the White Helmets.

Manden, Brendan Cox har tidligere været inde i en af disse godhedens skandaler, kan man læse på Daily Mail.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress