Kodeord for kodeord

Danmarks Radio kan man læse at Trump måske endelig accepterer at russerne har hacket (DR skriver også at der sidste år blev “registreret over 100.000 hackerangreb mod Sverige fra fremmede magter“) det amerikanske valg, men at han stadig “kritiseres af både demokrater og republikanere for ikke klart at støtte efterretningstjenesternes konklusioner“. Men der er ikke gode grunde til klart at stole på de amerikanske efterretningstjenester, som Andrew McCarthy skriver på National Review,

Here, we are talking about a community whose own analysts have complained that their superiors distort their reports for political purposes. In just the past few years, they have told us that they had “high confidence” that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons programs in 2003; that the NSA was not collecting metadata on millions of Americans; and that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, “largely secular” organization. We have learned that the Obama administration intentionally perpetrated a disinformation campaign — complete with a compliant media “echo chamber” — to sell the public on the Iran nuclear deal (and the fiction that Iran’s regime was moderating). We have seen U.S. intelligence and law enforcement complicit in the Obama administration’s schemes to convince the public that “violent extremism,” not radical Islam, is the explanation for terrorist attacks; that a jihadist mass-murder attack targeting soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan was “workplace violence”; that al-Qaeda had been “decimated”; that the threat of the ISIS “jayvee” team was exaggerated; and that the Benghazi massacre was not really a terrorist attack but a “protest” gone awry over an anti-Muslim video.

Overfor dette står Julian Assanges ord om at Wikileaks ikke fik nogle emails fra russerne, men fra utilfredse medarbejde blandt Demokraterne. Hvis Assange taler sandt har russerne ingen indflydelse haft på det amerikanske valg af præsident, da alle historier i medierne ikke tog udgangspunkt i hvad russerne angiveligt havde fundet ud af, men hvad Wikileaks afslørede. Og Det var altså ikke løgne eller fake news, men afsløringer.

Og, som McCarthy videre skriver, så nævnes formanden for Demokraterne, John Podesta ikke med et ord i hverken rapporten fra CIA, FBI eller NSA. Det var ellers hans emails der blev ‘phished’, dvs at han blev lokket til selv at afsløre at hans password var “password” til uvedkommende. Og det var i Podestas emails, at man kunne læse, hvorledes Demokraternes ledelse snød Bernie Sanders til fordel for Hillary Clinton i primærvalget og hvorledes Clintons stab arbejdede tæt sammen med store dele af medierne.

Som Charles Krauthammer mindede om i National Review, så er russernes påståede indblanding sket på Obamas vagt, mens han belærte alle om, hvor sikkert det amerikanske system var og at 80erne gerne ville beholde deres udenrigspolitik. Så hvorledes kunne det ske? Ronald Deibart, der mener at Obamas forsøg på at skabe en diplomatisk krise mellem USA og Rusland “may be an admirable motive“, forklarer på Just Security, hvad der er galt med FBIs analyse

The DHS/FBI Joint Analysis Report on Russian information operations, which the administration refers to as “Grizzly Steppe,” is a disappointing and counterproductive document. The problems with the report are numerous and have been well documented by professionals in the computer security area. But the culture of secrecy and the lack of independent sources of verification that gave rise to it are far more pervasive.

Among the problems in the report: Instead of clearly mapping out the evidence linking the cyber espionage operations to Russia, the report provides generic charts on tradecraft and phishing techniques that apply to just about every cyber espionage campaign I and others have ever studied.

At the centre of the report (page 4) is a table that unhelpfully lumps together, without explanation, several different names attributed to Russian-associated cyber espionage campaigns alongside names of malicious software and exploits that have little or no direct link to Russia.

An appendix includes a spreadsheet meant to provide “Indicators of Compromise,” long lists of technical details supposedly associated with the espionage campaign. These include IP addresses, malware signatures, and command and control infrastructure, which network defenders are supposed to use to ward off Russian-backed espionage, and which would ostensibly be used to “fingerprint” Russia as the culprit. Unfortunately, many of these are out of date or irrelevant, or are used by multiple cyber espionage campaigns and not ones exclusively associated with Russia. To give just one example, journalist Micah Lee analyzed the IP addresses contained in the appendix, and found over 40 percent of them are exit nodes of the anonymizer Tor (meaning anyone in the world using Tor could be associated with these IP addresses). It is a disservice to both the general public and expert researchers to not clarify the degrees of confidence associated with each indicator. Without proper categorization or context, the indicators satisfy neither aim of helping network defenders or proving attribution.

Herunder forklarer John McAfee (!) til russisk TV (!) at “hacket” ligner amatørarbejde

Man husker nok valgkampen, hvor det vakte stor forargelse at Trump ikke ville forhåndsgodkende valgresultatet, skulle det gå imod ham. Antidemokratisk, blev det kaldt og en trussel imod demokratiet. Nu fyger der beskyldninger om at Trumps valg ikke blot ikke er legitimt, men at han er en russisk marionet, indsat ved noget der ligner et statskup. Helvede kender ingen vrede som en vraget venstrefløj.

Imamer og ørefigner

TV2 har lavet en dansk pendant til de engelske Undercover Mosque og Undercover Mosque - The Return, Moskeerne bag sløret. Kim Møllers Document.dk gennemgik essensen

Det blev ikke udpenslet, men de problematiske moskéer var de største, og mellem linjerne kom det frem, at det på ingen måde drejede sig om at et mindretal af herboende muslimer fra flere arabiske lande og Somalia. Det blev fortalt, at 80 procent af kvinder fra disse lande ikke var i arbejde, hvad til dels blev forklaret med islams holdning til kvinders ageren i det offentlige rum.

Og Kasper Støvring mindede om de sørgelige tal

Er det kun et lille mindretal, der støtter det? Det er tvivlsomt, hvis vi ser på den mest omfattende undersøgelse, der er lavet om europæiske muslimer, WZB-undersøgelsen. Her mener 75 procent af alle muslimer, at der kun findes én sand udlægning af Koranen, og 65 procent mener, at religiøse lov skal stå over sekulære love. I en undersøgelse fra sidste år, lavet af Wilke for Jyllands-Posten, så man en stigende tendens til islamisering blandt muslimer i Danmark. I 2006 mente 62 procent af danske muslimer, at Koranens anvisninger skal følges fuldt ud. Det tal er vokset til 77 procent i dag. Undersøgelsen viste også, at 50 procent beder mere end fem gange dagligt. Ved en tilsvarende måling i 2006 var det tal blot 37 procent, og andelen der ønsker, at kvinder skal være tilslørede i det offentlige rum, er vokset fra 28 procent til 42.

Ah ja, skjulte optagelser fra en moske sætter fokus på enkelte imamer og deres misforståede udlægning af islam - i hvert fald for vores politiske systems opfattelse. Venstres integrations- og udlændingeordfører Marcus Knuth “personlige reaktion er, at man bør rive moskéen ned og udvise imamerne“, skriver TV2. Og Konservative vil sammen med SF have en decideret dansk imamuddannelse, “et opgør med de selvbestaltede imamer, der kommer med grundlæggende anderledes samfundssyn end det, vi har i Danmark“, som integrationsordfører for Socialistisk Folkeparti Jacob Mark formulerede det ifølge Jyllands-Posten. Det er for socialister ikke et dansk samfundssyn vi har i Danmark, blot et samfundssyn i Danmark - og nu har vi altså et samfundssyn til. Alligevel “væmmes” Jacob Mark faktisk over de sydlandske

Som udgangspunkt er jeg villig til at gå ret langt for at få erstattet de radikale imamer, som får lov til at prædike i danske moskeer. Så hvis det handler om at finansiere de moskeer, der ikke har råd til sin egen imam, så synes jeg, det er det værd

Selvom vi kun har et samfundssyn i Danmark, så har vi dog noget, der er dansk, nemlig danske moskeer. Og de danske moskeer er af svingende kvalitet med hensyn til det i øjeblikket tilstedeværende samfundssynd, så vi må støtte de mindst ringe mod overmagten. Møller fangede pointen i at “de problematiske moskéer var de største“, største, som i mest populære, læggende sig mest op ad mainstream, mest på linie med muslimer flest, givende mest mening for en troende muslim, i størst overensstemmelse med islams væsen - sådan set ud fra et muslimsk perspektiv. TV2 citerede endvidere Venstres forrige integrations- og udlændingeordfører, den senere skatteminister Karsten Lauritzen, der sidste år ikke mente at man “løser problemet i Grimhøj ved at lukke lokalerne og jævne bygningen med jorden“, førend han fortsatte med en tom indsigt

For det er de mennesker, der prædiker og har deres daglige gang og holdninger, der er problemet. Dem bekæmper vi bedst ved at tage en debat omkring det og udfordre dem i offentligheden i stedet for at drive dem under jorden

Ja, absurditeterne bor i hjerterne og ikke i murstenene, men det er ikke et imamproblem at imamerne kender islam og prædiker for menigheden. Venstre er regeringen og trods deres bravaller vil ingen imam blive hældt ud af landet for at fortælle om islam, som ingen muslim vil blive stoppet ved grænsen. Og hvorfor også det da “vi har selv lukket den fanatiske imam, Oussama El-Saadi ind” som konstitueret præst i Stenstrup-Lunde pastorat Maria Høgh skriver i Berlingske Tidende

Og hvad gør vi så ved det? Ja, vi kunne begynde med at opgive troen på det gode i mennesket. Trangen til retfærdighed og godhed i mennesket er med Tom Kristensens udtryk »asiatisk i vælde«. Det er ikke bare en uskyldig og naiv tro – den er farlig for nationen, fordi trangen til godhed også bliver politisk.

Men politikerne vil ikke opgive illusionen. Vil de ikke se i øjnene, hvad vi har lukket ind i landet siden 1983? Skal det ikke snarere handle om inddæmningspolitik i stedet for integrationspolitik?

Hvis nogen bliver godt integreret i Danmark, er det ikke alene på grund af en eller anden politisk pakkeløsning, men fordi det enkelte menneske selv tager ansvar og gør op med sine patriarkalske familiemønstre og den islamiske ideologi. Selvfølgelig skal Grimhøj-moskeen lukkes, som Naser Khader straks udtalte søndag aften. Men hvad så?

Oussama El-Saadi kan vi vel smide ud af landet, men er problemet så løst? Nej, det ændrer ikke på islams DNA, og enhver muslim har frihed til at tro på ideologien. Det ændrer ikke på, at verden har brug for en reformation af islam. Eller, må Danmark en dag i nødværge tage skridt, som strider mod alt det, vi som et demokratisk folk er opdraget med?

Tja – forhåbentlig ikke. Men her til morgen (mandag) har SFs Özlem Cekic heldigvis løst problemet: »Så uddan for hulen imamerne i Danmark!« skriver hun på Facebook. Det vil sige, at småfuglene selv skal udruge gøgeungen frivilligt? Men det skal de vel med vores store tolerance have lov til?

Og Jaleh Tavakoli kalder imamernes opfordring til forældre om at tæske deres børn ind i islam for hadforbrydelser og opfordringer til racistisk vold. Hun mente at højrefløjen burde stoppe deres “symbolpolitik” og “spil for galleriet

Og hvorfor egentligt så al den larm, for de ting, der har været fremme om Grimhøjsmoskeen, er da islamisk teologi - som langt de fleste moskeer, også i Danmark, kan skrive under på.

(…)

Kære politi, retsvæsen og politikere, fortæl mig venligst, hvorfor imamer og islamister ikke retsforfølges for at tale for faktisk at bekrige jøder, dræbe for apostasi og blasfemi, og deltage i hellig krig?

Det er utilgiveligt, at imamer og islamister uden nogen konsekvenser kan fortsætte med at true og opfordre til vold, for det foregår, det findes på nettet, i lukkede kredse og i moskeerne.

(…)

En politisk kamp der strækker sig fra integration, til asylpolitik, til sikkerhedspolitik, til ulandsbistand, og til de militære konflikter, som vi deltager i.

I kan starte med i stedet at afskaffe de paragraffer, som tjener som appeasement, i en tid hvor fascismen truer os på ytringsfriheden, og det gælder både blasfemi- og racismeparagraffen.

(…)

Samtidigt ved jeg, at en del imamer på tværs af organisationer har valgt ikke at udtale sig. For teologisk er de på trods af uenigheder, enige om pisk, straffen for apostasi, blasfemi og stening med mere, så det siger jo sig selv.

Måske man kunne tæske islams væsen ind i vore politikere, som muslimerne skal tæske det ind i deres børn? Imens i Rusland har nogen hyret en barnepige med hijab

Det var et sidespring. Og apropos sidespring, Bettina Heltberg mente i Politiken, at kunne “se på Marie Krarups bittert nedadbøjede mundvige, at hun i Guds navn har fået mange små relevante ørefigner i sin opvækst“. “Hendes ansigt er bittert, træk for træk ligner hun sin far. Han var berygtet for at slå sine døtre…” skrev hun oplysende. At det er en løgn kommer ikke i vejen for Politikens faste klummeskriver, der selv levede med rygterne om sin tidligere mand, Svend Aukens udenomsægteskablige eskapader - ‘Lange Svend’ var altid dobbelttydigt. Men gad vide, hvad hvad Heltberg ser i muslimers ansigter?

- Frygt Allah, brødre og søstre, lær jeres børn Salah (at bede red.). Det er obligatorisk for jer at lære dem at bede, fra de er syv år. Og endda at slå dem, hvis de ikke laver Salah, når de er 10 år, siger imamen på de skjulte optagelser.

Og som Møller skriver i sit referat; “Vold var et gennemgående tema” i skabelsen af gode muslimer. Man hører det hele tiden.

En weekend med Politiken

Vi læste Politiken i mit lærerhjem og avisen har spillet sin positive rolle i udviklingen af min islamofobi og blinde had til den muslimske race. Og den er en sikker leverandør af godt blogstof, så jeg har meget at takke den for. Men jeg abonnerer ikke på den og med den stadigt mere nidkære brug af betalingsmure læser jeg den heller ikke så ofte som jeg burde. Men denne weekend førte det ene opinions indlæg til det næste og hensatte mig i nostalgi som måske var passende ved årets udgang.

For avisen er om ikke, hvad den har været, så i hvert fald hvad jeg husker. Marlene Wind mener at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins “stærkeste og mest raffinerede våben” er den ‘radikale højrefløj’, der optræder som ‘nyttige idioter’ imod EU

De lader sig både fodre og føre af Putin som hånddukker i et dukketeater. Flere iagttagere mener ligefrem, at man kan takke Putins økonomiske generøsitet for, at en tredjedel af Europaparlamentet i dag består af EU-skeptiske partier.

Det er måske nok at trække den for langt, men der er ingen tvivl om, at moderate europæere endnu en gang har sovet i timen.

Et skinger raffineret våben altså, hvis forbindelse til Putin ikke kan dokumenteres, men alligevel nævnes. Russiske sympatier i Ungarns stærkt antisemitiske Jobbik parti rtodes sammen med alt for Lega Nord i syd til Nigel Farage i nord. For det siger sig selv at kritik af EU er kontinentforræderi ved at gå EUs fjenders ærinde og det er så godt som en konspiration. Winds forhold til demokratiet, hvor folket er problemet fordi politikerne “[i] kampen om vælgernes gunst føler [...] sig nu pressede til at føre en mere og mere skinger EU-kritisk linje” er helt på linie med Politikens tidligere chefredaktør Tøger Seidenfaden.

En studine var pålagt opgaven at udvide læserens horisont med et indlæg der erklæerer kernefamilien for død for længst “og det er ingen skam“.  Men selv om kernefamilien for længst er død, var der ikke tale om et historisk tilbageblik på kernefamiliens kadaver, som man kunne tro. Med hendes egne erfaringer fra opvæksten hos sin alenemor gav studinen en nutidsfortælling om omverdens undrende og uforstående reaktioner på hendes særlige familieforhold - et klassisk Politiken tema om at ingen ved hvordan jeg er minimalt anderledes end den stråmand af en sump af gennemsnitsdanskerne. Men netop ved at tage udgangspunkt i normalitetens manglende forståelse og sensibilitet vidner hendes historier om at kernefamilien stadig regerer.

Fortællingen er ellers ganske fin og banal om hvordan familie og venner er netop det, familie og venner. Og hvor faderen svigtede trådte de til og ikke et øje er tørt. Men mon ikke familie og venner havde været i hendes liv alligevel? Og så langt de er gået for at kompensere for faderens svigt så langt fortæller det om tabet af en far. Den slags selvmodsigelser fanger unge mennesker ikke fordi de gennem et alt for langt skoleforløb har fået indpodet at de er kritisk tænkende hvis de har demonstreret evnen til at reproducere et forventet sæt holdninger. Derfor kan en selvstændigt kritisk tænkende studerende, der står til at arve om ikke jorden så mine skattepenge, glemme at mennesker ikke er orme når hun skriver at ”det kræver kun én, at starte en familie på to.”

Men unge mennesker er på forhånd tilgivet. Noget andet med Politikens egen Bjørn Bredahl, der giver sin version af tidens religiøse debatter

Jesushistorien, som Ramsdal-debatten nu bliver en ny variant af, handler altid om, at en præst ikke tror bogstaveligt på, at Kristus stod op af graven og så videre. Det synes nogle fundamentalister er for galt.

Muhammedhistorien, som vi har haft vores ballade med i bladtegnerudgaven, handler altid om, at nogen hævdes at have krænket profeten. Det synes nogle andre fundamentalister er for galt.

Fælles for de to historier er, at de dybest set handler om, hvad nogle føler. Nogle mennesker, nogle kristne, nogle muslimer, nogle præster.

Jep, ligheden er noget om følelser som bringer de to historier i samme kasse som Hitlers jødhad, the blues, sejrrus og Lars von Trier. Forskellen, som Bjørn Bredal ikke nævner, er dog at Jesushistorien handler om hvad man kan forvente af en præst der har skrevet under på et ansættelsesforhold, mens Muhammedhistorien handler om, hvad muhammedanerne kræver af alle os andre, som regnes for underlegne og urene. Og det vil sige at mens der i Danmark spørges om de præster, der ikke tror på en skabende Gud og Jesus opstandelse fra de døde,  ikke burde finde et andet sted at suge på lappen, så handler Muhammedhistorien om at myrde løs på alle der ikke underkaster sig sharia. Things like that.

Jeg vil slutte med Brian Espesens spændende spørgsmål om man godt må “opfordre til vold så længe det bare går ud over muslimer“. Han indleder

Indenfor de seneste par dage er en moske blevet sat i brand i Sverige, og i Danmark blev et kærestepar overfaldet af to-tre gerningsmænd, som de efterfølgende beskrev som ‘brune/andengenerationsindvandrere’.

Selvom ofrene i det ene tilfælde var muslimer, og gerningsmændenes etnicitet/religion i det andet indtil videre er ukendt, og således kan være hvad som helst, blev fokus og omdrejningspunktet for debatten meget hurtigt (anti-) islam/muslimer.

Unøjagtighed er ikke Espesens eneste problem, men noget skal alligevel på plads. Moskeen blev ikke tilsyneladende sat i brand, blot fordi medierne, politikerne, muslimerne og de pludrende klasser antog at der var tale om et attentat på basis af intet og derfor konkluderede at det drejede sig om islam/muslimerhad uden overhovedet at overveje det langt mere sandsynlige interne opgør. Så derfor kom den debat til at handle om islam/muslimer. Ligeledes kender man jo godt “gerningsmændenes etnicitet/religion i det andet”, kæresteparret der blev overfaldet med jernkæder, da de jo blev beskrevet som “ ’brune/andengenerationsindvandrere’”. Djævelen ligger i detaljen.

Ansporet at sin manglende viden spoler Espesen perspektiverende nogle uger tilbage

Mansour har så vidt vides ikke krøllet et hår på nogen og er alene dømt for ytringer, der tolkes som ansporende til had, vold og terror.

Lad mig her understrege følgende: Hvis man læser denne kommentar som et forsvar for radikale muslimers afsporede ytringer og/eller slet skjulte trusler, så tager man gruelig fejl.

Jeg lader Mads Brügger svare på den på sin Facebook profil

Men Brian Espensen glemmer dog, her ifølge EB, at Said Mansours synderegister tæller domme for blandt andet:

“Terroraktiviteter, tyveri, vold og våbenbesiddelse også en dom fra Østre Landsret i 2002, hvor Mansour blev fundet skyldig i at have forgrebet sig på en bare 12-årig pige, som han ifølge anklageren trak væk fra en legeplads og befølte på brysterne.

Boghandleren fra Brønshøj har ifølge anklageren også en ældre dom for at have opført sig voldsomt truende over for en tilfældig kvinde, som han truede med at slå ihjel.” (http://ekstrabladet.dk/…/anklager-mansour-forgreb-s…/5337958)

Så enten har Brian Espensen en meget alternativ opfattelse af hvad det vil sige at krumme et hår på nogen, eller også har han rent faktisk skrevet et forsvar for radikale muslimer.

Detaljen Brian, detaljen!

Olien presser ondskaben

Olieprisen falder i disse tider “not by any action (or inaction) of the Saudis” skriver Peter Coy og Matthew PhilipsBusiness Week “but by the American shale producers, who are simply producing all the oil they can to maximize their profits”.

The world’s biggest oil companies faced ruin in the summer of 1931. Crude prices had plummeted. Wildcatters were selling oil from the bonanza East Texas field for a nickel a barrel, cheaper than a bowl of chili. On Aug. 17, Governor Ross Sterling declared a state of insurrection in four counties and sent 1,100 National Guard troops to shut down the fields and bring order to the market. A month later the Railroad Commission of Texas handed out strict production quotas.

That heavy-handed intervention in the free market was remarkable enough. Even more remarkable was who pulled it off. The person in charge of shutting down the wildcatters, National Guard Brigadier General Jacob Wolters, was the general counsel of Texas Co., an ancestor of Chevron (CVX). And the Texas governor who ordered Wolters in was a past president of Humble Oil and Refining, a forerunner of ExxonMobil (XOM). Big Oil played hardball in those days.

Russell Gold beskriver i Wall Street Journal hvad der “has set up a battle for market share that could reshape the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and fundamentally change the global market for oil”

Vikas Dwivedi, energy strategist with Macquarie Research, says a widespread deceleration of global economic growth sapped some demand. At the same time, several Asian currencies weakened against the U.S. dollar.

The cost of filling up a gas tank in Indonesia, Thailand, India and Malaysia rose, just as these countries were phasing out fuel subsidies. In Jakarta and Mumbai, drivers cut back.

“The fact that supply growth was strong shouldn’t have taken anybody by surprise,” Mr. Dwivedi says. But demand for oil “just fell off a cliff. And bear markets are fed by negative surprises.”

Rising supply and falling demand both put downward pressure on prices. Throughout the summer, however, fears of violence in Iraq kept oil prices high as traders worried Islamic State fighters could cut the countrys oil output.

Then two events tipped the market. In late June, The Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. government had given permission for the first exports of U.S. oil in a generation. While the ruling was limited in scope, the market saw it as the first crack in a long-standing ban on crude exports. Not only was the U.S. importing fewer barrels of oil, it could soon begin exporting some, too. This news jolted oil markets; prices began to edge down from their summer peaks.

On July 1, Libyan rebels agreed to open Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, two key oil-export terminals that had been closed for a year. Libyan oil sailed across the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. Already displaced from the U.S. Gulf Coast and eastern Canada, Nigerian oil was soon replaced in Europe, too. Increasingly, shipments of Nigerian crude headed toward China.

Oil prices began to decline.

Og det er dårligt nyt for mange fjendtlige regimer og ideologier, hvis magt bygger på høje oliepriser. De små fracking firmaer i Texas ændrer vilkårerne

The stressed-out giants of today are Saudi Arabia and its fellows in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The descendants of the 1930s wildcatters are today’s producers of oil from shale, who are driving down the world price of crude by flooding the market with millions of barrels of new oil each day. At $64 a barrel, Brent crude is down 44 percent since June. The twist is that today’s upstarts aren’t draining oil from neighbors’ plots, as happened in the 1930s. And OPEC can’t call in the National Guard against them. All it can do is gape at the falling price of crude and contemplate the destruction of their cartel at the hands of the Americans, whom they thought they had supplanted for good 40 years ago. Energy economist Philip Verleger says shale is to OPEC what the Apple II (AAPL) was to the IBM(IBM) mainframe.

(….)

Collectively, their breakneck production is breaking OPEC’s neck. This is the remorseless, leaderless free market at work.

OPEC used to be something to reckon with. For a brief period in the 1970s its influence was so strong, it could set prices to the penny for scores of crudes, says Bhushan Bahree, senior director for OPEC Middle East research at market researcher IHS (IHS). Its power has waned considerably, but until this year Saudi Arabia could still be counted on to cut output for the good of the cartel when gluts emerged. The Saudis’ refusal last month to take one for the team is historic, says Michael Wittner, head of oil research at Société Générale (GLE:FP) in New York. “That is such a tremendous, dramatic change,” he says. “It’s hard to think of a way to exaggerate how fundamental it is.”

Men det er ikke blot Rusland og regimerne i OPEC, der mærkes af den økonomiske nedtur og amerikansk driftighed. Også den grønne mafia går svære tider i møde, skriver The Independent

A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.

(…)

“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”

Anne Robinson, director of consumer policy at the uSwitch price comparison website, said: “More subsidies are likely to be needed [for green power] as the gap between the cost of fossil fuel power and renewable power gets bigger.” The extra subsidies would be borne by households in the form of higher energy bills.

Green energy technologies such as solar and wind had been banking on sharp increases in fossil fuel prices to make them increasingly competitive and help to attract the huge amount of investment required to build renewable power plants. But that “economic case” is now in danger of being lost, with the environmental argument seen by many as being insufficient to drive through high levels of green energy investment.

Så der er da andet end Julen at glæde sig over.

Victor Davies Hanson om Obamaæraen, der rinder ud

Hanson skrev forleden i National Review at den amerikanske vensfløj (liberalism) lå i ideologiske ruiner. “Barack Obama has accomplished, in the fashion of British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in the Twenties and Thirties, will be to avoid minor confrontations on his watch — if he is lucky — while ensuring catastrophic ones for his successors.” konkluderede han og pegede på de 11 mio. illegale indvandrere, som, hvis det står til Obama, skal have amerikansk pas. Hanson minder ikke blot om at prisen først og fremmest betales af den amerikanske middelklasse og de nye jobsøgende, men at de iblandt de illegale, hvis tilstedeværelse i USA i første omgang er gjort mulig at de har brudt amerikansk lov findes en stor minoritet, der ikke deltager aktivt eller lovlydigt i det amerikanske samfund.

Henover den sekulære dyrkelse af klimaet “that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning” til Obamas opdyrkelse af racestridigheder fra Trayvon Martin til Michael Brown, godt assisteret af mediernes memer

After the disastrous Obama tenure, the U.S. will either return to the melting pot and the idea that race and tribe are incidental, not essential, to our characters, or it will eventually go the way of all dysfunctional societies for which that was not true — Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq.

Og Hanson ender med følgende skudsmål

Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and Obamacare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012; and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Eric Holder – with his jet-setting to sporting events on the public dime, spouting inflammatory racialist rhetoric, politicizing the Justice Department, selectively enforcing settled law, and being held in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents — managed what one might have thought impossible: He has made Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell seem a minor rogue in comparison.

Men det er udenrigspolitikken der har lidt værst, midt i en periode med stigende udfordringer. Hanson skriv i går ligeledes i National Review at der er paralleller

We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices — a good thing for most of the world — will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.

Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit-card holders.

NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country such as Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon.

The United States has slashed its defense budget to historic lows. It sends the message abroad that friendship with America brings few rewards while hostility toward the U.S. has even fewer consequences.

The bedrock American relationships with staunch allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, and Israel are fading. Instead, we court new belligerents that don’t like the United States, such as Turkey and Iran.

Og

Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic — but often relatively weaker — power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.

What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventive vigilance that might have stopped it.

“Vi vælger at rejse til Månen” proklamerede Kennedy på Rice University i 1962, “Ikke fordi det er let, men fordi det er svært!”.

[B]ecause that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win

For Kennedy æraen handlede det om at presse sig selv mod nye mål. “Yes we can” derimod sigter til det vi allerede kan. Det fornægter på sin vis ‘american exeptionalism’ i stedet for den teoretiske akademikers drøm om at kunne omdefinere verden væk fra dens iboende problemer. “Yes we can” siger ikke meget andet end at man vil gøre, hvad der er let, frem for, hvad der er rigtigt.

Martin Lidegaard beskyldes for uvidenhed

Bent Jensen har i Jyllands-Posten ikke tiltro til Martin Lidegaards basale viden om Mellemøsten og vil gerne vide, hvad Lidegaard egentlig mener Israel skal gøre

Hver gang jeg ser og hører ham tale så tilsyneladende forstandigt og overbevisende, spørger jeg mig selv: Ved manden i virkeligheden, hvad han taler om? Er han ordentligt inde i sagerne? Har han læst på lektien, og har hans embedsmænd forsynet ham med alle de nødvendige oplysninger om konfliktens rødder – og jeg understreger alle? Eller lader han blot munden løbe?

Det meste af Mellemøsten befinder sig i et omfattende kaos. Israels nabostat Syrien er hærget af en blodig borgerkrig, der foreløbig har kostet 200.000 mennesker livet og drevet millioner på flugt. Oprørsstyrkerne i Syrien har svoret at ville udslette Israel. Det samme har Assad-regimet i Damaskus. For nylig flygtede de udstationerede FN-styrker fra syrisk territorium. Hvorhen? Til Israel, hvor de fandt sikkerhed.

(…)

Jeg synes i fuld alvor, at Lidegaard skulle forholde sig seriøst til de reelle problemer, der her er omtalt. Og der er flere endnu. Hvorfor behandler han palæstinenserne som uansvarlige børn? Hvorfor stiller han ikke krav til dem, hvis de vil have egen stat? Hvorfor siger Lidegaard & Co ikke til både Hamas-lederne og til Abbas og hans mafia i Ramallah, at de skal standse myrderierne på jøder og indstille deres anti-jødiske hadkampagner i skolebøger og i palæstinensiske medier – inklusive de officielle trykte og elektroniske Hamas- og PS-medier.

Som ansvarlig minister ved Lidegaard naturligvis, at disse afskyelige hadkampagner kører hele tiden. Men hvordan forestiller han sig så, at der skal kunne blive fred og fordragelighed mellem jøder og arabere på det diminutive område, som Israel og selvstyreområdet udgør, når den ene part hele tiden dyrker hadet til den anden part, nægter dens ret til eksistens og vil have en jødefri zone?

Samtidig skrev en foruroliget Flemming Rose ligeledes i Jyllands-Posten om Lidegaards manglende viden om Rusland

I weekenden bragte Berlingske et interview med udenrigsminister Martin Lidegaard. Ministeren afslørede her en sjælden uvidenhed om russisk økonomis tilstand, effekten af sanktioner, og hvad der venter i den nærmeste fremtid. Interviewet var aftalt på forhånd, så der er ikke tale om, at Lidegaard uden varsel fik stukket en mikrofon i hovedet.

Det gør hans udtalelser foruroligende, for hvis kendskabet til Rusland, Danmarks største sikkerhedspolitiske udfordring, ikke er større, så er risikoen stor for at begå fatale fejl. En anden mulighed er selvfølgelig, at Lidegaard bevidst misinformerer, men det gør det ikke bedre. Om russisk økonomi siger han:

»Noget af det mest bekymrende er, at den russiske økonomi er i frit fald. Vi står over for en reel risiko for russisk økonomisk kollaps. Det skyldes vores sanktioner kombineret med en stærkt faldende oliepris. Underskuddet i staten stiger, inflationen stiger voldsomt. Den almindelige russers købekraft bliver udhulet dag for dag.«

I fredags, altså nogenlunde samtidig med at Lidegaard fremsatte sin dystre vurdering, noterede The Wall Street Journal, at Rusland med en vækst på 0,8 pct. i årets første ti måneder har klaret sig bedre end ventet, på niveau med eurozonen. Det får ikke én til at tænke på en økonomi i frit fald.

I virkeligheden passer Lidegaards udtalelser på et andet land i regionen, nemlig Ukraine, der befinder sig på randen af en finansiel nedsmeltning.

Lidegaard må lægge sig lidt mere i selen, hvis virkeligheden skal moraliseres væk. Begge indlæg bør læses i deres helhed, hvis man vil vide mere end Lidegaard.

Et russisk perspektiv på Ukraine

Historie, Kolde Krig, Multikultur, Rusland, Ukraine — Drokles on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 am

Man er jo ikke glade for at se Sarah Palins og Mitt Romneys advarsler om russernes emperiale tendenser være timelige. Men det ser ud til at man ikke kan lære en kæmpe bjørn nye triks. Business Insider citerer noget så eksotisk som et russisk synspunkt

In recent days, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated rapidly. The agreements reached between President Yanukovych and the opposition on 21 February have been scrapped by opposition leaders:the legitimate Head of State that was supposed to remain in office has been effectively ousted from the country, an interim president has been appointed, presidential elections have been set for 25 May, no steps have been made in the area of constitutional reform or joint investigation.

But more importantly, rather than taking account of the numerous appeals to national unity and reconciliation, political power in Kiev has been concentrated in the hands of far-right extremist elements that do not hide their xenophobic, anti-Semitic, neofascist credentials. Not surprisingly, one of the first decisions of the new rulers was to abolish the law on regional languages, a move that has caused concern not only among Russian-speakers, but also in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. This has coincided with a widespread campaign of intimidation of ethnic Russian population and desecration of monuments celebrating Russia’s and Ukraine’s common historical achievements such as the defeat of Nazism in the Second World War. Russian Orthodox priests have become object of threats. Attempts were made to seize the Orthodox shrines, such as the Kiev Pechersk Laura and the Pochayev Laura.

The situation of the Russian community in the Crimea has become particularly precarious. As soon as rallies erupted to express protest against with the way the Kiev events had unfolded, the Crimeans were accused of separatism and were threatened with force. There has been a lot of speculation regarding movements of troops of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, taken as a precautionary measure in full compliance with the relevant bilateral agreements with Ukraine. During the night of 1 March, unknown armed men sent from Kiev tried to seize the building of the Crimea Interior Ministry. Only decisive actions by self-defence groups allowed to stop that provocation that has left many people injured.

Within this context, it is not surprising that as many as 143 thousand people from Ukraine have applied for asylum in Russia over the past two weeks.

Et måske endnu bedre kig ind i en kulturkamp mellem Vest og Øst kan man læse i EU Times af den franske forfatter Nicolas Bonnal, der som en Rasputin blander en tilsyneladende indsigt med vrøvl

The Pussy Riot case proves that Satanism became an official and popular culture of the West. The West is ready to do anything to protect this culture. We can see this in “Harry Potter,” MTV programs (zombies, vampires, the possessed, cannibals), Madonna’s anti-French provocations in Tel Aviv with underlying reasons of occultism. Such reasons can be found at almost all rock and pop concerts). Messages of Satanism are meticulously calculated. They incarnate the hidden guise of democracy, which is always ready to generously drop bombs on Syria, Iran or threaten the Russia of Vladimir Putin. The target is anything that does not fit into the system, but the main target is Christianity. Provocateurs like Madonna are Zionists; provocateurs like Pussy Riot are those who respect and fear Islamists and kick the cat in the church – the church that was accused of being the open expression of the heritage, which the West simply can not stand.

Churches do not let our demons celebrate, and our democracies are furious because of that. The liquid society, as Bauman described it, wants to eliminate every trace of purity and spiritual roots. It wants to destroy even memory itself. Because the perfect consumer – is the one who forgets what he or she just bought.

Let’s go back in time. The Soviet Union was disrespected in the West for political reasons, but there were also reasons of cultural and artistic nature. The USSR did not make Pollocks, but it did make artists working in the genre of figurative painting; he did not make the Beatles, but made Prokofiev, Shostakovich, or folk dancing; the USSR did not glorify the Lucifer-like freedom but it did glorify socialist discipline. This, as we say, is old-fashioned and was outlived. Give us something new, and every morning!

As I will show below, it was the American services that were promoting the degenerative culture, the goal of which was to exert spiritual influence over the masses, to depreciate and vulgarize humanity. Soviet socialism was on the ring, fighting the opponent that would hit only below the waist. That socialism gave us Tarkovsky, the Bolshoi Theatre and the Red Army Choir. In response, the Soviet Union would receive “Rosemary’s Baby” and rappers! The Soviet Union was not of the same level!

Modern culture – we’ll go back to the 1960s – served (in an elite form) rather grim purposes. The culture (whether it is Lady Gaga, Swedish “Millennium” books, jazz, rap, neo-punk fashion or movie “Avatar”), in which we live, has turned away from our cultural heritage. The emergence of this culture is not incidental; it is not the fruit of audience tastes or the naive genius of its creators. This culture is no longer a Christian culture; it is not rooted in the history of the land of the given nation. It is associated with the spiritual training of people, it is abstract and massive; it has vile goals and accurate globalized plans. Its history can be drawn from the so-called “modern literature” to post-classic cinematography. Contemporary music should drive people crazy, Adorno said. Solzhenitsyn pointed out in his Harvard speech that the world was conquered by intolerable music, that people forgot that they were alive. Black magic is in power everywhere in the West, and there is no need to be paranoid about it – just turn on the TV.

Daniel Estulin, a writer of Soviet origin, wonderfully wrote about the occult plan of the hidden side of contemporary subculture. It has long been known that the rock-like culture of the Beatniks was launched and encouraged to develop and separate most active political movements. The enthronement of drugs and counterculture meets the police and political project (such as MK-Ultra, Cointelpro, Artichoke), which Hollywood took as a source of inspiration. And, as we know, the author of the controversial “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” Ken Kesey tried drugs for mind control programs. It was easier to control parallel worlds than create political parties. I have already shown the role that was played by the American “conquest of space” and science fiction that smelled like Scientology sect. Regarding the sexual revolution, it was prescribed as some sort of a miracle cure already in Huxley’s “Brave New World” …! It resulted in widely available mass pornography and angry roars of political correctness. While we boast of our sexual madness, the Catholic Church faces millions of accusations of pedophilia!

William Varattoni skriver beroligende om Ruslands motiver i Kyiv Post

The crisis in Crimea has been many years in the making, and made it ripe for the taking.

To paint Russian leadership as reactionary, ham-fisted hardliners is to ignore a decade of methodical deployment of soft power techniques, patient construction of fifth columns, and the massive incentives Russia has not to blow the place up.

Focus on Russia’s military is misdirection; it is absolutely important, but the real benefit to brinkmanship is to make other outcomes seem downright reasonable.

In light of recent setbacks, two potential outcomes are both reasonable (when compared to the extremes of military conflict and secession) and advantageous for Russia:

1) a Crimean peninsula that is fully autonomous within the Ukrainian state (it already has semi-autonomy) and functions in practice like a British Hong Kong for Russia, and

2) a Ukrainian state that is more federalist across all regions (which makes a fast and massive shift into Europe’s orbit decidedly less likely).

The outcome in Crimea hinges on the disposition of the citizens of Crimea. While the world focuses on Russian actions in Crimea, it is crucial to understand what resonates with Crimean citizens and what dynamics prevailed before today’s headlines.

(…)

Naked aggression dooms Russia’s interests; no state aspires to be another Russian frozen conflict

With good reason, the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine scares everyone.

But a military invasion with frenetic confrontation is unthinkable unless Russia has given up all hope for relations with the rest of Ukraine.

Ukrainians east and west were united when Russia tried to quietly take over the sandbar known as Tuzla Island in 2003. Ukrainians, regardless of their affinities for Russia or its culture, will not tolerate an attack on their sovereignty. If Russia is seen as an invader in Crimea, it will cease to have a meaningful partnership with the rest of Ukraine.  Crimea is a beautiful and important place, but capturing Crimea at the expense of losing the rest of Ukraine would be a tradeoff that only a truly desperate Russia would make.

Even if Russia did use its military to conquer Crimea, governance becomes a huge problem because the Russian regime would lack legitimacy with large swaths of the population. A police state would be required and Crimea would quickly turn from a highly desired vacation spot (which is the source of its economic value) into a militarized Russians-only resort. This is hardly the existence that Crimeans aspire to.

Robert Zubrin beskriver en mere dyster og ideologisk motivation i National Review

The core idea of Dugin’s Eurasianism is that “liberalism” (by which is meant the entire Western consensus) represents an assault on the traditional hierarchical organization of the world. Repeating the ideas of Nazi theorists Karl Haushofer, Rudolf Hess, Carl Schmitt, and Arthur Moeller van der Bruck, Dugin says that this liberal threat is not new, but is the ideology of the maritime cosmopolitan power “Atlantis,” which has conspired to subvert more conservative land-based societies since ancient times. Accordingly, he has written books in which he has reconstructed the entire history of the world as acontinuous battle between these two factions, from Rome v. Carthage to Russia v. the Anglo Saxon “Atlantic Order,” today. If Russia is to win this fight against the subversive oceanic bearers of such “racist” (because foreign-imposed) ideas as human rights, however, it must unite around itself all the continental powers, including Germany, Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Iran, and Korea, into a grand Eurasian Union strong enough to defeat the West.

In order to be so united, this Eurasian Union will need a defining ideology, and for this purpose Dugin has developed a new “Fourth Political Theory” combining all the strongest points of Communism, Nazism, Ecologism, and Traditionalism, thereby allowing it to appeal to the adherents of all of these diverse anti-liberal creeds. He would adopt Communism’s opposition to free enterprise. However, he would drop the Marxist commitment to technological progress, a liberal-derived ideal, in favor of Ecologism’s demagogic appeal to stop the advance of industry and modernity. From Traditionalism, he derives a justification for stopping free thought. All the rest is straight out of Nazism, ranging from legal theories justifying unlimited state power and the elimination of individual rights, to the need for populations “rooted” in the soil, to weird gnostic ideas about the secret origin of the Aryan race in the North Pole.

The open devotion to Nazism is Dugin’s thought is remarkable. In his writings he celebrates the Waffen SS, murderers of millions of Russians during the war, as an ideal organization. He also approves of the most extreme crimes of Communism, going so far as to endorse the horrific 1937 purges that killed, among numerous other talented and loyal Soviet citizens, nearly the entire leadership of the Red Army — something that Stalin himself later had second thoughts about.

What Russia needs, says Dugin, is a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.” On the other hand, “Liberalism, is an absolute evil. . . . Only a global crusade against the U.S., the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. . . . The American empire should be destroyed.”

This is the ideology behind the Putin regime’s “Eurasian Union” project. It is to this dark program, which threatens not only the prospects for freedom in Ukraine and Russia, but the peace of the world, that former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych tried to sell “his” country. It is against this program that the courageous protesters in the Maidan took their stand and — with scandalously little help from the West — somehow miraculously prevailed. But now the chips are really down. The Ukrainians are being faced not with riot police, but with Russian divisions, subversion, and economic warfare. The country needs to be stabilized, and defended. The Ukrainians deserve our full support — and not just for reasons of sympathy for those resisting tyranny or respect for the brave. It is in the vital interest of America that freedom triumphs in Ukraine.

Without Ukraine, Dugin’s fascist Eurasian Union project is impossible, and sooner or later Russia itself will have to join the West and become free, leaving only a few despised and doomed islands of tyranny around the globe. But with Ukraine underfoot, the Eurasianists’ program can and will proceed, and a new Iron Curtain will fall into place imprisoning a large fraction of humanity in the grip of a monstrous totalitarian power that will become the arsenal of evil around the world for decades to come. That means another Cold War, trillions of dollars wasted on arms, accelerated growth of the national-security state at home, repeated proxy conflicts costing millions of lives abroad, and civilization itself placed at risk should a single misstep in the endless insane great-power game precipitate the locked and loaded confrontation into a thermonuclear exchange.

Rusland er en bølle, men endnu ingen direkte trussel mod Europa. Måske kan det endda vække os fra vores forløjede dyrkelse af blød magt.

Monokultur kører på WordPress