Alfa-hannerne skaber bekymring og stress

Det er svært for Politiken, der i lørdagens udgave af Debat sektionen leger med tanken om Trump som Hitler, i form af Chaplins Anton Hynkel.

img_00121

Og hans stab klar til krig

img_00211

Politiken har næsten ret. Alfahannerne er kommet igen. Breitbarts sikkerhedsredaktør Sebastian Gorka om Trumps udnævnelse af flere generaler i sin kommende regering

“I’d like to recognize the fact that after eight years of Pajama Boys, it’s time for the alpha males to come back,” he added. “How appropriate that we’ve got three Marines from the same division, legendary figures in uniform, to represent three of the key posts in the new administration! The fact is, having met Donald Trump a long time ago, and talking about national security issues, one of the first things that was clear to me from this businessman, this very special businessman, is that he understands we are at war, Raheem. He gets it. And he wants to win that war. He knows he’s not going to do it with limp-wristed Pajama Boys. Who better than a bunch of legendary Devil Dogs to do it? So yeah, it’s baloney, and it’s very cool in my opinion.”

Kassam turned to a discussion posted at The Gorka Briefing, in which Dr. Gorka argued that “Europe is collapsing.”

“I think it’s patently obvious that the Trump Train was the result, in part, a reflection of, the general rejection of centralized federative bureaucracy, and as a result, we have Brexit foreshadow the future of what used to be called Project Europe,” Gorka elucidated. “And the fact is, people are waking up. They’re rejecting faceless bureaucracy. We see it all across the continent. Brexit isn’t a uniquely British phenomena. As a result, we will see more and more people say, ‘Enough is enough. We want national sovereignty. We want national security most important of all.’ And as a result, I think Project Europe is on the ropes.”

Den mest markante alfahan er tidligere general i det amerikanske marinekorps James Matthis, en mand der selvfølgeligt erkender, at “there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot”. National Reviews Tom Rogan kalder Matthis “at once a scholar and a warrior” og begynder sin beskrivelse med citatet “I don’t have worry and stress. I cause worry and stress!”, bl.a fordi sin “…annihilation upon al-Qaeda in Iraq”

Iran has particular reason for concern. Commanding CENTCOM, Mattis pushed for tough realism in constraining the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary expansionism. He recognizes that Iran’s leaders are rational actors, but he also knows that their revolutionary impulses must be checked. For this, he earned the ire of President Obama, who was so intent on kowtowing to the Iranian regime. But now he is set to take over the Pentagon, and Khamenei and the Qassem-crew have much to fear.

First, Mattis is likely to push Trump to focus on fixing the Iran nuclear deal. This will likely entail reducing Iranian cheating on inspections protocols and Iranian ballistic-missile research. If Trump and Mattis work with U.S. allies (notably the French) who are concerned about President Obama’s failure to enforce the deal, Iran could face rougher waters next year. Mattis has suggested blockading the country if the regime tries to play hard ball. It’s a good idea.

Second, a Mattis Pentagon will likely take tougher action against Iranian aggression in the Middle East. As I’ve noted, President Obama has largely ignored Iranian malevolence in states such as Lebanon and Iraq. That needs to be remedied, and quickly.

Third, Mattis will deter Iranian terrorism against America. That imperative is real. In 2011, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards — as Mattis himself explains — tried to murder the then-Saudi ambassador to the United States. The plan involved blowing up a Washington D.C. restaurant and everyone in it. He’s the incarnation of the First Marine Division motto, ‘No better friend, no worse enemy.’

Fourth, Mattis’s realism will be useful in helping the U.S. to confront Sunni extremism more effectively. As I’ve explained before, thanks to his supplication to Iran, President Obama has alienated America’s Sunni-Arab allies. Mattis, who is adored by the Sunni-Arab monarchies for his honest courage, offers the Trump administration a chance to renew those bonds. That means new potential for a Sunni-Arab crackdown on Sunni fundraising for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. It also means we might see more special forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

“Who knows? American red lines might even make a comeback.” slutter Rogan.

Breitbart har samlet 15 Matthis citater, hvor mange er skønne. Jeg vil dog trække et andet citat frem, hvor kampen mod islam og anden fjendskab, ikke blot skal overlades til alfahannerne

I think it’s very clear that this enemy has decided that the war, the real war for them, will be fought in the narrative, in the media. This is not a place where we’re going to take the enemy’s capital and run up our flag and drink their coffee and that sort of thing.

Politiken er Hitler-forskrækket over generaler i regeringen Trump, fordi Alfahanner ikke hører til i fredstid - men det er Politiken ikke hører efter, hvad der foregår uden for deres bombesluse. Vi er ikke i en fredstid.

Det er min overbevisning, at demokratier ikke kan kæmpe for sin frihed uden konsensus om en nødvendighed og hvem der er fjenden. Vietnamkrigen blev tabt i de amerikanske hjerter og  ikke på slagmarken. Vi danskere, der anerkender vores nationalisme, Danmark først kunne man kalde det, kan ikke nedkæmpe truslen fra islam, uden et konsensus bag os.

Og det betyder at vi er forpligtet til at nedbryde det narrativ, den fortælling, der dominerer medierne. Sammen med venstrefløjen og bureakraterne enabler de islams angreb på vores frihed og kultur ved at fortrænge realiteterne for det stor tavse flertal. Det er en kamp for definitionsretten og den frie debat, som alle os betahanner og -hunner, kan tage på alle niveauer.

Og fordi vi i den kamp har brug for friheden til at ytre os, reagerer bureaukraterne og venstrefløjen og medierne med allehånde forsøg på at sikre kontrol med ytringer og nyheder. Racismeparagraffer ikke blot opretholdes, men søges udvidet til forbud mod hadtale, hadprædikanter bliver løst defineret som både de der spreder had som de der advarer og nægtet indrejse, sociale medier indskrænker rammerne og venstrefløjen og dens medier opfinder nye begreber, som post-faktualitet til fake news for at retfærdiggøre et offentligt meningsmonopol.

Vi kan skal alle sammen kæmpe for den frihed, der er blevet os skænket. Og der er lyspunkter i den kamp, fra store sejre som Brexit og Trump til små sprækker i mediernes selvfølgelige forståelse af ofre og skurke i det store og modige arbejde For Frihed bedriver. Og vi vil vinde - yyyuge!

På vej mod interessante tider

“Russia orders all officials to fly home any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war” skriver Daily Mail. Speisa skriver “Russian state TV warns viewers of war”. “Future war with Russia or China would be ‘extremely lethal and fast’, US generals warn” skrev Independent og tilføjede “Russia launches massive nuclear war training exercise that ‘involves 40 million people’” skrev IndependentOg på TV2 kunne man læse “Russiske atom-missiler kan nu nå Bornholm”.

“Wars are gathering”, skriver Victor Davis Hanson, “A hard rain is going to fall”

This summer, President Obama was often golfing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were promising to let the world be. The end of summer seemed sleepy, the world relatively calm.

The summer of 1914 in Europe also seemed quiet. But on July 28, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip with help from his accomplices, fellow Serbian separatists. That isolated act sparked World War I.

In the summer of 1939, most observers thought Adolf Hitler was finally through with his serial bullying. Appeasement supposedly had satiated his once enormous territorial appetites. But on September 1, Nazi Germany unexpectedly invaded Poland and touched off World War II, which consumed some 60 million lives.

(…)

Russia has been massing troops on its border with Ukraine. Russian president Vladimir Putin apparently believes that Europe is in utter disarray and assumes that President Obama remains most interested in apologizing to foreigners for the past evils of the United States. Putin is wagering that no tired Western power could or would stop his reabsorption of Ukraine — or the Baltic states next. Who in hip Amsterdam cares what happens to faraway Kiev?

Iran swapped American hostages for cash. An Iranian missile narrowly missed a U.S. aircraft carrier not long ago. Iranians hijacked an American boat and buzzed our warships in the Persian Gulf. There are frequent promises from Tehran to destroy either Israel, America, or both. So much for the peace dividend of the “Iran deal.”

North Korea is more than just delusional. Recent nuclear tests and missile launches toward Japan suggest that North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un actually believes that he could win a war — and thereby gain even larger concessions from the West and from his Asian neighbors.

Radical Islamists likewise seem emboldened to try more attacks on the premise that Western nations will hardly respond with overwhelming power. The past weekend brought pipe bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey as well as a mass stabbing in a Minnesota mall — and American frustration.

Europe and the United States have been bewildered by huge numbers of largely young male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. Political correctness has paralyzed Western leaders from even articulating the threat, much less replying to it.

Instead, the American government appears more concerned with shutting down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ensuring that no administration official utters the words “Islamic terror,” and issuing warnings to Americans not to lash out due to their supposedly innate prejudices.

Aggressors are also encouraged by vast cutbacks in the U.S. defense budget. The lame-duck Obama presidency, lead-from-behind policies, and a culturally and racially divided America reflect voter weariness with overseas commitments.

(…)

Obama apparently assumes he can leave office as a peacemaker before his appeased chickens come home to roost in violent fashion. He has assured us that the world has never been calmer and quieter.

Et russisk billede midt i freden

obama-pa-russisk

Eliten mod folket

For en måned siden skrev Jim Edwards i Business Insider at det var på tide at erkende at Brexit ikke vil ske, for i praksis kan ingen melde sig ud af EU fordi omstillingen vil være uoverskuelig og økonomisk ødelæggende. Trods den indsigt skrev Henry Porter for nogle dage siden i Vanity Fair at de økonomiske tømmermænd efter det Brexit, der altså endnu ikke er en realitet og ifølge Edwards aldrig vil blive det, allerede er blevet endnu værre. Andrew Greice skrev dog i Independent at mantraet t Downing Street var “We’re all Brexiteers now.” og andet også ville være politisk selvmord.

Der sker noget i det vestlige sind i disse år og store valg skal træffes og hvor udsigten til de enorme konsekvenser allerede trækker splittelsen frem i befolkningerne. Og det er først og fremmest eliten mod resten. Brendan O’Neill skriver om reaktionen på Brexit i The Spectator

Why is everyone so chilled out about the threats to Brexit? Why isn’t there more public fury over the plotting of lords and academics and experts to stymie Brexit and thwart the will of 17.4m people? In all the years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when democracy has been treated with as much disgust, with as much naked, Victorian-era elitism, as it is being today. And yet we’re all bizarrely mellow. We’re going about our business as if everything is normal, as if the elites aren’t right now, this very minute, in revolt against the people. We need to wake up.

Every day brings fresh news of the revolt of the elite, of the march of the neo-reactionaries against the mandate of the masses. At the weekend it was revealed that Brexit might not happen until 2019, because David Davis and Liam Fox can’t get their departments in order, the amateurs. The lovers of the EU and loathers of the blob could barely contain their glee. March for Europe, a celeb-backed, media-cheered chattering-class outfit agitated by the throng and the dumb decision it made on 23 June, spied an opportunity to do over Brexit entirely. ‘[W]e can help delay Brexit further and ultimately defeat it altogether,’ it said yesterday. ‘We can win this.’

‘We can win this.’ The ‘we’ they’re talking about is a minority view,backed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Owen Jones and Jarvis Cocker, yes, but by only 10,000 people on Facebook. And the thing they think they can win is the overthrow of the largest democratic mandate in British history.

(…)

It has to stop. We’re witnessing an explicit use of power and influence to overthrow, or at least water down, the say of the people. It is an outrage. And it’s being made worse by the uselessness of Theresa May’s cabinet, whose constant pushing back of triggering Article 50 gives the impression that it’s a scary, difficult thing to do (which it isn’t) and in the process inflames the anti-democratic ambitions of the new elites. We need to get real, and fast. Not only is Brexit at stake — so is democracy itself. Earlier generations took to the streets to roar against less ugly elitist campaigns than the one we’re currently living through. So why aren’t we on the streets protesting? I’m serious. They might have money and titles and newspaper columns, but we have the masses on our side. Let’s remind them of that.

Og det gælder også i det amerikanske præsidentvalg, hvor Donald Trump udfordrer den sidende elite, personificeret i al sin korrupte glans af Hillary Clinton. Den politiske analytiker Pat Caddell fortæller her i en samtale med Breitbarts Stephen Bannon om, hvorledes medierne angriber Trump, som ingen anden kandidat er blevet angrebet før, for at beskytte den elite, som de selv er en del af.

“The issue here for [Trump], which is clear, is that this is a country in trouble. This is a country where the economy and foreign policy are in trouble. And she represents — for a country that sees, by vast majorities, that the political class in Washington is corrupt, and rigging the system for themselves, that has not yet come center place,” he said.

“What they’re trying to do is disqualify him from the Presidency. He needs to now go back to saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute, what kind of country do you want to continue to have? The one that is, inevitably, slowly before our eyes, declining and not succeeding? Or do you want to take a chance on making things better? I can help you make things better.’ He has not engaged that. The minute he engages, this election will change amazingly,” Caddell predicted.

“She is locked in to what she is,” he said of Clinton. “All she can do is put up barriers, or throw up arguments, against Trump. Trump is the independent variable in this equation. He is the one that can force those things that matter to people to the front. That is what a change election is about.”

Bannon suggested that “the general population doesn’t know this is a change election,” with so much attention focused on the clash of personalities, and Trump’s negative qualities. Caddell faulted Trump and his campaign for lacking the preparation and discipline to impose their own narrative.

(…)

Bannon advised Trump to prepare himself for even worse treatment from the press, if he should find a way to close his polling deficit against Clinton — an eventuality Bannon described as a “miracle,” while Caddell thought it was highly likely.

“He will close this gap. He will,” Caddell predicted. “And I’ll tell you, you’re right about the media. So, therefore, what do you do about that? You must take it to the level of notwhining about the media. It’s not about whining. It is about that they are playing a detailed role, and a conscious role, in terms of protecting the political class, because theyare the political class.”

He cited polling data that showed the American people have lost faith in the media, arguing that “two-thirds of them believe their level of objectivity and bias is as high as ever — they’re the lowest they’ve ever been, in Gallup.”

“They need to be challenged institutionally,” he said of the press. “Remember what they’re trying to do. They’re not trying just to knock Trump off. They need to suppress that which they have not been able to do all year, this rebellion out in the hinterlands, in both parties — whether it’s the Democrats’ revolt with Sanders, the Republican revolt with Trump — to suppress this instinct of the American people, to take control back of their country.”

That’s the issue: who runs America?”

Kun 11% af amerikanerne mener Hillary Clinton er til at stole på.

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.

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

forkert-gc3a6t

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.

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.

Seeberg tilpasser sig Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit og tonen

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

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

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

margrete-auken-om-farage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit er et generationstyveri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-07-01-kl-112356

EU er det nye sort.

De økonomiske konsekvenser af Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The FTSE 100 finished down 3.1%

- Germany’s Dax dropped 6.8%

- France’s Cac closed 8.0% lower

- Spain’s Ibex ended down 12.4%

- Italy’s FTSE MIB fell 12.5%

- In Greece, the Athens market lost 13.4%

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

Overklassens forælede unge er færdige med at grine ad Little Britain

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

inforgraphic

Og historiske refererencer

medieval-reactions

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

brexiters-er-nazier

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

channel-tunnel

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

jermain-pennant

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

Nigel Farage havde advaret

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

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

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

2 historikere og en sandsiger om Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Stemmer englænderne sig ud til friheden?

Briterne ser for alvor ud til at forlade EU, skriver Zero Hedge

The headlines go from bad to worse for the UK and EU establishment as yet another new poll this weekend, by Opinium, shows “Brexit” leading by a remarkable 19 points (52% chose to leave the EU against 33% choosing to keep the status quo). This result comes after 2 polls Friday night showing a 10-point lead for “leave” which sparked anxiety across markets. This surge in “leave” probability comes despite an additional 1.5 million voters having registered this week (which many expected to increase “remain” support). Further anger towards EU was exposed when former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith warned that seven new prisons will need to be built in the UK by 2030 to cope with the rising number of migrant criminals (presumedly due to ’staying’ in the EU). With market anxiety rising, as One River’s CIO notes, if Brexit happens, gold will soar.

Apropos EUs opløsning er der et stort folkeligt pres på at forlade EU i både Holland og Frankrig og det er et mønster, der spreder sig i hele Unionen, skriver Søren Kern for Gatestone Institute

Public opposition to the European Union is growing in all key member states, according to a new survey of voters in ten EU countries.

Public disaffection with the EU is being fueled by the bloc’s mishandling of the refugee and debt crises, according to the survey, which interviewed voters in Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

The 17-page report, “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit,” was published by the Pew Research Center on June 7, just two weeks before the June 23 referendum on whether Britain will become the first country to leave the European Union (Brexit blends the words Britain and exit).

(…)

Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

On May 31, the European Union, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. Critics say the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe because the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

On May 24, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, vowedto use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. Under powers granted to the European Commission in 2014, Juncker can trigger a “rule of law alert” for countries that depart from “the common constitutional traditions of all member states.” Rather than accepting the will of the people at the voting booth, Juncker can impose sanctions to address “systemic deficiencies” in EU member states.

On May 4, Juncker warned that EU countries that failed to “show solidarity” by refusing take in migrants would face a fine of €250,000 ($285,000) per migrant.

On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats. According to the plan, the 28 EU member states would have a “legally binding duty to share information.”

(…)

In a recent interview with Le Monde, Juncker said that if Britons voted to leave the EU, they would be treated as “deserters”:

“I am sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms. If the British should say ‘No’ — which I hope they do not — then life in the EU will not go on as before. The United Kingdom will be regarded as a third country and will have its fur stroked the wrong way (caresser dans le sens du poil). If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences. It is not a threat but our relations will no longer be what they are today.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, Giles Merritt, director of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels, summed it up this way:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform. They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do.”

Men nogle danser videre. Helle Thorning Schmidt mener, med de mange Kinnock-millioner i banken, at Europa sagtens kan tage en million flygtninge fra syrien fordi “disse mennesker flygter fra den mest forfærdelige krig, vi nogensinde har set i vores baggård“. Selv om det var sandt (Ifølge Syrian Observatory for Human Rights er halvdelen af de dræbte mig bekendt Assad-tro kombattanter. Der er også Saddams gasning af kurderne i 1988 er huske på. GIAs kampagne af halshugninger og lemlæstelser af hele landsbyer op gennem 90erne. Åh ja, kolonikrigen i Algeriet i 50erne og den græske borgerkrig i slutningen af 40erne) så har vi intet at gøre med med den baggård. Den må passe sig selv og sine udlevede grusomheder. Imens vil vi andre ud af EU og dens korrupte elites fordeling af importerede elendigheder.

Brexit vender kåberne

Dansk Folkeparti, Demografi, Diverse, EU, England, Euro, Forår?, Ytringsfrihed, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 8, 2016 at 10:36 am

De fleste politikere flyder, som alle andre karrieremagere, stolt med strømmen. For eller imod EU handler om, hvad der er opportunt, hvorfor både højre og venstre side af salen mener at det er godt med fælles løsninger i EU regi, så meget endda, at ægte national selvstændighed kun kan opnås gennem kommissionens diktater. Så hvad sker der med dette konsensus når stemningen vender, som vi ser i England? De hurtige med rettidigt omhu, orienterer sig forsigtigt mod nye tider. Som Altinget citerer Syed Kamall, “britisk konservativ og leder af den EU-skeptiske ECR-gruppe i Parlamentet, som også tæller Dansk Folkeparti”

De fleste i leave-lejren ønsker faktisk ikke at forlade EU. De ønsker en ny afstemning baseret på bedre betingelser“,

En ængstelig kampagne fra den front, med andre ord. Hjertet ikke rigtig med, mere frygt for at stå på den forkerte side af en folkestemning. Økonomen Nouriel Roubini advarede om at et Brexit kunne starte en kædereaktion af uafhængighedsbevægelser i Europa, der kunne betyde enden for EU

“It would create a huge amount of uncertainty, about not just Britain but the future of the European Union,” Roubini said of a British exit, or Brexit, from the bloc. If Britons vote to leave the EU in the public referendum scheduled for June, Roubini told Bloomberg, “you could have the beginning of the end of the European Union.”

Roubini, who earned the moniker Dr. Doom for his accurate prediction of the 2008 financial crisis, said a Brexit would catalyze other breakaway movements across Europe. Scottish separatists would gain momentum in their desire to leave the U.K., while the Catalan independence movement would press harder to split from Spain, the New York University economist predicted. A long-feared Greek exit, or Grexit, could soon follow.

But even less restive states could be spurred to action, Roubini said, including nations like Sweden that are members of the EU but do not participate in the eurozone monetary union.

(…)

Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, has indicated that even though the U.K. doesn’t use the euro, the country’s exit could destabilize the eurozone. A Brexit “would have implications of a systemic nature, and these would not be positive for the European monetary union,” Draghi said earlier this year.

Og økonomen Jim Mellon advarer englænderne mod at blive ombord og ““sinking with the European ship.””

Mr. Mellon — referred to be some as ‘Britain’s answer to Warren Buffett’ — has concluded from his assessment of the current economic climate that Britain is “better off outside the European Union in a comfortably appointed lifeboat in the English Channel, as the Euro Titanic sinks to the bottom of the ocean.”

The reason Mr. Mellon’s assessment is worth listening to is because he was one of the few economists to forecast the most recent economic recession, correctly predicting that the U.S. housing crisis would be the “trigger” for that in his book ‘Wake Up!: Survive and Prosper in the Coming Economic Turmoil’.

Mr. Mellon sets out what he says are the clear reasons for the impending collapse. France and Italy are in “debt traps,” meaning the are not able to grow their way out of evermore expanding debts.

Meanwhile, structural reforms are not available to a French government prevented from employing such measures by striking workers, and in Italy the banks are in “perilous trouble”, as reported previously by Breitbart London. For these reasons, Mr. Mellon says:

“France and Italy are probably going to be the key factors in the implosion of the Eurozone.”

Mr. Mellon concedes that “most people don’t talk about it,” but adds “most people didn’t talk about the coming U.S. housing crisis in 2006.”

He gives it about three to five years before a “big problem in the bond markets in Europe” which will lead to the collapse of the euro and a “continent-wide depression.” Merely being outside the Eurozone will not be enough to shield us from harm at that time, Mr. Mellon says, as:

“For sure, we will be invited or forced to join in a bailout no matter what the various treaties and so forth say.”

Evidencing this he cites the examples of the Greek and Irish bailouts, and extra money paid into the EU despite Prime Minister Cameron’s pledge that such payments would be made “over his dead body.” He states that “we can’t believe anything that Cameron and Osborne say about their future actions in regard to solidarity with Europe if France and Italy go bust” — something he believes is “a certainty”.

Mr. Mellon does identify a potential for rejoining a “genuinely reformed European Union post that event”, but he sees the UK as being “better off” outside the EU.

Concluding with his “bottom line message as a businessman, as an economist, as someone who has got a good record in forecasting” he reiterates that staying in the EU will leave us in “deep trouble” and “sinking with the European ship.”

Jeg kan anbefale Brexit - The Movie, hvis man på nogen måde har kunnet overse den, eller som en variation Paul Joseph Watson - hvis man kan holde hans anmassende facon ud. Men Nigel Farage fortjener

The Establishment strikes back

Der synes at være et skred i vesterlændingenes erkendelse, som Kim Møller beskriver på Uriasposten

Norbert Hofer fra Haiders frihedsparti var blot 31.000 stemmer fra at blive præsident i Østrig, og med Marine Le Pen i Frankrig og et muligt Brexit i England er nationalstaterne så småt ved at vågne. En meningsmåling giver sågar Donald Trump en svag føring over Hillary Clinton, og man kan roligt sige at status quo har rykket sig til højre for midten. Måske er der noget apolitisk politikerlede over det, i lighed med Pegida-bevægelsen, men kræsenhed er en luksus vi ikke har råd til at have. Den stemning, følelse eller populisme der kan mindske skaderne ved masseindvandringen er den rette. Uden forbehold.

Herhjemme er Nye borgerlige det bedste bud på et paradigmeskifte, for selvom Martin Henriksen på sin vis er skarp nok, så har partiet valgt ikke at satse med ultimatummer, der i værste fald, kunne sætte partiet femten år tilbage. Et DF der ikke er medansvarlig for masseindvandringen, er desværre også et DF helt uden indflydelse. Problemet er ikke bare, at et ultimatum risikerer at gøre Mette Frederiksen til statsminister, men at Thulesen-Dahl hermed også gør sig selv til statsministerkandidat for en mulig mindretalsregering uden mandater til at vedtage andet end velkomstflyers på arabisk.

Men det etablerede giver sig ikke uden kamp. For den er magten blevet sit eget indhold og den den ser ud til at ville ofre alt, selv befolkningen, for en forlængelse. “The President of the unelected executive arm of the European Union (EU) has vowed to block all right wing populists from power across the continent, shortly after acquiring the power to exert “far-reaching sanctions” on elected governments.” hedder det på Breitbart

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote.

“There will be no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” the liberal bureaucrat told AFP.

The FPÖ has been Austria’s top-polling political force for some time. However, after leading the pack for most of the presidential race, the right-wing candidate lost out by 0.6 per cent to the Green party, after the inclusion of postal votes, and months of Europe’s mainstream media calling the centre-right populist “far right”.

Right wing populists are periodically topping the polls across the continent – in France,SwedenHolland, and now Austria – and anti-migrant populists are already in power inHungaryPoland, and the Czech Republic.

Mr. Junker’s definition of “far right” is somewhat broad, noted by him previouslydescribing Hungary’s conservative president, Viktor Orbán, as a “fascist.”

With the continent-wide democratic surge to the right, the anti-democratic Commission could be in for a challenge in their attempt to exclude each and every elected government they deem to be “far right.”

However, as of 2014, the Commission was handed a batch of new powers that it could plausibly use to do just this – powers already being mobilised against Poland’s elected, conservative leaders.

The Commission can now trigger a “rule of law mechanism” (Article 7 TEU) againstnations it perceives as deviating from “the common constitutional traditions of all Member States.” Ultimately, “far-reaching sanctions” can be exerted, and a country can be stripped of all voting rights in the EU and have funding blocked.

Og for at puste til min egen snigende paranoia, så kan det se ud til at man undgik at gøre brug af “Article 7 TEU” ved at håndtere problemet på et nationalt niveau

The election victory of Alexander Van der Bellen, former head of the Austrian Green party, against Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) candidate Norbert Hofer, saw one of the tightest results in Austrian electoral history.

The former Green leader won the vote by a mere 0.6 per cent after postal ballots had been counted. Some are sceptical of the results and one case in particular has given pause.

The town of Waidhofen an der Ybbs has, on the Austrian Interior Ministry website, a stunning result: 146.9 per cent of the town voted, Stern reports.

According to the Interior Ministry website a total of 13,262 people had voted with 12,559 of the votes cast being regarded as valid which is still estimated to be more people than actually reside in the town.

The Interior Ministry came out and claimed that the entire result was simply a technical glitch and Robert Stein, chairman of the Electoral Department of the Interior, said the problem was an input error on behalf of one of their staff.

Man tror efterhånden det værste, men muligvis var det blot en fejl med alle de stemmer. I USA møder mange døde mennesker op for at give deres stemme

See, for example, this story out of Florida. Or this story out of North Carolina. Or this story, wherein a convicted fraudulent voter and poll worker in Ohio was cheered at a Democrat-sponsored anti-ID rally in Ohio. Or these instances of elected Democrats being charged and convicted of illegal voting. While you’re at it, don’t forget about Rhode Island’s voter ID law, passed by a Democratic legislature and co-sponsored by black Democrats who stated that they’d personally witnessed fraud. The anti-voter ID crowd must be forced to explain just how much fraud they’re willing to accept.  Double voting, non-citizens voting, dead people voting, etc.  I’ll leave you with a friendly reminder that there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in support of these common sense laws.

Men man behøver nu ikke vække de døde, hvis man kan importere en zombiehær, til at udslette de sidste rester af folkets vilje, hvis det står til Hillary Clinton, der ser ud til at ville ophæve grænsen til Mexico, skriver Breitbart

“I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either,” Clintondeclared in March. Clinton’s pledge not to enforce U.S. immigration law as President represents an essentially unprecedented departure from the nation’s history of enforcing immigration law.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian described Clinton’s pledge as “a breathtaking step toward open borders.”

As the Washington Post reported: “Clinton’s pledge not to deport any illegal immigrants except violent criminals and terrorists represents a major break from President Obama, and it could vastly increase the number of people who would be allowed to stay in the country.”

Clinton’s vision erases entirely the protections that U.S. immigration laws are supposed to afford American citizens: such as protecting Americans from losing a job to an illegal immigrant, preventing the sapping of school and hospital resources, as well as defending the voting privileges and enfranchisement of U.S. citizens (giving citizenship to illegal immigrants allows them to cancel out the votes of native-born American citizens).

The implication of Clinton’s platform– i.e. that illegal entry is not in and of itself a deportable offense–represents a central pillar of the open borders credo: namely, that millions of people can illegally come to the country, take jobs, attend U.S. schools, receive affirmative action, apply for federal benefits, and give birth to children who receive birthright citizenship.

Moreover, waiting until after a violent conviction has been obtained to deport an illegal alien means that immigration laws were enforced far too late–i.e. they were not enforced until after an American was victimized, raped, or murdered by a criminal alien. A federal policy that waits to enforce immigration laws until after there is a criminal conviction would mean admitting and releasing criminals by the hundreds of thousands, and letting them roam free until after they have committed a crime, and have been apprehended, tried, and convicted for that crime.

Samme vision om international socialisme har Københavns Sundheds- og Omsorgsborgmester Ninna Thomsen, der vil give asylansøgere stemmeret til kommunalvalg. Begrundelsen er følgende

- København er en international storby, hvor der er mange, som kommer til. Det er både internationale studerende og folk, som i kortere eller længere perioder skal arbejde her. Og så er vi begyndt at modtage flygtninge igen.

- Nu er det på tide at sige, at de mennesker, som bor i byen, skal have indflydelse på Københavns udvikling fra dag ét, siger hun.

Uh, en dejlig leg med begreber, som venstrefløjen kitter deres logik op på. Man kan sagtens beskrive København som en international storby ud fra en eller anden betragtning om dens forbindelser til omverdenen og den kuturelle, videnskabelig, kulturelle osv output. Det er beskrivelser, men faktuelt er København en dansk by. Faktisk er København nationens hovedstad.

PS: Det tidligere medlem af det etablerede Helle Thornings tidligere rådgiver Noa Reddington foreslår i Politiken i samme angst for folket at spærregrænsen hæves fra 2 til 4 procent så man undgår at skulle forholde sig til “Nye Borgerliges balstyriske formand” Pernille Vermund og Dansk Samlings ’sammenbidte og svedende’ formand Morten Urhskov Jensen.

Fredens projekt

Demografi, Diverse, EU, England, Erdogan, Fascisme, Historie, Indvandring, Multikultur, Muslimer, Terror, Tyskland — Drokles on May 13, 2016 at 4:49 am

Selv som teenager købte jeg ikke postulatet om EF, siden EU, som fredens garant i Europa. Jeg forstod, selv med mit ringe kendskab til den store verden, at politikerne optrådte som kvaksalere, betlende slangeolie mod alle dårligdomme. Både Den Kolde Krig og den stille observation at demokratier ikke havde præcedens for at gå i flæsket på hinanden var indlysende argumenter for mit unge sind, som blæste ideen om en unions fortræffeligheder og et par handelsaftalers mirakelvirkning væk. Jeg har aldrig fået en EF/EU tilhænger til at forklare præcis hvad det er for en krig, som EU har forhindret. Kul- og Stål unionen skulle hindre endnu en tysk-fransk konflikt og da den var en fransk opfindelse måtte man mene at det var tyskerne man burde stoppe. Så hvem var den næste Hitler? Adenauer? Erhard? Kiesinger? Brandt? Smith? Kohl? Hvilke af disse gale hunde blev holdt i skak af Unionen?

Så indlysende var den indsigt for mig at den er blevet siddende så fast i alle årene at jeg end ikke gad overveje at læse Kasper Støvrings sikkert glimrende bog Fortællingen om Fredens Europa - Georg Metz kunne ikke lide den, så den må være ret god - fordi det er anstrengende at blive bekræftet i egne forestillinger. Og påstanden om EUs fredskabende egenskaber er da også på retræte, måske især efter EU hovent paraderede sin impotens overfor Rusland, mens det æggede Ukraine. Og så var der jo Jugoslavien i 90′erne. Men herhjemme er ikke i England, der står overfor at skulle bestemme sig om de overhovedet vil være medlem af, hvad der i stigende grad ligner en taberklub. Og med en mistillidserklæring fra vælgerne truende i horisonten, bliver systemets mænd endnu mere stålsatte på at benytte de metoder der ikke virker, blot mere intenst. I dette tilfælde argumentet om EU som fredens projekt, hvor premierminister David Cameron direkte advarede om at et Brexit ville kaste Europa ud i krig.

I Guardian kaldte Simon Jenkins Camerons historieskrivning for “rubbish” og “Project Fear gone mad” og mindede om Camerons forgænger Salisbury, der navngav sin politik “splendid isolation”

The best thing that happened to medieval England was its defeat in the hundred years war and the end of English ambitions on the continent of Europe. The best thing to happen in the 16th century was Henry VIII’s rejection of the pan-European papacy. The wisest policy of his daughter, Elizabeth I, was an isolationism so rigid that she rejected one continental suitor after another. Britain fought off all attempts by France and Spain to restore European Catholicism, and accepted a Dutch and a German monarch strictly on the basis of British parliamentary sovereignty.

Cameron’s 18th-century predecessor was Robert Walpole, author of Walpole’s Peace. Its meticulous isolation from Europe’s conflicts brought Britain a golden age of enlightenment and industrial revolution. In 1734, Walpole could proudly tell the Queen: “Madam there are 50,000 men slain this year in Europe, and not one an Englishman.”

Even William Pitt’s creation of a British empire was based on staying explicitly aloof from the seven years’ war on the continent of Europe. Later, while Horatio Nelson’s victories were essential to British interests, the Waterloo campaign could hardly, on David Cameron’s terms, have been avoided by earlier intervention. Nor did Napoleon Bonaparte pose a serious threat to Britain.

I Telegraph mindede Nigel Jones ligeledes om en af Camerons konservative forgængere, nemlig Pitt the Younger, der som argument for at stå imod Napoleons tyranni sagde at det var englands rolle atSave Europe by her example”. Og et Brexit kunne meget vel være et eksempel med en domino-effekt indikerer meningsmålinger. Som kontrast beskrev han Camerons horistont med Goebbels diktum om at folk vil tro en løgn, blot den er stor nok. For mens EUs grundlæggere “distrusted democracy, which they believed had brought dictators and demagogues to power, and determined that their project would create a post-democratic new order, imposed by stealth step by step on their blissfully ignorant populations” peger Jones på at unioner ser ud til at kollapse, nogengange endda i et kaos af krig.

The history of EU-style multinational federations imposed by an elite from above in Europe is not a happy one. From the frayed patchworks of the  Holy Roman and Hapsburg Austrian Empires, down to the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they have invariably ended in bloody chaos, and then the peace and quiet of the graveyard.

Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.

Gorbachev was speaking before the long arm of EU meddling reached as far as Ukraine, causing that vast country to split in two and threaten  war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia – a slow-burn crisis that may yet erupt once more into open conflict.

Back in the 1990s, the total failure of EU diplomacy helped speed former Yugoslavia into a brutal ethnic civil war. A fragile peace was finally imposed on those troubled lands not by the EU, but by Nato bombs and arm twisting backed by the Atlantic alliance’s  military muscle.

Og Oberst Richard Kemp var Telegraph endnu mere konkret i hvorledes EU ville underminere freden

A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate to which the EU is openly committed. It would also provide an excuse for struggling economies to slash defence budgets. Few nations take defence seriously enough to spend even the 2 per cent of GDP required by Nato, a shortcoming criticised by President Obama in Germany last month. An EU army will see these nations cut back even further, cynically pretending that defences are strengthened even as forces and capabilities are merged and downsized.

(…)

As well as depleted strength and capability, the aggregated European forces will beemasculated by a lack of political will. After Iraq and Afghanistan the West is paralysed, with governments terrified of committing ground forces to any conflict. An EU command structure, fraught with divergent and opposing policy agendas, will turn paralysis into rigor mortis. Look at the EU’s long track record of vacillation, timidity and inaction on the Balkans, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, the immigration crisis and the Islamic State.

None of our enemies is going to take an EU army seriously. Its creation would undermine one of the most critical virtues of a strong and credible defence: deterring an aggressor from action they might be forced to regret.

Og i Breitbart perspektiverede samme Kemp

The EU failed to prevent the migration crisis that threatens to overwhelm many European cities and the housing, welfare, health, and education services paid for by the hard work of citizens who have been allowed no say.

The EU failed to deploy effective naval forces along the North African coast to prevent illegal immigration across the Mediterranean. Such action, used to great effect by Australia, would not only have prevented the landing of countless unregulated immigrants on our shores but would also have saved thousands of lives and sent a firm message to both immigrants and traffickers.

It was self-doubt and a desire to expunge the sins of the past rather than strong and principled leadership that led Europe’s most powerful politician unilaterally to invite in migrants from the corners of the earth, to transform German cities and to assault and rape German girls. A policy that opened the doors of Europe to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants, including many young men of fighting age who abandoned their families and their countries; and closed the doors to genuine refugees.

Timorous EU countries failed to take military action against Assad’s regime in Syria when he crossed the chemical weapons ‘red line’. Action that could have ended his reign of terror and prevented the intervention of Russia and Iran that has solidified his position and exacerbated the migrant crisis.

Fearful EU members failed even to contemplate setting up protected safe havens in Syria, where millions of beleaguered people could have taken refuge without the need to move to other countries. This would have required boots on the ground but, terrified by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, few if any EU states are prepared to countenance that. Physical danger was not their only fear; they were also afraid to act without United Nations authorization, which would have been vetoed by Russia.

Now, bullied and blackmailed by President Erdogan, the EU is now allowing visa free access to Europe for 70 million Turks and is well on the way to admitting Turkey to full EU membership. Not only will this push back the borders of the EU to Iran, Iraq and Syria, but it will also lead to yet another massive population shift in Europe, without consultation further transforming the way of life of its citizens.

This is the peace and security provided by the EU today.

EU som fredens projekt er en løgn ingen længere gider høre. Kun de mest desperate gider fortsat fortælle den. England forlader EU, EU falder fra hinanden - med lidt held.

brexit

Godt nytår, med lidt TV

Der var måske kun et konservativt lyspunkt i strømmen af Hendes majestæt Dronningens feel-good slørede almindeligheder nytårs aften.

I januar så vi først det chokerende attentat mod det franske satireblad i Paris, og godt en måned senere oplevede vi så det dobbelte attentat i Krudttønden og ved Synagogen i Krystalgade i København. To danskere mistede livet, og vi sad alle tilbage med chokket og forfærdelsen – terroren var nået til os.

Et os og et dem. Og hvem er det? To danskere mistede livet. det er os, for vi så det chokerende og vi oplevede det selv og sad forfærdede tilbage. Omar døde også. Han er terroren. Han er terroren.

Åh jo, så gik Prins Henrik på pension, hvilket var den store nyhed for formiddagspressen. En af Prinsgemalens arbejdsopgaver var tilsyneladende at sortere Hendes Majestæt Dronningens talepapirer, en opgave Hendes Majestæt Dronnningen åbenlyst for første gang selv skulle klare.

Igen i år stod en imam for en del af nytårgudstjenesten. Det er lidt besynderligt fordi det kun er nytår efter den kristne kalender, som er en rimelig tilnærmning af Jordens rotation om Solen, mens den muslimske kalender er sat efter Månens faser. Og det er lidt besynderligt fordi en Gudstjeneste betyder at man tjener Gud og Gud er ikke Allah. Besynderligt var det også, men desværre ikke overraskende, at ingen reagerede da imamen sagde “De bedste af Jer, er dem der frygter Allah.“, som Uriaspostens Kim Møller fangede. Men ikke biskoppen, der sagde “Når vi indleder 2016 med bønnen Fadervor, øver vi os i at sige ‘vi’ og ikke ‘dem’.” Hmm, men de der frygter Allah er alligevel de bedste, om de så skal sætte et hoved på en stage for at hamre den pointe hjem.

Vi har en statsminister, der frem for rettidigt omhu kringler med den kortsigtede udvikling på bekostning af fremtiden, stadigt krejlende den danske offentlighed fri af de tydeligste konsekvenser. Statsministeren sagde, ja hvad sagde statministeren egentlig? Noget med at terroristerne ville vinde, hvis vi begyndte at frygte dem, for deres formål var at “Trække falske skillelinjer. Mellem Vesten og islam.” Jeg troede ellers målet var at pointere at “De bedste af Jer, er dem der frygter Allah“.

Og så sagde han at alle skal passe på vores land og skitserede han så hvorfor denne regering, som jeg ikke vil kalde landsforræddere da det er forbudt, ikke har tænkt sig at følge den opfordring

Vi kan ikke åbne Danmark for alle. Vi kan heller ikke vende ryggen til og hygge os i smug. Jeg vil kæmpe for at lede Danmark gennem migrations- og flygtningekrisen på en måde, så vi kan kende vores land, mens krisen står på - og genkende det, når vi er igennem. Med vores økonomi, vores sammenhængskraft og vores værdier i behold. For lad os være ærlige over for hinanden - vi er udfordret:

Så vi lukker så mange ind der skal til for at ødelægge landet, hvorefter denne generation skal kunne se sig selv i øjnene og sig, vi gjorde hvad vi kunne. Det hedder at “holde antallet af asylansøgere på et fornuftigt niveau.” Vores efterkommere vil have arvet et Libanon i mange generationer. For selv om statsministeren luftede grænsekontrol mod Tyskland når Sverige strammer deres grænsekontrol, så er regeringen fokus et: “Vi vil sikre ro. Vi vil sikre orden.” Ikke sikre lov. Ikke sikre Danmark. Politiet eskorterer flygtningene, spyttemænd spottes, regeringen tvinger migranter ud i alle egne af landet, så ingen går ram forbi af den nye orden. Og det hele sker under rolige forhold, så Løkke og Stampe kan se hinanden i øjnene, deres selvbilleder bevaret. Der er mere end to ‘dem og os’.

I den franske by Valence blev en ‘bilist’ skudt og såret, da han forsøgte at køre fire soldater ned, der besynderligt nok var udkommanderet til at bevogte en moske. I München blev togstationer evakuerede, da Politiet advarede om forestående terrorangreb. Men det er også alt det tyske politi vil advare om, skriver Bild ifølge Daily Mail, da den ikke vil skræmme folk unødigt om den bølge af kriminalitet, der skylder over Tyskland under navnet syriske flygtninge. I Bruxelles afblæste byens borgmester “den planlagte festivitas”, der sidste år havde deltagelse af 100.000 mennesker “da det ifølge myndighedernes skøn [var] for risikabelt”, skriver Danmarks Radio. Velkommen til en ny normal. Europa er nu i en permanent terrortistand, som Israel har været i mange år

Boykot Israel, mærk jøden

BDS bevægelsen har kronede dage. Den tilbyder på samme måde som klimahysteriet, den gængse venstrefløjser et pseudo problem at engagere sig i så man kan undgå at se realiteterne i øjnene lidt endnu. BDS står for Boycut, Divest, Sanction og er rettet imod Israel - selvfølgelig. Herunder er en lille film, hvor man kan se hvilket sentiment, der er kernen i bevægelsen, hvor blindt hadet til Israel er og hvor dybt det ligger

A few months ago, Israeli TV News anchor Dany Cushmaro, travelled to US campuses to meet with anti-Israel activists and see how they campaign against Israel.

The interviews were revealing: Watch

Selv feministiske akademikere vil boykotte Israel i solidaritet med deres arabiske søstre, skriver The Daily Beast. Herunder en repræsentant for den jødisk-amerikanske gruppe CODEPINK, der er taget til Israel for at boykotte Israel

codepink1-boykotter-israel-i-israel

Adrienne Yaron skrev i Jerusalem Post at “BDS demonstrations are an opportunity for them to spew anti-Semitic vitriol and express their vicious hatred of the Jewish state. BDS’ only real power is in propagating its hateful ideology”. Realiteterne er nemlig, at der ikke er tale om en real eller realistisk boykot, fordi ingen vil boykotte nyttig viden, avanceret teknologi eller livsvigtig medicin. Og, forsætter Yaron med at forklare…

BDS’ own website only instructs its supporters to boycott “fresh produce, Ahava, and Sodastream.” Ahava and Sodastream are both great companies, but they hardly constitute a major percentage of Israel’s export sales. Moreover, these two companies probably benefit by increased sales from Israel supporters because they are the only two individually-named targets of the boycott movement. As for “fresh produce”, this stopped being a major export of Israel decades ago. Fresh fruits and vegetables now constitute only about 3.6% of Israel’s total exports. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of Israel’s fresh vegetable market is to Russia - a nation that has shown little interest in the boycott bandwagon and a lot of interest in feeding its population. Both India and China have also been steadily growing their market share for Israeli produce, and there is little doubt than any sales drop in Europe will be outbalanced by an increase from these giants.

So in fact, all the huffing and puffing of the anti-Israel “BDS” crowd is nothing more than hot air. The BDS movement has not, and will never have, any significant economic effect on Israel’s overall economy, because Israel’s economy is grounded in products and services that effectively cannot be boycotted. In fact, financial analysts are predicting Israel’s economy will grow more than any other developed country in 2016. Even these academic association resolutions are hypocritical and phony. If you read the texts of them, they specifically allow for “individual members” to continue working with “individual Israeli scholars” - in other words, these hypocritical professors don’t actually have to give up anything, or stop any research projects with Israelis. They make their nasty, defamatory statement, and continue business with their Israeli colleagues as usual.

Denne hadefulde ideologi blomstrer i EU (også herhjemme, men ikke i Tjekkiet) som Caroline Glick skriver i Jerusalem Post

Take for instance the timing of the EU’s first official act of open economic warfare against Israel.

On July 29, 2013 US Secretary of State John Kerry brought the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams together in Washington to officially launch a new round of peace talks.

The same day, the EU announced that starting at the beginning of 2014, it would be ending all joint projects with and all funding from the EU and its member governments of Israeli entities located or operating in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights. The only exceptions to the funding and cooperation ban were Israeli organizations working to harm Israeli control over the areas, and non-Jewish Israeli entities.

The message was obvious. As far as Europe is concerned, “the peace process,” isn’t a means to achieve peace. It is a means of criminalizing Israel.

This week’s labeling guidelines were no surprise. They were promised two years ago.  We have also known for years, that neither the funding ban nor the product labeling are ends to themselves.

In May 2013, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linus Linkevicius told the Jerusalem Post that the labeling policy is merely a preparatory step on the road towards implementing the EU’s ultimate objective: a full economic boycott of Israel.

(…)

Then there are the NGOs.

As NGO Monitor President Prof. Gerald Steinberg has been demonstrating for more than a decade, Europe uses NGO’s registered in Israel to advance its aggressive policies against Israel. The EU and its member states use these groups to get Israeli cover for their anti-Israel policies. They pay them to produce films and publish reports slandering Israel and calling for a boycott of its economy and the isolation of its government and citizens. The EU and its members then use these products they ordered and paid for as “proof” of Israeli criminality, which in turn justifies their aggression against the Jewish state.

Take Ir Amim for instance. Ir Amim works to deny the legitimacy of Israeli control over unified Jerusalem. In 2014 it received funding from the EU, and the governments of Holland, Norway and Sweden.

In 2010, the group called on the US government to cut off diplomatic ties with Israel or, at a minimum end its foreign aid to the Jewish state. Ir Amim supported and defended Britain’s decision to prohibit the Tourism Ministry from noting that the Western Wall is in Israel.

What all this boils down to is the plain fact that the EU is waging a political and economic war against Israel that is based on a comprehensive, well-conceived strategy that uses the EU’s strengths to their best advantage.

(…)

Consider the timing of this week’s announcement. The EU chose to announce it is labeling Jewish products the same week that we commemorate Kristallnacht – the 1938 pogrom which marked the official beginning of the Holocaust.

For many Europeans, no doubt the timing was fortuitous rather than ironic.

In Sweden, out of “concern for their members’ safety,” Jewish groups were barred from participating in official Kristallnacht commemorations.

Then there are the Netherlands.

MK Hanin Zoabi, who can’t open her mouth without slandering Israel, was invited to deliver remarks at a Kristallnacht remembrance ceremony in Amsterdam. No doubt the organizers knew what they were going to get when they called her. Zoabi compared Israel to Nazi Germany for them.

For an ever growing number of Europeans, castigating Israel as the new Nazi Germany means absolution for the crime of the Holocaust. By transforming the Jews into Nazis, Europeans can shrug their shoulders at the fact that most of the nations of Europe collaborated with the Germans in their genocide of European Jewry.

Og, tilføjede Eugene Kontorovich i New York Times 13 november, så er EUs mærkningsordning endda i strid med EUs egne principper

What has largely escaped notice is that the labeling policy violates the European Union’s own express policy on such issues. The commission primarily justifies labeling as a necessary tool to provide consumers with the information that it does not regard the territories “as part of Israel.” However, European Union and national authorities that have addressed the issue have clearly ruled that special labeling is not required in such situations — neither for consumer protection nor to reflect the European Union’s view of the underlying sovereign status of territories.

Thus the European Union allows Morocco — which has extensive trade ties with Europe, but has occupied Western Sahara since 1975, and populated it heavily with settlers — to export products from its occupied territory labeled “Made in Morocco.” When challenged, the commission formally declared that labeling such goods as “made in” Morocco is not misleading, and is consistent with European trade agreements.

Also, European courts have considered the consumer protection rationale specifically in the context of Israeli products, and rejected it. Just last year, the British Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving Ahava beauty products produced in the West Bank, that “there was no basis for saying that the average consumer would be misled” by a “Made in Israel” label. The court held that such labeling was not deceptive as a matter of both British and European Union law.

The problem is not that the European Union fails to live up to its standards in some cases, like that of Morocco. Rather, in these other cases the union explicitly denies the existence of these standards. Such inconsistency is not just hypocrisy. It is a legal violation in its own right. The European Union’s foundational treaties require regulatory “consistency.” And discrimination against trading partners represents a core violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other treaties of the World Trade Organization, as the law professor Avi Bell and I have shown in detail in a recent paper. The union’s labeling guidelines are manifestly discriminatory, as they apply only to Israel.

The World Trade Organization treaties establish the legal framework for international commerce. Under the W.T.O.’s nondiscrimination requirement, it is impermissible to apply trade rules and restrictions to some member countries and not to others. And the W.T.O.’s protections apply not just to a country’s sovereign territory, but also to areas of its “international responsibility,” such as occupied territories. The United States, with international approval, received the benefit of its international trade treaties even in territories it occupied in World War II, as well as in the Panama Canal Zone, where it made no claim of sovereignty. There is nothing novel about a country’s receiving full trade rights for nonsovereign areas under its administration.

The United States has a great deal riding on the integrity of the international trading system. But the European Union labeling threatens to establish a precedent that would allow politicization of the system, undermining United States economic interests in broad and unpredictable ways. Thus it is not surprising that earlier this year, the United States passed a law opposing such European Union measures against Israel.

Making special rules for Israel has the undesired effect of reducing Israel’s incentives to take international law seriously: If the goal posts can be moved, there is less reason to play the game. As a putative role model for international law, the European Union’s greatest weapon is its probity and consistency. By damaging that, it harms its ability to set the global agenda.

Men hvad er principper mellem lumre jødehadere?

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress