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!

Krakkelerer meningsmålingtyranniet?

“Democrat Hillary Clinton has a 9-point lead over Republican Donald Trump in Ohio following the news of Trump’s vulgar talk about women and after the second debate between the candidates, according to a statewide poll released today by Baldwin Wallace University in Berea.” kunne man læse for to uger siden på Cleveland.com. Gode nyheder for Hillary Clintons kampagne da Ohio er en vigtig sving-stat.

Mange meningsmålinger, der giver Hillary Clinton et stort forspring er blevet masseret og medierne kolporterer dem ukritisk, men de forvrænger billedet af, hvad der er betydningsfuldt og hvad der er ligegyldigt. En mere en 10 år gammel optagelse af en lummer Donald Trump fra dengang han optrådte i radioprogrammer med sin lummerhed, blæses op til en skandale, mens Hillarys skrantende helbred, kriminelt lemfældige omgang med fortrolige oplysninger og hendes udsalg af amerikansk udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik til fremmede og fjendtlige magter. Imens tæskes Trumps tilhængere til vælgermøder. Det er ikke gratis at afsløre sine sympatier, hvis ikke  de harmonerer med det venstreorienterede mediekonsensus.

Et konsensus er stærkt fordi det demoraliserer modet til at sige sin mening og endda tale sandhed. Fortællingen om et konsensus kan fortrænge kritik og hvis det er vedholdende længe nok ændre mentaliteten hos en befolkning. Men et konsesus fortrænger også evnen til selvkritik og tiltrækker eftersnakker, hysterikere og ja-mænd og begynder hurtigt at udhule sin egen troværdighed. Diskrepansen mellem en stadigt grummere virkelighed overfor en stadigt mere virkelighedsfjern ekspertise får autoriteterne til at tage sig stadigt mere fjollede ud. Det ender i Komiske Ali, men vejen går over talkshows

Being President is a tough job. It’s one of the only jobs where you get a new approval rating every day. Now that we have this thing called social media, the President gets hundreds of judgments every hour of every day, many of them unpleasant. For the second time, President Obama has agreed to read them for our second-ever Presidential Edition of #MeanTweets.

Det kan være at Obama er ganske charmerende og demonstrerer en bedre komisk timing end hans pap-lignende tv-vært. Indrømmet, Obama som stand-up komiker er mere overbebevisende end Hiullary Clinton, som muskelbundt. Men er det virkeligt overbevisende at den amerikanske præsident og en fri tv-station i et stykke velforberedt politisk propaganda? Får den tavse vælger en fornemmelse af at Obama og Hillary kampagne står med de gode kort på hånden? Tænker den tavse vælger ikke at medierne virkeligt er i lommen på Hillary Clintons kampagne?

Donald Trumps slogan hedder “Make America Great Again!”. Modsat Trumps højenergiske selvcentrerede retorik, som “I’m gonna build a big beautiful wall”, “And I’m rich, I mean, I’m really, really rich!” og “I’ll grab ‘em by the pussy!”, så er hans slogan helt uden afsender. Det er en appel eller et bud og det er op til at alle, politikere, vælgere, medier, at gøre USA fantastisk igen. Trump sælger, under alt sit vulgære bravado, et budskab om fællesskab og ydmyghed og storhed.

Og, hvad handler det så om for den sjove, cool præsident Obama, der giver honnør med caffe latte, hvis budskab til iværksættere er “You did’nt build that!”, mens det var ham selv der fik ram på Osama bin Laden? “Well, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a president”. Så det kan godt være at han er den værste præsident i amerikansk historie, men ingen ulykker han kan lavet, er så slemme, at hans personlige ambition ikke er bedre.

Så er tvivlen begyndt at nage? Er der begyndt at være sprækker i den fortælling centrum venstre konsensus selv har konstrueret? For et par dage siden skrev det meget, meget venstredrejede Think Progress, at “?Ohio might turn out to be “Trump country” after all” fordi “Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat in Ohio, while Republican Sen. Rob Portman is trouncing former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland by more than 15 polling points“.

But before the president took the stage, Ohio Democratic Party chair David Pepper strode to the podium and, citing polls showing Donald Trump with a slight lead in the crucial swing state, launched into what he called a “pep talk.”

“Do you think we’re a Trump state, Ohio?”

“No,” the crowd roared.

“I don’t think so,” he called back to them. “We’re the state that elected President Obama in 2008 and 2012. We are the state that elects [Senator] Sherrod Brown, the progressive lion, again and again.”

“One more reminder,” he shouted as the crowd cheered. “Donald Trump couldn’t even win the primary here. This isn’t Trump country.”

Ked af det, men The Trump Train er på vej!

Et kup?

Donald Trumps Hollywood Walk of Fame er blevet smadret, skriver Deadline Hollywood, som Trumps tilhængere er blevet det igennem gennem hele valgkampen, skriver Lifezette. Hillary Clintons kampagne, med alle den mediestøtter og penge fra storfinansen er ikke ideologiske fascister, men deres modus operandi har antaget en fascistisk form, med semiorkestreret vold mod politiske modstandere og massiv propaganda. Det ligner et kup, skriver Peggy Ryan i American Thinker

Hillary has laughed off questions of a potential indictment since the beginning, sneered at suggestions that her scandal might keep her out of the White House.  Even more frightening than her confidence that she won’t be indicted is her unshakable faith that she’ll be elected.  Hillary’s not concerned about the coming election; she doesn’t campaign or hold press conferences, and she has few rallies.  It’s almost as if she doesn’t really need the votes.

That’s probably a good thing for her, since Hillary proved in the primaries that she can’t get the votes.  She had to cheat to beat Bernie Sanders, a 73-year-old socialist out of a win.  She had to tamp down Bernie supporters’ passion and enthusiasm and force them to accept her stale, depressing message.

The truth is, a large chunk of the Democrat base doesn’t like Hillary.  In fact, many can’t stand her.

So how is she winning?  I mean, that’s all we hear, right?  Hillary’s winning in a landslide, has a monumental lead that can’t be overcome.  Hillary’s shown to be winning because the media is  “with her,” or should I say “with them”?  Our once free press is working hand in hand with usurpers to engage in sedition and open treason; to defeat the Republican nominee, Donald Trump; and to impose a sick, evil woman, a criminal as our new leader.

To accomplish this goal, the press uses wartime psychological operations (psy ops), Soviet-style propaganda, and gaslighting to deceive, confuse, disrupt, and demoralize the enemy (that would be we).

Psyops Techniques:

False flags - staged events where the perpetrator is concealed and another party blamed.

  • The James O’Keefe videos show Democrat operatives bragging on how they stage violent protests at Trump rallies, that they have a national network to cover all locations.  The media are all in to blame Trump, paint him as an angry man who foments violence.

Shock and awe - the method of displaying overwhelming force or impressive technology to intimidate or demoralize an enemy.

  • Think polls, political experts who tell us it’s over, Hillary’s leads are insurmountable, there’s not enough time for Trump to “catch up.”

Propaganda:

  • Includes name-calling, manipulated statistics, and other techniques.  The media’s favorite is the bandwagon effect.  This tactic appeals to people’s desire to be on the winning team (”voters abandoning Donald Trump in droves” and “Hillary’s running away with the election”).

Gaslighting:

This is the left’s most insidious tool, based on deception and false information to make us doubt our own perceptions, our sanity.

  • Media show Trump getting trounced while they withhold more current data.  They dismiss as anecdotal (that’s the new buzzword for meaningless) empirical evidence that points to a Trump landslide – yard signs, bumper stickers, massive crowds, and unprecedented enthusiasm.  Their “experts” tell us the overflow cheering crowds mean nothing, don’t “translate” to votes.
  • And how many times must they tell us there is no voter fraud?  Yet O’Keefe has a video with a Democrat operative explaining how to accomplish mass voter fraud, and there’s mounting evidence to confirm voter fraud on a pandemic scale.

Psychological warfare leaves its victims feeling off balance, filled with self-doubt, isolated, and less likely to fight for our candidate.  This is the damage our media and government inflict on their own people.  The free press we’ve depended on to expose corruption, ensure fair elections, and protect democracy is now part of the corruption, rigging the elections, and defeating democracy.  Our protector turned assassin.

Now the media huddle with the left to plot their end run on democracy.  It’s a sprint to the finish line.  How far will they go?  All the way, folks.  I can see networks calling the race for Hillary even if they know it’s based on fraud.  I can picture Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, President Obama, our entire government and media telling us we must have a peaceful transition, that we can’t question the results under any conditions.  Oh, wait – they’re already doing that.

And now they’re setting up in case of a Trump landslide.  We could get “fake election results” by Russian hackers, they say.  There will be no “peaceful transition of power” if they lose.

Milo Yiannopoulos forklarer, veloplagt som altid, hvorledes mediernes demoraliserende meningsmålinger typisk bliver til

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.

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

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 forstyrrer en filmanmeldelse

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

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

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

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

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

Det er de gamles skyld

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

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

Monokultur kører på WordPress