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.

Det er sørgelige historier man kan læse om Venezuelas forsøg med socialisme. Ifølge True Activist, er der forekommet indbrud i zoologiske haver, hvor dyr er blevet slagtet og spist af sultne venezuelere. Og sultne venezuelere, der græder ved synet af fyldte supermarkeder, er der mange af, skriver CNN

Pregnant women, children and even elderly Venezuelans crossed into Colombia on Sunday after the border was temporarily reopened, allowing them to buy basic foods and toiletries — rare commodities in their home country.

Tearful Venezuelans had gone weeks without basic food items like milk, flour and toilet paper. It’s a sad but common part of daily life today in crisis-ridden Venezuela, a country that has the world’s largest proven reserves of oil. Colombian officials estimate that about 100,000 Venezuelans crossed the border.

Venezuela is expected to dive deeper into the abyss this year, according to new projections published Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF forecasts Venezuela’s economy will shrink 10% this year, worse than its previous estimate of 8%. It also estimates that inflation in Venezuela will catapult to 700% this year, up from the earlier guess of about 480%.

“Venezuela’s economic condition continues to deteriorate,” says Alejandro Werner, chief Latin America economist at the IMF. The estimates for growth and inflation are the worst worldwide.

The numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Venezuela is deep into a humanitarian crisis — people are dying in ill-equipped hospitals and many live without basic food items. Venezuela can’t pay to import goods because its government is desperately strapped for cash after years of mismanagement of its funds, heavy spending on poorly-run government programs, and lack of investment on its oil fields.

En af de socialistiske løsninger er livegenskab for staten. Her er en lidt ældre dokumentar fra 2014 om Venezuelas socialistiske virkelighed

Bolivarian Revolution (2003): Venezuela is bitterly divided — torn between those who support Chavez and those who oppose him. It has become so polarized, it’s paralysed.

For downloads and more information visit: http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=11140

Chavez’s supporters, the Chavistas, always carry a little blue book — the constitution of their elected president - and wear their hearts proudly on their sleeve: “He’s enlightened and protected by God,” comments one Chavista. But these feelings are by no means universal.

Despite the vast oil revenue, over 70% of the population live in poverty. Chavez came to power promising social reforms, but strikes have led to economic collapse. “His relationship with the poor is just empty rhetoric … his economic policies create more poor every day,” complains trade union leader Pablo Medina. During the 1990s he provided vital support for Chavez but now regards his former comrade as a class traitor.

Many of Chavez’s other supporters are starting to question his policies. The middle classes have lost confidence in the police and barricade themselves behind heavily armed compounds. Those who can are fleeing the country in droves. “If things keep going as they are, I think we could have a civil war,” states Fernando: “This is not a revolution. Ordinary people aren’t getting anything out of it. The only people benefiting from it are him and the people around him.”

Eller slavesyndrom, men tanken er at hvide skal betale til negre selv om negre også holdt negre som slaver hjemme i Afrika. Og det er ikke noget at grine af: “We still feel that pain. We suffer discrimination, we suffer from racism…in every walk of life.” Jamen, så skal de da også ha’!

Faktisk var negre den foretrukne vare som negre i Afrika handlede i med og da europærerne kom til Afrika blev resultatet af dette kultursammenstød til en stor international eksportvare, hvad negrene i Afrika anså som ganske fair trade. Eller, der var allerede et arabisk marked før europærerne begyndte sine relationer til Afrika og det fortsatte efter europærerne havde fortrudt at lade sin økonomi basere sig på sort energi. I Frontpage Magazine kan man læse

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.”

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

Imens i Venezuela, prøver man nu om livegenskab kan redde den socialistiske drøm inden slaveriet bliver nødvendigt.

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

(…)

These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2^nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

Ord som racist, islamofob og nazist har været i flittigt brug når relevante debatter skulle kvæles i vuggen og rationelle mennesker udskammes for at den forbrydelse at bringe viden til torvs. Vi har levet med det, selv om det har haft sine ofre, for i sidste ende slides fraser op. Og fordi man aner at de aggressioner, der ligger til grund for dem er en sikker indikation for, hvor desperat et standpunkt forsvares.

Det er selvfølgelig venstrefløjen, der i sin egen selvforståelse står så moralsk opløftet, at den ikke kan lade sig hæmme af nogen skam eller anstændighed. Den staår ikke til regnskab for nogen virkelighed fordi det fordømmelsesværdige ikke bare vil dø af sig selv. Men hvis ikke revolutionen æder sine børn, så gør storkapitalen det.

Sony Pictures har lanceret en ny udgave af den klassiske 80er gyserkomedie Ghostbusters. I stedet for at være den tredie i en række, har man valgt at relancere, hvad man håber bliver et franchise i stil med Avenger-universet, Ghostbusters i en ny origins fortælling. Altså at man starter historien forfra med en ny begyndelse.

Men kritikken begyndte at hagle ned over filmens kvalitet allerede da den første trailer blev offentliggjort, hvilket truede filmens succes og Sony Pictures profit. Så modsvaret blev at bekrige kritikerne ved at udskamme dem. hovedroller i Sony Pictures Ghostbusters er, i tidens frigørende ånd, alle kvinder (barnløse i øvrigt, på nær en). Følgeligt bliver enhver kritik misogyn, leveret af tabermænd, skimlede sikkert, som de bor alene eller i kælderen hjemme hos mor.

Ghostbusters tilblivelse ligner en parodi af Robert Altmans 90er film The Player. Det er svært at overbevise mange om at det mandlige publikum ikke bryder sig om kvindelige helte. Alien filmene, Hunger Games, den seneste Star Wars og de klassiske Emanuelle film har alle begejstret drenge og mænd. Gavin McInnes behøver kun et enkelt reklamefoto fra den nye Ghostbusters til at hegle hele konceptet ned - og svælge i herlig misogyni.

“Hvem var det, der vandt i dag, det var dem fra IS af!” skrev en god ven på Facebook. Erdogan tænkte måske det samme, i hvert fald udtalte han at det sørgelig forsøg på et kup var “en gave fra Allah”. Nogen konspirationsspekulerer i at det var en gave fra ham selv, som han har fået det til at handle om mere end nogle utilfredse officerer, der stod til at blive udrenset, med fyringen af 2700 dommere. Uanset hvad, skal nogle nok betale prisen, måske i form af likvideringer. Andre spekulerer i at Erdogans regime er blevet svækket grundet det ydmygende i hele miseren.

David P Goldman tegner i Asia Times et andet og mere dystert billede af Tyrkiets situation end den

Turkey faces a perfect storm of economic, political and foreign policy problems.

First, Turkey’s much-heralded economic growth spurt of the 2000’s has come to a grinding stop. The Erdogan boom, which inspired predictions that Turkey might emerge as another China, resembled the Asian experience less than it did the Latin American credidt bubbles of the 1980s or the American subprime bubble of the 2000s.

(…)

Secondly, Turkey’s internal cohesion is at risk due to the rapid increase of its Kurdish-speaking minority and the relative decline of the ethnic Turkish population.

The Kurdish demographic problem has led Erdogan into a political swamp from which he may not emerge. He won last year’s presidential election by stirring up national ardor against the Kurdish minority, and has kept the Kurdish southeast of the country in a low-level civil war since then. The leader of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party warned last March that Erdogan had brought Turkey to the brink of an ethnic war.

To prevent the Syrian Kurds from controlling the northern border of their country and linking up with their Iraqi compatriots, Erdogan covertly supported Sunni terrorists, including ISIS, as Michael Rubin explained last March in Newsweek. Erdogan’s back channel to ISIS blew up in Turkey’s face–literally–when ISIS suicide bombers killed 42 people and injured hundreds at the Istanbul Airport June 29.

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the foundation of the modern state, Turkey’s army acted as the guarantor of the country’s secular state. The Islamist Erdogan attempted to reverse that, jailing hundreds of military officers on a spurious charge of plotting  a coup in 2012. Most were released in 2014. Erdogan could not do without the military, however; his failed foreign policy made him dependent on the Turkish army, which reasserted its influence this year. Erdogan proudly called himself a “black Turk,” that is, a devout Muslim from the Anatolian hinterland, in contrast to the “White Turks,” the Europeanized secular party who came to power under Kemal Ataturk and ruled the country until the 2000s.

Jeg har ingen forhåbninger til Tyrkiet som den sekulære løgn Atatürk på imponerende kreerede. Det er bedre at se sine fjender, som det de er.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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?

“Fight Turns into Madness” hedder en af mange, mange videoer på Liveleak, hvor sorte amerikanere slås som galninge. Deres venner og naboer hujer og ægger på løjerne, der optages på smartphones. Alle slås, men negerkvotienten (et glimrende udtryk jeg har lånt) er tårnhøj. “FIGHT* ?-DOWNTOWN NEWARK MADNESS“, “Another Fight In The Hood* (10 Minutes Of Hood Madness)“, “ghetto fight“og måske en opfølger “epic ghetto fight part 2“, eller er det “another ghetto fight“? Og er “Woman Ghetto Fight” en spinoff? Piger er godt med og eksemplerne følger på hinanden i en sørgelig playliste.

Kay S. Hymowitz beskrev for City Journal sammenbruddet af den sorte familie og betydningen for adfærd

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.

Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.

Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.

Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU er det nye sort.

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!

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

Og historiske refererencer

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

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

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

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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

Information meddelte i en leder 3. juni at “Neoliberalismen er døende” på baggrund bl.a af “tre ledende økonomer fra den internationale valutafond, IMF, i juni-nummeret af Finance & Development fastslår, at neoliberalismen »ikke har leveret som forventet«” og dermed “lægger IMF-skribenterne sig op ad et voksende kor af økonomer og andre fagfolk, der i dag betegner neoliberalismen som en model, der har ramt grænserne og nu leverer det modsatte af det tilsigtede.” Det er ikke overraskende “øget konkurrence, deregulering og fri kapitalbevægelse samt en mindre rolle til staten via privatiseringer og stramme offentlige budgetter” der nu ikke længere fungerer af lettere uklare årsager, men verdensøkonomiens sløje tilstand er i hvert fald bevis nok.

Jeg har som Information heller ikke ligefrem kompetencerne til at gå ind i en IMF-OECD teoretisering, men det er ikke svært at se at Information, griber ethvert strå i en vedvarende kamp mod “øget konkurrence, deregulering og fri kapitalbevægelse samt en mindre rolle til staten via privatiseringer og stramme offentlige budgetter”. Informations læsere er endnu værre.

En Niels-Arne Nørgaard Knudsen indrømmer på Informations Facebook side at “det er helt rigtigt at globalt set er fattigdom faldet - men det drejer sig for langt størstedelen at de levede under forhold som manglende adgang til rent vand, el og uddannelse”, så det er for intet at regne. John Jensen pointerer smagfuldt “Kom ikke her fortæl mig a liberal-ismen ER DØD.. så længe (eks.vis) Sørn Pind er i live.” En meget ivrig Carsten Rank fastslår at “Vi har slet ikke brug for vækst”, for senere i den efterfølgende tråd, at spekulere i “…borgerlønstanken…. hvis man nu gav folk penge, så kunne man øge væksten (forbruget).” kun for i en anden tråd at begræde “De velbjergede er kommet i flertal, ja. Det er sgu sørgeligt.” Ja, det omvendte ville klart have været at foretrække.

Well, jeg ved ikke, hvad jeg skal gøre ved dette særlige segment, men måske Tomas Sowell kan hjælpe de uinformerede om, hvad socialisme er

[P]eople who attribute income inequality to capitalists exploiting workers, as Karl Marx claimed, never seem to get around to testing that belief against facts — such as the fact that none of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries.

Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of the left. What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated.

(…)

How many of the people who are demanding an increase in the minimum wage have ever bothered to check what actually happens when higher minimum wages are imposed? More often they just assume what is assumed by like-minded peers — sometimes known as “everybody,” with their assumptions being what “everybody knows.”

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16- to 17-year-old black males was under 10%. But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30% for more than 20 consecutive years, from 1971 through 1994. In many of those years, the unemployment rate for black youngsters that age exceeded 40% and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50%.

The damage is even greater than these statistics might suggest. Most low-wage jobs are entry-level jobs that young people move up out of, after acquiring work experience and a track record that makes them eligible for better jobs. But you can’t move up the ladder if you don’t get on the ladder.

The great promise of socialism is something for nothing. It is one of the signs of today’s dumbed-down education that so many college students seem to think that the cost of their education should — and will — be paid by raising taxes on “the rich.”

Here again, just a little check of the facts would reveal that higher tax rates on upper-income earners do not automatically translate into more tax revenue coming in to the government. Often high tax rates have led to less revenue than lower tax rates.

In a globalized economy, high tax rates may just lead investors to invest in other countries with lower tax rates. That means that jobs created by those investments will be overseas.

None of this is rocket science. But you do have to stop and think — and that is what too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach their students to do.

Der er jo også den klassiske historie om økonomiprofessoren, der gav alle sine studenter gennemsnitskarakterer.