De økonomiske konsekvenser af Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- The FTSE 100 finished down 3.1%

- Germany’s Dax dropped 6.8%

- France’s Cac closed 8.0% lower

- Spain’s Ibex ended down 12.4%

- Italy’s FTSE MIB fell 12.5%

- In Greece, the Athens market lost 13.4%

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

Overklassens forælede unge er færdige med at grine ad Little Britain

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

inforgraphic

Og historiske refererencer

medieval-reactions

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

brexiters-er-nazier

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

channel-tunnel

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

jermain-pennant

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

Tilfældige reaktioner på Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump tilbage i kampen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nigel Farage havde advaret

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

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

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

2 historikere og en sandsiger om Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

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

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

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

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

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

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

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

Trump siger hvad som helst, for at blive valgt

Diverse — Drokles on June 18, 2016 at 5:15 pm

Men han taler også fornuft. David Horowitz siger i Breitbart om Trumps tale i kølvandet på bøssemassakren i Orlando

The speech was specific, detailed, and on the money. Trump showed how strategic securing the border is, how important stopping immigration from terror zones like Syria is, and how deadly political correctness has become. Political correctness – which transforms the Islamic world, which has a lot to answer for, from aggressors into innocent victims – functions as a shield for Islamic terrorists, and handcuffs law-abiding citizens prompting them not to report suspicious activities by Muslims for fear of being called racist.

Trump was especially courageous (and politically incorrect) in pointing out that the Muslim communities in which the terrorists operate know what is going on but don’t say anything. What a contrast with Hillary’s speech today, which focused on reinforcing political correctness – attacking so-called assault rifles, as though guns and not fanatics were the problem, and emphasizing the importance of not alienating Muslims by acknowledging that a large and growing segment of the Islamic world is at war with us. What contempt for Muslims who are also victims of Islamic terror!

Does denying reality encourage non-belligerent Muslims to help us? For seven and a half years, the Obama administration has closed its eyes to the Islamic dimensions of the terrorist threat, has refused as long and as much as possible to even use the word “terror.” And what has been the result? Muslims in San Bernardino and St. Lucie – as Trump had the political courage to point out – saw something but said nothing about the atrocities brewing in their communities.

Trump haler ind på Clinton i en meningsmåling, skriver Telegraph.

Stemmer englænderne sig ud til friheden?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

What it’s always all about

En muslim med dansk statsborgerskab iscenesætter sig selv om offer for diskriminatiopn for et villigt TV2, der ikke formår at stille et eneste relevant spørgsmål. “Folk tror at det her det er virkelig…badetøjet det handler om. For mig handler det mest om, at min søn ikke fik lov til at være sammen med sin mor i en fridag” siger stakkels Ulfat Al-Sitt og ikke et øje er tørt. Men ingen nægtede sharia-aktivisten samvær med sønnen da det var Ulfat selv, der insisterede selv på religiøst badetøj.

Mesterinstruktøren Steven Spielberg advarede i en tale til nogle graduenter mod den stigende antisemitisme. Den var reel, fortalte han, selv om han selv var opvokset med en ide om at den var for aftagende efter destruktionen af Nazityskland. Også hadet mod homosexuelle var en stigende trussel. Spielberg er fantastisk bag et kameral, men han er også en centrum-venstrefløjser og i næste åndedræt advarede han imod den stigende islamofobi.

En dansk ægtefælle til en jøde funderer i Information over det sørgelige i at holde vagt i skudsikker vest foran sine børns skole.

Min datter på syv år peger stolt på mig.

»Se, min far er vagt i dag,« siger hun til sin veninde fra 1. klasse og banker på skjoldet i min skudsikre vest.

»Hvorfor har du egentlig den på?« spørger hun og kigger op på mig.

Spørgsmålet er stillet nysgerrigt, neutralt – ikke med angst eller frygt. Hun er jo kun syv år.

Hvad skal jeg svare hende? Jeg vælger den praktiske vinkel og forklarer hende, at en skudsikker vest gør, at jeg ikke dør, hvis jeg bliver skudt.

»Men hvem skulle da skyde dig?«

Jeg når at konstatere antydningen af frygt i hendes øjne, inden jeg svarer hende, at hvis der nu skulle komme en bandit med en skyder, så er det jo meget rart at vide, at jeg ikke kommer til skade. Hun lader til at være tilfreds med den forklaring, eller også er det bare venindens insisteren på at lege, der lader mig slippe for at komme med yderligere forklaring.

(…)

Vi ved ikke, hvornår angrebet kommer, og vi ved heller ikke, hvilken slags angreb det vil være – varme eller kolde våben, som det hedder. Vi ved det ikke, men vi har forberedt os på det meste. Vi har fået undervisning og uddannelse og øvelser gennemført af professionelle sikkerhedsfolk.

Man kan ikke sætte ord på. Det er bare en bandit, som vi ikke ved hvor kommer fra og i hvilke mængder. Nærmere beskrivelse er svær, hvis ikke man vil geråde sig ud i islamofobi. Så hans afsluttende retoriske spørgsmål “Hvem bliver de næste, der skal leve i frygt? De homoseksuelle?” fortjener ikke den forlorne undren. Vi ved, hvem der bliver de næsten, alle der kan krybe og gå, også de homosexuelle, som blev udsat for en mindre massakre i den amerikanske by Orlando.

50 mennesker er indtil videre tallet af dræbte med over hundrede sårede. Gerningsmanden er “amerikaner med afghansk baggrund” dristede DR tekst-TV sig til at sige og så vidste man jo, hvad klokken var slået og straks blev der fra officielt hold i Florida rakt ud til det muslimske samfund, som jo altid er de sande ofre når ikke-muslimer slagtes, og Facebook lukkede Pamela Gellers FB-side ned for at knytte islams lære til islams praksis med tilfældet bøssemassakren i Orlando. Alligevel taler amerikaneren med muslimsk baggrund Barak Husein Obama ikke om islam; “no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer (…) ‘What is clear is that he was a person filled with hate

‘The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live,’ Obama noted.

‘The place where they were attacked was more than a nightclub, it was a place of solidarity, of empowerment, where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights,’ he continued.

Og så konstaterede han aT “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle“, hvorfor det var et spørgsmål om øget våbenkontrol. At der netop døde så mange bøsser fordi ingen af dem var bevæbnet med bøsser så de kunne forsvare sig selv og hinanden i ægte ‘empoweret’ solidaritet, i stedet for blot at blive slagtet i hinandens arme.

trump-krc3a6ver-svar

Obama mødes dog gerne med homofober, så længe de er muslimer, skriver Breitbart

President Barack Obama choose to publicly meet with an Islamic preacher in February who said the Koran declares gay sex “a despised act, it is haram, it is forbidden in Islam, completely, absolutely.”

The meeting in Baltimore came shortly after Breitbart publicized the Islamic cleric’s orthodox denigration of gays, which was posted on YouTube. It also came after Breitbart asked Obama’s gay political allies to comment on the Islamic cleric’s statements.

“You are a transgressing people,” said the cleric Imam Yaseen Shaikh, who sat on Obama’s left at the meeting. He is the man at the right hand side of the photo above, wearing a white hat. He is a senior leader of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which Obama choose for the first presidential visit to a mosque in February 2016.

obama-og-homofoberne

En bøsse-aktivist på Sky News, der som Obama beskrev bøsseklubber, som “places of solidarity”, kunne se at det var et “deliberate attack on LGBT people“, men nægtede at forholde sig til, hvilken åndelighed, der lå bag denne bandit, eller med hans ord, “dreg of humanity”. “Scum” kaldte han ham “That’s all he is!”. “Any Dreg of humanity can pick up a gun a murder people”,men forsigtigt forholdt simple realiteter om bandittens muslimske tanke og tale (selv bandittens arbejdskollegaer kunne se han var en tikkende bombe, men frygten for islamofobi-beskyldninger afholdt dem fra at reagere korrekt), blev den selvretfærdige prædiken utilstrækkelig og han stormede ud af studiet

For en god ordens skyld, så slog en Orlando imam ellers fast at døden kun er hvad bøsser fortjener.

I hvilken som helst by med eller uden en massakre kan man finde en imam der roligt har forklaret logikken bagved. Denne forklarer hvori islamisk barmhjertighed består, nemlig som en nedjustering af opskruede grusomheder. Daily Mail fortæller at en tyrkisk avis kalder ofrene ‘perverse’. Daily Mail anstrenger sig samtidig for at kalde den tyrkiske avis ”right wing” uden helt at fortælle om den er fortaler for minimalstat eller bare alment islamofobisk.

Newt Gingrich taler dog sober om sammenhængen mellem islam og vold mod først og fremmest minoriteter.

Brexit vender kåberne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det nederen ved de mange velbjærgede

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.

Monokultur kører på WordPress