Film: Katyn massakren

Diverse — Drokles on May 13, 2018 at 8:07 am

Der er en god film i bunden af denne post, så man kan roligt springe min indledende tirade over.

Jeg diskuterede Sovietunionens rolle i sejren over Nazityskland et sted på Facebook, der hedder In The Now. In The Now laver små videoblogs, hvor unge mennesker siger de særeste ting. En ung kvinde ved navn Anissa Naouai undrede sig over at amerikanerne ikke fejrede V-Day (VE-Day eller VJ-Day skulle det sikkert have været), som man gjorde i andre lande, som Frankrig, England og især Rusland, med store parader. Det ironiske for Naouai var at amerikanerne ellers så sig selv om de ultimative nazibetvingere og at det ifølge amerikanerne var dem, der var endestående ansvarlige for sejren over Hitlertyskland. Ifølge kvinden var det endnu et eksempel på, hvor latterlig amerikansk selvbevidsthed var og hvor historieløse de er. Sandheden var nemlig, at det var Sovjetunionen der mere end noget andet land, havde æren for at Hitler blev besejret. Eller med In The Nows ord “Stalin was a monster. But the dude won.”

Hendes argument? At russerne tabte så mange liv på og udenfor slagmarken. Mellem 25 og 30 mio, mod de samlede angelsaksiske tab på 1 mio. Ja, det har rigtigt gjort ondt på Stalin, the dude that won, sådan at få fravristet sit årsagsmonopol på den sovjetiske befolknings lidelser.

Det var Stalin selv, der var ansvarlig for at Den Røde Hær var så ringe forberedt, da han selv havde fået myrdet og fængslet i tusindvis af officerer og mistet en enorm militær ekspertise og fordi at han stolede på at Hitler ikke ville angribe. Dermed var de fra starten på hælene og da Stalins automatreaktion var at forbyde tilbagetrækning uanset hvad, blev hele divisioner omringet og nedkæmpet. Senere lærte han, i modsætning til Hitler, at stole på at hans generaler træf bedre strategiske beslutninger end ham og Soviet kunne langsomt slide sig tilbage til en vinderposition.

Den Røde Hær mistede omtrent 9 mio mand, resten af de døde skal findes blandt de civile da aksemagterne, som Victor Davies Hanson bemærker, mest brugte deres bevæbnede mænd til at føre krig mod fjendens ubevæbnede befolkninger. Men krigen blev ikke afgjort på ofre og det er ikke et udtryk for effektivitet af miste mange soldater på slagmarken. Krigen blev, som Hanson også bemærker, afgjort på produktion.

‘Amerikanerne kom for sent til festen og drak bare alle øllerne’ er et af Naouai påstande, der skal understøtte hendes stråmand. Men det er ikke helt rigtigt. 11 marts, 40 dage før Operation Barbarossa, underskrev præsident Roosevelt Låne-leje aftalen, der grundlæggende betød at USA ikke længere var et neutralt land. Så omend de ikke havde erklæret krig mod Tyskland, havde de allerede valgt side. Og låne-lej aftalen var ikke nogen ligegyldig støtte. Både Stalin, the winning dude, og hans øverste militære kommisær, Nikita Khrusjtjov, mente begge, som dagens fremmeste russiske historikere, at den, i sig selv, var afgørende for at Sovietunionen ikke fik bank af tyskerne.

Og det er der god grund til at tro på. Udover at levere mere end 40.000 køretøjer (næsten 1/3 af alle køretøjer, den Røde Hær havde til sin rådighed), 12.000 pansrede køretøjer og tanks, 11.400 flyvemaskiner og 1.75 mio ton fødevarer, leverede amerikanerne også 92% af alt jernbaneudstyr inklusiv lokomotiver, skinner og fladvogne, der blev produceret fra 42 og frem til Krigens slutning udover ammunition, aluminium, telefonkabler, tøj og 1/3 af flybrændstoffet. Så amerikanerne havde ikke blot meldt deres interesse før end Russerne modvilligt ankom, det var oven i købet dem der tog øllerne med.

Det vil sige, at amerikanerne har direkte andel i russernes del af sejren. Dertil kom af amerikanerne sammen med briterne bombede den tyske industri, hvilket hæmmede krigsproduktionen og bandt 60% af Luftwaffe til Reichsverteidigung, som jo nok kunne have ændret slagets gang i Kursk. De sidste 40% blev delt fortrinsvis mellem Sydeuropa og Østfronten, så et betydeligt handicap for wehrmacht. Ydermere blev tyskerne banket ud af Afrika og Amerikanerne fik med briternes hjælp åbnet en front fra Italien og senere Frankrig, da de brød igennem den atlantvold, som i sig selv repræsenterede et enormt spild af ressourcer. Fik jeg nævnt at ikke blot Luftwaffe blev totalt nedkæmpet af amerikanerne og englænderne, men også den tyske flåde, fra de i starten frygtindgydende ubåde, til de to latterlige slagskibe Bismarck og Tirpitz. Alt imens Amerikanerne stort set egenhændigt bankede den japanske flåde blandt andet ved at producere 21 hangarskibe og 70 eskort-hangarskibe. Åh, og to atombomber med flere på vej.

Det er kedeligt med en ungdom, der henter så meget af deres viden på nettet, at den slags er så prominent. Man midnes Boris Pasternak, der skrev i Doctor Zhivago om tiden med duden Stalin ”And when the war broke out, its real horrors, its real dangers, its menace of real death were a blessing compared with the inhuman reign of the lie, a relief because it broke the spell of the dead letter”.

Nå, men midt i et vælde af kommunister, Holocaustbenægtere, muslimer og andre, der blot hadede amerikanerne, var der også noget så eksotisk, som en benægter af Katyn massakren. Kapitalistisk propaganda, kaldte han det. Og da man i denne tid mindes Katyn massakren, hvor Stalin, den sejrende dude, myrdede den store dele af polske officersstand og en masse intellektuelle, i den del af Polen havde havde taget efter venlig aftale med Hitler - den tabende dude. Så her er en polsk film, der forsøger at bearbejde det traume krigen, undertrykkelsen og løgnene gjorde ved folkesjælen. Og det er ikke den polske Bornedahl, der har instrueret.

Karl Marx, en dårlig vane

Diverse — Drokles on May 11, 2018 at 9:48 am

I dette Karl Marx år tales diskuteres det hvor meget hans tanker har rodfæstet sig i vores tænkning. Det er selvfølgelig svært at sige, da Marx ikke udtrykte nogle originale tanker, andet end hans forfejlede økonomiske analyser, som kun akademikere kan tale varmt om. Social indignation, klasseidentitet, kollektivisme og ideen om den sociale arv er alle ældre end ikke blot Marx og den socialistiske bølge han var formet af. Et af argumenterne for Marx store indflydelse på den politiske tænkning er, hvorledes selv borgerlige ikke blot afstår fra at trampe hjemløse ihjel, som deres hjerte egentligt lyster, men endda omfavne dele  af velfærdsstaten og tankerne bag.

Da jeg var ung, var det den gængse opfattelse blandt datidens marxister, at anskue velfærdsstaten som Kapitalens måde at bestikke arbejderne fra den nødvendige revolution. I denne udlægning var det oftest Bismarck, der var arneskurken, da han skabte konturerne af den moderne socialstat, for småligt at holde socialisterne fra revolution imod Kejservældet. I Danmark voksede fattigvæsnet fra at bekæmpe generne ved tiggeres eksistens over til en egentlig omsorg for sognenes fattigste i 1708 ved forordningerne om betleri. En god kristen moral lå bag - hvad ellers, man kendte ikke til andet. Socialisterne fik først resultater, da de afsvor revolutionen, blev demokrater og med Stauning appellerede bredt til ‘Danskerne’, især de virksomme, og lagde grundstenen til den moderne velfærdsstat med Kanslergade Forliget. Klasseforrædere!

De russiske kommunisters forbillede var de russiske bønder, der ikke kendte til ejendomsret over jorden andet end, hvad den lokale herremand kunne tæske dem til når han skulle have dem til at arbejde på hans marker. For dem tilhørte jorden det kollektiv, der dyrkede det og fordelingen af lodder blev afgjort af ‘miren’ efter en nødvendighedsnøgle. Da nødvendigheden hele tiden forandrede sig som landsbyens familier voksede og skrumpede, var det en konstant omfordeling, hvor ingen havde interesse i at udvide samfundskagen ved at gøre sig det besvær at opdyrke ny jord, der blot ville blive fordelt blandt alle de andre.

Forbilledligt, men kommunisterne forestillede sig blot at erstatte landsbyens fællesskab med koorporativets under ledelse af en kommisær. Bønderne ville selvfølgelig ikke erstatte den ene herremand med den anden, de gjorde vrøvl så kommunisterne begyndte at myrde løs på bønderne. Det var derfor revolutionen var en nødvendighed for marxister, for når de ikke kunne præsentere et bedre alternativ, end den måde folk allerede havde indrettet sig på, uanset hvor uhensigtsmæssigt det syntes, kunne man kun gøre det ubærligt ikke at underkaste sig marxismens dogmer.

I dagens debat er det ikke meget man hører om revolutionens nødvendig, store spring fremad eller hele forkromede samfundsmodeller. Ingen citerer Marx i diskussioner for at slå hovedet af tandbørsten. End ikke Enhedslisten vil være ved Revolutionen, dels fordi halvdelen ikke ved at det står i deres program og dels fordi den anden halvdel kun taler om den fordi det er en gratis omgang at kunne vrøvle høfligt selskab til - høfligt undtaget er den ægte marxistklenodie, som kan findes ved Nordkoreaboden hver 1. maj.. Men det er alligevel her man finder de sidste reminiscenser af den engang så brovtende ideologi. 1. maj foreslog Københavns Teknik- og Miljøborgmester, Enhedslistens Ninna Hedeager Olsen, at sætte beboerlicensen op fra nogle hundrede kroner til 10.000 kroner og argumenterede således

I virkeligheden synes jeg ikke, at det lyder så vanvittigt højt. De 10.000 kroner er om året, og hvis man tænker på, hvad det koster at have en bil i vægtafgifter, reparationer, værksted og så videre, så er en beboerlicens på 10.000 kroner ikke særligt meget sammenlignet med ens øvrige udgifter til bil.

Hedeager (Hvilket navn til en Mir!) mente det var vanetænkning at slippe så billigt for at parkere sin bil. Men det er hende, der vanetænker når hun retfærdiggør endnu en urimelig udgift med, at alle de andre udgifter er urimeligt høje. Og ikke overraskende har hun fået beregnet, at det vil betyde et fald på 6.100 licenser, “hvis det koster 10.000 kroner om året at have en bil stående foran ens hoveddør”. Ja, for så er der nogle, de lave indkomster, for at være mere præcis, der ikke længere har råd.

Men Hedeager vil gerne omfordele ressourcerne og  bruge de ekstra penge på pædagoger og sosuer. Penge der altså skal hentes på at presse selvsamme løngruppe ud af deres biler. Det er mest passende at en bilejer også er en person af en hvis substans. Hedeager retfærdiggør den analyse, som Marxister gør sig i, som ren vanetænkning ved blot at gå ud fra, at de bedre kender de svedende massers egentlige interesser end de svedende kender deres egne behov, med deres opiumdøllede falske bevidsthed

Når vi ved, at en fjerdedel af bilerne ikke flytter sig hele ugen, så virker det ikke til, at det er et hverdagsbehov at have en bil.

For en bil skal man kun have, hvis man har behov og det har de lavere klasser ikke, for dem er det bare spads, hvis ikke det ligefrem er småborgerlige aspirationer. For dem er der andre løsninger, bedre svarende til deres behov, “Der er delebilsordninger og alle mulige andre muligheder for at bruge bil engang imellem, når behovet opstår” forklarer hun pædagogisk uden tanke på, hvorfor københavnerne allerede har fravalgt sig disse i det nuværende omfang selvom “man tænker på, hvad det koster at have en bil i vægtafgifter, reparationer, værksted og så videre”.

Hedeager kan ikke præsentere folk for et bedre alternativ. Derfor afgiftens nødvendighed, der skal gøre det ubetaleligt ikke at underkaste sig kommunens dogmer. Der ligger dog ingen større ideologisk tænkning bag Hedeagers forslag, bare en dårlige vanetænkning.

The art of cancelling the deal

Diverse — Drokles on May 9, 2018 at 3:47 am

National Review, der var det ideologiske arnested for #neverTrump, roser i deres leder præsident Trump for at trække USA ud af Iran aftalen - “to his great credit

The Iran deal is a travesty and a boon to the regime. In short, Iran entered into years-long negotiations with the West over whether it would have a nuclear program, during the course of which it developed a nuclear program. The deal allowed it to preserve a temporarily curtailed program in exchange for the shipment of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran — part of it clearly a ransom payment for the release of U.S. hostages — and relief from Western sanctions that had begun to bite.

For the mullahs, it was the deal of the century. It was less a nonproliferation agreement than a deal to pay for its proliferation.

The economic benefits of the accord were predictably poured into Iran’s expansion around the region. Rather than a new era of peace, the deal has coincided with more widespread conflict in the Middle East. Iran is now at the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia via its own forces and proxies in Syria and Yemen. It has aided Bashar al-Assad’s destruction of his own country so he can continue to rule the hollowed-out remains. It continues its attempted takeover of Iraq. It supports terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Taliban. Wherever there is discord in the region, there are the Iranians, fueling the conflict and supporting the nastiest actors.

The Iran deal takes no account of this activity in exchange for what is, in the best case, a pause in the Iranian nuclear program. Since the West isn’t allowed to inspect military sites, it is entirely possible that Iran is flagrantly cheating on the deal. Even if it isn’t, the deal allows the Iranians to bide their time — mustering their economic strength, cementing commercial ties with Europe — until restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse in less than a decade.

The deal does nothing to check Iran’s missile program, indeed gives it more running room, even though it would be easier to verify a stoppage in missile activity than the nuclear program.

Det er den bekymrede ros. Den optimistiske kan man læse i Free Beacon, hvor Matthew Continetti skriver

By reimposing sanctions, President Trump will weaken an already ailing Iranian economy. The Iranian currency, the rial, has plummeted in recent weeks. Inflation is rampant. The financial system is corrupted, dysfunctional. Strikes are proliferating, and often turn into displays against the government. This is a situation the United States should seek not to mitigate but to exacerbate.

Removing ourselves from the deal puts Iran on the defensive. Its people and government are divided and uncertain how to respond. Its leverage is minimal. Iranian citizens have seen their leaders use the money from the deal not to improve the economic lot of the average person but to fund the military, IRGC, and other instruments of foreign adventurism. Implicit in the deal was recognition of the Islamic regime as a legitimate member of the so-called “international community.” President Trump has rescinded that recognition and the standing that came with it. The issue is no longer Iranian compliance with an agreement that contained loopholes through which you could launch a Fateh-110 heavy missile. The issue is whether Iran chooses to become a responsible player or not, whether it curbs its imperial designs, cuts off its militias, abandons terrorism, opens its public square, and ceases its threats to and harassment of the United States and her allies. That choice is not Donald Trump’s to make. It is the Iranian regime’s.

Obamas Iran politik var et fatamorgana mens “Trump opposes privileges therapy and dialogue over realism and hard decisions.” Obamas politik hvilede på hans dekreter, da han var mere villig til at forhandle med mullaherne end med republikanerne, skriver Continetti videre, og derfor trævles den let op. Og, som Andrew C McCarthy peger på, så underminerer netop dekreterne, to argumenter for at honorere Iran-aftalen

(…) Obama apologists posit two other objections to Trump’s cashiering of the former president’s legacy agreement: abandoning the deal (1) isolates the United States and (2) suggests that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word.

What nonsense.

Far from isolating the United States, President Trump is proving that the United States is the indispensable nation. Nations will be put to a choice: You can have access to the U.S. economy or you can have commerce with Iran — not both. Our European allies know this is not a real choice: They can’t isolate us, they need us, our markets, and the umbrella of our protection. They’re angry because they’d like to pocket the benefits they get from us while cutting profitable deals with our enemies. That’s not “isolating us”; that’s a tantrum. They will get over it in short order if the president is steadfast about enforcement.

Moreover the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret. Our European allies know full well that a president has no power unilaterally to bind the United States to an international agreement. We give our word when we enter a treaty or enact legislation that cements commitments. Obama did not seek to make his deal a treaty precisely because he knew America was not giving its word — the public did not support the deal, which would have been roundly defeated if subjected to the Constitution’s process for ratifying international commitments.

Continetti funderer videre, at selv om Trump fører traditionel republikansk udenrigspolitik, skal man ikke regne med at andre kandidater, der ville være født ud af det politiske system, end outsideren Trump ville have haft modet til at gå imod “ the foreign policy establishment”.

Victor Davis Hanson legede for nogen tid siden med tanken om at Trump kan ende som den tragiske helt. Manden til tiden, som gennem sine grove metoder redder de civiliserede og efterfølgende udstødes fordi de civiliserede ikke kan indeholde hans grovheder. Det kan meget vel være og vi krydser fingre. Trump vil da være 78, i fantastisk fysisk form, milliardær og Nobelprismodtager.

Hvad Trump udløser

Diverse — Drokles on May 9, 2018 at 1:27 am

Andrew P McCarthy noterer at Trump slår hårdt ned på alle fjender, men “the harder you fight against small stuff, the bigger it appears if your story collapses”. Og det er lige, hvad Trumps historie om sit stævnemøde med den tidligere pornostjerne Stormy Daniels ser ud til at ville gøre i den nærmeste fremtid.

Men ved at benægte anklager, der snart viser sig at være sande, spinder Trumps sig ind i et net af løgne og selvmodsigelser. Hvem betalte fru Daniels, Cohen selv eller på vegne af en vidende Trump? Og hvis Cohen betalte af egen lomme på eget initiativ, blev han så kompenseret for sine udgifter senere, hvilket vil kunne tolkes som et lån, der ikke er blev indberettet til de rette myndigheder. Og blev fru Daniels betalt for ikke at skade Trumps forhold til ægtefællen Melania, eller for ikke at skade hans chancer i valgkampen, og dermed et inddirekte kampagnebidrag, der ikke var blevet korrekt anmeldt til myndighederne? Det er ikke århundredets forbrydelse, som McCarthy pointerer, men pressen vil elske en sådan chance for ikke at tage et opgør med sig selv, om hvorledes man dog kunne dyrke den afsindige russerhistorie og istedet vælte sig i saftige historier om

…hush money before the election, the implausible denials of the conduct, the implausible denials of knowledge about the payment, the specter of cheating on Melania right after the birth of Barron Trump, Stormy’s allegation of an extortionate threat, the laugh-out-loud details of the non-disclosure agreement (Trump as “David Dennison” and Stormy as “Peggy Peterson”), and…

(…)

…wall-to-wall coverage to prove it happened, including coverage of Trump’s flings and interactions with women over the years (some of which are alleged to involve unwanted advances), until he admits it. If he does, he will look terrible for inducing Stormy to sign a false denial letter and for relying on it. In the meantime, he will look terrible for appearing to threaten Stormy with the punitive NDA damages, which will lend credibility to her thus far uncorroborated claim that, in 2011, an unidentified man threatened that she would be killed if she did not keep quiet. And the cherry on top: Trump’s tweet calls renewed attention to the NDA. While such agreements may be “very common” as Trump says, how “very common” is it to do them under silly pseudonyms instead of the parties’ real names? That question, as night follows day, will lead to more media discussion of the fact that Cohen used the very same pseudonyms in yet another hush-money arrangement with a major GOP donor and Trump supporter.

Der er langt fra Hitler og starter af atomkrige i lommen på Putin til disse sladderbladsskandaler. Men det er, hvad Trumps modstandere i medierne har tilbage så det er hvd der præger den offentlige debat - og det er bare en del af den politiske virkelighed. Men kernen i politik er stadig vælgerne og de er ved at være trætte af, hvad de i stigende grad ser som en politisk heksejagt, på en præsident der både skaffer jobs i USA, fred i Korea og retfærdighed i Mellemøsten, skriver Jeff Crouere i Townhall

In an April Rasmussen Reports poll, only 46% of Americans believed that the Special Counsel investigation was an “honest attempt to determine criminal wrongdoing.” This is a decrease of 6% from October, when 52% supported Mueller’s investigation.

With an out of control Special Counsel and a public becoming more disgruntled, one Congressman finally decided to act.On Thursday, U.S. Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN) introduced a resolution calling for the Mueller investigation to endwithin 30 daysunless evidence of Russian collusion is introduced. According to Rokita, he proposed the resolution to “preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions.”

Rokita is disturbed by both the scope and the $17 million cost of the Mueller investigation. He believes it is “an attempt by the Washington elite to destroy President Trump.” However, it is also an unprecedented political and legal assault on the 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016. The Special Counsel and his team of partisan Democrat attorneys are attempting to overturn the results of the last election, and enact, in essence, the first political coup d’état in American history.

Modstanden mod Trump har for længst fået sit eget liv, der helt har løsrevet den fra politisk indhold til fordel for personlige idiosynkrasier. Hans tidligere politiske modstandere er forblændet af personaen Trump og vil blot se ham skandaliseret uanset, hvad det betyder for nationens ve og vel. Men det bliver der ikke så meget af, som de håber og det pæne National Review gruer for.

Alle vidste hvilken levemand Trump, der selv pralede af sit høje energiniveau i valgkampen, var. Hans vulgariteter er kun interessant for folk på de bonede gulve. Historien om en præsident, der i sin tid som reality stjerne, knaldede en halvt så gammel pornostjerne til almuens store forbløffelse og beundring vil snart blegne i skyggen af de politiske skandaler, der vil komme rullende, som følge af afsløringerne af efterretningsvæsenets metoder, pressens løgn- og følgagtighed og korruptionen i det Demokratiske partis top.

200 året for Karl Marx, 100 året for hans elendigheder

Diverse — Drokles on May 6, 2018 at 10:08 am

det er 200 år siden Karl Marx blev født og derfor er der en overflod af priviligerede mennesker, der takker manden bag de tanker udfra hvilke mellem 70 og 100 mio mennesker blev myrdet og hele samfund destrueret. Som et eksempel kan jeg anbefale at læse Ben Shapiro hudflette en New York Times hyldest. Eller en udfordring, se om De kan se forskel på en filmkritiker og en marxist i Informations artikel om filmen ‘den Unge Karl Marx’.

Svaret er at De kan ikke ikke, når kritikeren savler over den “menneskeligt og politisk engagerende film om den nødvendige kamp for at forandre verden”. Og ironien tabes også når marxisten udtaler

Et af Marx’ mange vigtige bidrag til videnskaben var afvisningen af ’stor mand’-teorien’ om historien, altså den (ofte implicitte) forestilling, at sociale forandringer har sin oprindelse i enestående individer og deres ideer.

Så Marx er falsificeret, Marx forandrede Verden, endda tilskyndede til dens forandring fordi det er muligt - om så vi skal sætte ild til den. Er det ikke ironisk, som hans samfund kollapsede under vægten af deres egne indre modsætninger, vælter hans egen succes hans teorier omkuld. Kun ‘nationens lort’ kan falde for den slags. Anyways, vi skal have lidt sanddruelighed.

Dominic Sandbrook undrer sig i Daily Mail over at tilsyneladende begavede mennesker, kan gøre noget så dumt, som at se op til Karl Marx. Trods massegravene overalt i Verden, hvor marxismen har været prøvet gennemført og kollapset næsten hver gang (hold ud Kammerat Nordkorea, der er ikke langt igen), så friholdes Marx fra ansvaret ud fra en tanke om at Lenin, Stalin, Mao og Pol Pot, der alle havde studeret Marx nærgående og skrevet tykke bøger om ham, at de alle, samt deres tilhængere, fuldkommen havde misforstået Marx teorier. De var ikke monstre, der blot var marxister, det monstrøse var marxismen

As a young man, Stalin studied Marx’s theories with obsessive dedication. Then, after winning power, he put them into practice.

Stalin did not kill millions of his own people because he was mad. He did it because he believed Marx’s theories required it.

He thought their deaths were a price worth paying for the collectivisation of agriculture, the end of private farms and the coming of a socialist society.

Although Marx’s acolytes will never accept it, Stalin was not perverting his hero’s vision.

In fact, violence had formed part of Marx’s worldview from the very beginning.

‘There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated,’ wrote Marx in 1848, ‘and that way is revolutionary terror’.

Here is Marx a year later, addressing his conservative adversaries: ‘We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you,’ he writes. ‘When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.’

The truth is that Marx’s vision was inherently violent. How could it be otherwise? How, without bloodshed, would you get your revolution? How would you abolish private property?

Here is a crucial distinction between Marxism — which is often called a ‘political religion’ — and genuine religions.

Christianity, for example, abjures violence and Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek.

But Marxism is violent by definition. If Marxists turned the other cheek, they would never get their revolution.

The other difference is that most religions venerate the individual.

In Judaism and Christianity, the wellsprings of mainstream Western politics, individual life is sacred, because man is made in God’s image.

But, for Marxists, the individual is irrelevant. Man is merely the servant of history. All that matters is the collective, the grand sweep.

And if that means some people — Russian landowners, Chinese merchants, Cambodian teachers, Cuban dissidents — end up in mass graves, prison camps or psychiatric hospitals, that is just their tough luck.

This sort of thinking strikes me as obscene.

Yet, thanks to the sheer force of Marx’s intellect, it has attracted some very clever people.

Og det er et intellektuelt kollaps, som er iboende venstrefløjen, som man kan se på dens seneste fascination af en kollektivistisk ideologi, hvis terrorgrupper og dysfunktionelle samfund bliver bortforklaret med at de, med ideologiens eget sprog, har byttet rundt på ordene.

‘Want me to draw you a picture?’

Diverse — Drokles on April 29, 2018 at 9:23 am

For første gang er en nordkoreansk leder trådt over grænsen til Sydkorea for at erklære sig forpligtet på at gøre halvøen atom-våben fri og endeligt slutte Koreakrigen. Trump får næppe Nobels fredspris for sin rolle for denne overraskende optimisme på at et gammelt sår og en stadigt mere ulmende trussel kan få en snarlig ende.

Der er endnu ikke fred og stadig atomvåben, kun håbet og det kan ikke siges hvem der er ejermanden til det. Men freden sikres bedst, hvis man bereder sig på krigen. Victor Davis Hanson peger i sin seneste bog, The Second World Wars, på tre faktorer der forudsatte Anden Verdenskrig. Sovjets samarbejde med Nazityskland, amerikansk isolationisme og fransk og engelsk eftergivenhed. Noblesse oblige, men Vesten svigtede sine forpligtelse skønt dens styrke og myndiggjorde således de totalitære og supremacistiske ideologier.

Trumps udenrigspolitik har taget udgangspunkt i et styrket og selvbevidst USA. Kineserne trakterer ham beundrende i Den Forbudte By, mens de vænner sig til tanken om at alle uretfærdige samhandelsaftaler får en ende. Araberne trakterer forelsket Trump, der flytter den amerikanske ambassade til Jerusalem under larmen fra skuldertrækkets dag. Og russerne lader som ingenting, mens de får et symbolsk pulver i Syrien. Det kan sagtens tænkes at Nordkoreas regime har lugtet at Trumps USA ikke kerer sig om den gode tone eller trusler fra andre og mere veludrustede atommagter.

Trump er ikke en sofistikeret fyr, der ikke tør kalde fjenden islamisk, han underskylder ikke for vestlig eksistens, men anerkender derimod at “The world is a mess“. Forleden sagde Trump, der ikke så ud til at “care whether he is acting “presidential””, mens han på direkte morgen TV lystigt svinede sit eget justitsministerium, om iranerne at

…all they are doing is screaming ‘Death to America! Death to America!’ - and by the way, they are not screaming it so much anymore. They where screaming it with him [Obama], they are not screaming it with me. We have’nt seen their little boats circling our ships in the ocean lately because they know that if they do circle the ships, they are not going to be there any longer!”

“The [threat of] nuclear war would have happened if we had weak people!” fortsatte han sit ræsonnement.

Forudsat han får succes med sin politik, kan Trump se frem til at være den tragiske helt, skrev Victor Davis Hanson for et par uger siden, der udelukkes fra den civilisation hans brutalitet og viljestyrke forudsætter

Perhaps we could not withstand the fire and smoke of a series of Trump presidencies, but given the direction of the country over the last 16 years, half the population, the proverbial townspeople of the western, wanted some outsider, even with a dubious past, to ride in and do things that most normal politicians not only would not but could not do — before exiting stage left or riding off into the sunset, to the relief of most and the regrets of a few.

The best and the brightest résumés of the Bush and Obama administrations had doubled the national debt — twice. Three prior presidents had helped to empower North Korea, now with nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at the West Coast. Supposedly refined and sophisticated diplomats of the last quarter century, who would never utter the name “Rocket Man” or stoop to call Kim Jong-un “short and fat,” nonetheless had gone through the “agreed framework,” “six-party talks,” and “strategic patience,” in which three administrations gave Pyongyang quite massive aid to behave and either not to proliferate or at least to denuclearize. And it was all a failure, and a deadly one at that.

For all of Obama’s sophisticated discourse about “spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that,” quantitative easing, zero interest rates, massive new regulations, the stimulus, and shovel-ready, government-inspired jobs, he could not achieve 3 percent annualized economic growth. Half the country, the more desperate half, believed that the remedy for a government in which the IRS, the FBI, the DOJ, and the NSA were weaponized, often in partisan fashion and without worry about the civil liberties of American citizens, was not more temporizing technicians but a pariah who cleaned house and moved on. Certainly Obama was not willing to have a showdown with the Chinese over their widely acknowledged cheating and coerced expropriation of U.S. technology, with the NATO allies over their chronic welching on prior defense commitments, with the North Koreans after they achieved the capability of hitting U.S. West Coast cities, or with the European Union over its mostly empty climate-change accords.

Moving on, sometimes fatally so, is the tragic hero’s operative exit.

Under Anden Verdenskrig var det folk som Patton, LeMay og Bomber Harris, der var villige til at gøre det nødvendige, stærke mænd eftertiden skammede sig over.

Deep state in deep s***

Diverse — Drokles on April 28, 2018 at 8:26 am

“A new report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee shows there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election.” skriver Townhall.

Det viser sig bl.a, skriver Sean Davis i The Federalist, at James Clapper, den tidligere direktør for National Intelligence, beordrede den daværende FBI direktør James Comey til at underrette Donald Trump, der endnu stadig kun var kandidat til præsidentposten om Steele rapportens eksistens. Medierne kendte allerede rapporten, men anså den for uvederhæftig og havde ingen anledning til at offentliggøre den uden selv at miste troværdighed. Comey fortalte dog ikke Trump, at rapporten var bestilt og betalt af hans modkandidat Hillary Clinton, da det ikke tjente Comey egentlige mål og nøjes altså blot med at lade Trump vide, at FBI ligger inde med snavs på Trump.

Clapper lækkede derefter oplysningen om, at Trump er blevet oplyst om de slibrige detaljer i Steeles rapport til CNN. Og derved fik CNN en anledning til at rapportere at Trump muligvis havde været i Rusland for at betale ludere for at lege tisselege i hotelsenge hr. og fru Obama skulle have sovet i. Nu var Steels rapport nemlig ikke længere modkandidatens smuds, men oplysninger, som efterretningsvæsenet tager alvorligt. Og sådan gik det til at Clapper fik et fast job på CNN.

Det er et af de helt forbløffende åbenbaringer i denne sørgelige affære, nemlig hvor let karriereembedsmænd tager på deres embedsmisbrug, at de end ikke gør anstalter til at skjule det. CIA direktøren John Brennan tweetede endda “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you”, som Victor Davis Hanson minder om. Og ingen blev forargede for således fyldte the Resistance det offentlige rum med celebriteter, Demokrater og medier, der brugte alle midler for at delegitimere Trumps præsidentskab, når de altså ikke ønskede ham død. Alt kunne lade sig gøre, når blot Trump stod for skud.

George Neumayr minder i Spectator om, at det var Paul Brennan, der overbeviste medierne om at Rusland givetvis lå inde med kompromiterende oplysninger om Donald Trump, u-verificerede rygter, som mange i CIA, ifølge Brennan selv, bifaldt blev spredt.

A leaker, liar, and subversive, Comey is now off to teach “ethical leadership” at William and Mary (his alma mater, for whose basketball team he once falsely claimed to play, according to the book’s review in the Washington Post), while Brennan, who urges members of the federal government to disobey the chief executive, keeps an eye on Trump’s “moral turpitude.”

Their delusions of grandeur show no signs of dissipating. Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s, has even taken to speaking up for the “deceived,” as if he is the voice of an oppressed and unenlightened proletariat. Comey is operating off a similar conceit, seeing himself as a figure simply too singular to be fired. For some reason, Comey thought it sympathy-inducing to tell Stephanopoulos that he drank wine from a “paper cup” on the flight back after his sacking — an image of Comey not as a moral giant but a pathetic partisan drunk on his own rectitude.

Men tiden rinder ud, Trumps økonomiske politik sætter gang i hjulene hvorfor medierne klynger sig til at “Stormy Daniels or James Comey’s Dudley Do-Right’s memos are a pathway to accomplish what they are beginning to concede Robert Mueller cannot”.

Michael Goodwin siger i New York Post, at der er udbrudt “civil war among anti-Trumpers”, som løgnene er kommet ud af kontrol og nu hvirvler rundt blandt kup-magerne selv

The news that Inspector General Michael Horowitz is probing whether former FBI Director James Comey mishandled classified information with memos he wrote and leaked is the second bombshell in two days. It follows the IG’s recommendation of criminal prosecution against Comey’s former top deputy, Andrew McCabe, on charges that he lied repeatedly to investigators.

These are not secondary issues. Getting the truth of biased actions against Trump by law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration is as critical as the Mueller investigation. To let Comey and others get away with abusing their power for partisan purposes would further damage public trust in law enforcement.

Comey, of course, is on a book tour that has served a dual function: making him rich while also making him less trustworthy to both Democrats and Republicans. He and McCabe are trading accusations of lying, which is remarkable when you realize how many ordinary Americans they prosecuted for lying to them.

Comey is also attacking former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who responds by accusing him of making up a conversation.

Mark Dice om Facebook

Diverse — Drokles on April 26, 2018 at 6:36 am

Jeg har skrevet kapitlet om Facebook af, fra den konservative Youtube kommentator Mark Dice seneste bog The True Story of Fake News

Facebook slowly morphed from a website people could use to look up old friends from high school or college and share photos with family members, to a place where most people now get much of their news and keep up with current events. At one time Facebook only showed users what their ‘friends’ was posting, but that changed when they added the trending module - and with this simple little box they harnessed the power to introduce thei one billion user to news stories that their friends hadn’t posted - stories the company feels users should know about, and overnight Facebook transformed from just a social networking site to a news company.

With this change, combined with the algorithms which filter out certain content people post by limiting its distribution, Facebook has become a powerfull gatekeeper that can decide which stories will go viral, and which ones will remain virtually unknown. Facebook also poses a danger to free speech by policing and censoring what people post, and if something is deemed ‘too politically incorrect’, then posts are automatically deleted users may have their accounts completely shut down.

Most news websites now rely on Facebook for the majority of their traffic from users posting links to their articles. An internet analytics firm showed that Facebook was responsible for driving 43% of web traffic to over 400 major sites in 2016.

According to their study, in 2014 Facebook was responsible for 20% of all traffic to news sites, and in just two years that figure more than doubled as people became accustomed to scrolling through their Facebook feeds to see what articles their friends had posted and because they where now ‘following’ news websites on Facebook instead of bookmarking the websites in their internet browser and visiting them directly.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said one of his goals is, “To build the perfect personalized newspaper for every person in the world.” Facebook even began hosting articles from major publishers so users who clicked on a link wouldn’t leave the Facebook ecosystem and could now view the content within Facebook’s app.

The company wants to be the primary hub of the internet, bypassing search engines and web browser altogether. For those who where using the internet of the 1990s and early 2000s, we recall most companies encouraging people to visiting their websites at the end of their commercials, but those calls to action have been replaced by now encouraging people to follow them on Facebook instead, making Mark Zuckerberg one of the most powerful (and unnecessary) middlemen in the history of the internet.

As the 2016 election approached, many media analysts and tech bloggers began to realize that with so many people relying on Facebook as their primary news aggregator, that the site could leverage their power hoping to influence the election. New York Magazine published an article wich asked, “Could Facebook help prevent Donald Trump?”, and went on to say Not through lobbying or donations or political action committees, but simply by exploiting the enormous reach and power of its core products? Could Facebook, a private coorperation with over a billion active users, swing an election just by adjusting its News Feed?”

Paul Brewer, a communications professor at the University of Delaware, said “Facebook would, like any campaign, want to encourage turnout a,ong the supporters of its preferred candidate, pursuade the small number of genuinely uncommitted likely voters, and target apathetic voters who could be convinced to get out to the polls.”

Josh Wright, the executive director of a behavioral science lab also admitted, “There’s lots of opportunity, I think, to manipulate based on what they know about people.” Whrigt pointed out how the site could fill people’s news feeds with photos or stories showing a particular candidate engaged in activities that Facebook knows they like in order to use “in-group psychology” to get people to indentify with a candidate who shares some of their interests.We tend to judge someon by what other people we like are saying about them, and so Facebook could highlight statements made by celebrities that people follow, or even our own friends, about a candidate in order to influence our opinion of that person. If you think Facebook wouldn’t engage in this kind of personalized high-tech manipulation, you would be wrong, because they already have.

A secret study Facebook conducted during the 2010 midterm elections, with help from researchers at the University of California, San Diego, investigated what’s called social contagion wich is how behavior or emotions are copied by others. Facebook included over 60 million of their users in an experiment and found that they could influence peopleto actually get out and vote by showing people that their friends had voted, which then influenced others as well. “Our study suggest that social influence may be the best way to increase voter turnout,” said James Fowler, a UCSD political science professor who conducted the study.”Just as importantly, that what happens online matters a lot in the ‘real world’.” Their experiment increased voter turnout by 340.000 people.

Facebook obviously have a political agenda. They’ve hosted af Q & A for Barak Obama, they hung a huge BLack Lives Matter banner at their headquarters, Mark Zuckerberg have been very outspoken about his support for illegal immigration, gay marriage, and other liberal causes, The company conducts internal polls of employees where they submit questions and vote on them in hopes of getting Zuckerberg to answer, and one poll in march of 2016 that a bunch of employees asked if the company should help prevent Donald Trump from winning the election.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Gizmodo, “Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants. Facebook has the same First Amendment right as The New York Times. They can completely block Trump if they want. They can block him or promote him.”Technically the First Amendment only prevents the U.S. government from supressing someone’s speech, not a coorperation.

Gizmodo’s report on the political bias of Facebook pointed out, “Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company - an outlet designed to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine og news website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its algorithm - altering what we see - it’s akin to an editor deciding what to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on.”

Wether they are legally allowed to do such a thing is one issue, wether such favoritism and censorship is deceptive and immoral is another.

“If Facebook decided to,” professor Volokh says, “it could gradually remove any pro-Trump stories or media off its site - devastating for a campaign that runs on memes and publicity. Facebook wouldn’t have to disclose it was doing this, and would be protected by the First Amendment.”

“If Facebook was actively coordination with the Sanders or Clinton campaign, and suppressing Donald Trump News, it would turn an independent expenditure(protected by the First Amendment) into a campaign contribution bercause it would be coordinated,” he said. “But, if they’re just saying ‘We don’t want Trump material on our site,’ they have every right to do that. It’s protected by the First Amendment.”

Censorship of Trending Topics

In May of 2016, tech blog Gizmodo confirmed what many had suspected and what was obvious to those with common sense - that Facebook was systematically suppressing news stories from conservative outlets and those which represented a positive conservative message. “Facebook workers routinely supressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section, according to a former journalist, who worked on the project,” reported Gizmodo.

The whistleblower revealed that the company suppressed stories about CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee conference), Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other topics from showing up on the trending module, even though they would have appeared there originally from so many people posting about them.It wasn’t just one whistleblower, but several, and they also revealed that employees would manually insert topics into the trending list that they wanted to get more attention. One former employee said that the positive stories about Black Lives Matter were often inserted into the trending box  to help them go viral when they didn’t originally trend from people posting about them.

“In other words,” Gizmodo reported, “Facebook news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values on to the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing - but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists ‘topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.’”

They also called the news section “some of the most powerful real estate on the internet” that helps dictate what hundreds of millions of people are reading.One of the news curators said they used a notebook to document stories that were censored which included ones about Lois Lerner, the IRS officiel who targeted conservatives for audits; stories about the Drudge Report, Ted Cruz, Steven Crowder, and more.

A second curator said, “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is. Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

If a story was on Breitbart, The Washington Examiner, Newsmax or other conservative sites and was going viral and qualified to be included in the trending module, curators would wait until an outlet like CNN or The New York Times covered the story before it would be allowed to show up as a trend. One insider revealed that Facebook injected the latest Black Lives Matter protests into the trending module, giving them a special preference to further their cause. The editors also prevented negative stories about Facebook itself from showing up in the trending section.

The very next day after the story broke about Facebook manipulating the trending topics list, the US Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees interstate commerce and communications, sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg with a list of detailed questions demanding answers about who determines which stories are included in the Trending Topics section. They also wanted to know details about the process of selection, oversight and wanting answers to the allegations of politically motivated manipulation.

Mark Zuckerberg then invited severel conservative media figures including Glenn Beck, Fox News host Dana Perino, Tucker Carlson, and others to Facebook’s headquaters to try and save face, prevent conservatives from abandoning Facebook, and to ‘talk about their concerns’.But since our world moves so fast most people quickly forgot all about the scandal and continue to blindly believe that what they see trending is what people are talking about most, not even giving it a second thought about the legitimacy what they are seeing.

“Boosting” Posts

Most people think that what they and their friends post (and what news sites they follow post), shows up in their feed unless they choose to hide posts from a user they are still following, but Facebook openly admits limiting the distribution of posts unless users pay them (in most cases, hundres of dollars for each post). It’s called “boosting” a post and is mostly for people like me who have a “fan page”wich is what all public figures, TV shows, News outlets, and bands use. It has a few more features than standard Facebook pages, such as not having to approve a friend request every time someone follows the page.

My page, at the time I’m writing this has about 500.000 followers. But each status update I post only show up on a few thousand people’s news feeds. Thisisn’t some conspiracy, it’s just a method Facebook uses to generate money, by encouraging administrators of fan pages to “boost” their post, or pay to actually show up in the feeds of people who af following the page. For administrators of “fan pages,” when we post something, we are alerted with af button that says”Boost this post” wich take us to a checkout page showing various prices and the corresponding number of people Facebook will then allow to se the post.

For example to boost a post so that it will reach at least 100.000 of the 500.000 people following my page, the cost is $4.000. That’s for one status update. I mention this because a lot of people wonder why they miss posts from pages they follow, and this is the reason. You may only ber seeingone out of every four posts because of the limitation Facebook puts on the posts that aren’t being “boosted.”

Experimenting on Users

Aside from the previously mentioned secret study into Facebook’s effectiveness of getting out the vote in the 2010 midterm elections by using 60 million people as unknowing guinea pigs, Facebook has conducted other experiments on it’s users as well. In 2012 they manipulated the news feeds of 700.000 people by both limiting and boosting the number of positive and negative posts showing up in some people’s feeds to determine whether they could alter their moods. They then monitored what those users posted to see if they where either more negativ og positive as a result of what what they where regularly seeing in their own feeds. All Facebook users actually consent to this kind of manipulation by agreeing to terms of service when they sign up.

Leaked documents also revealed that Facebook experimented on what they considered to be emotionally vulnerable teenagers who felt “useless.” The documents show that the companys algorithms can determine which users are feeling “Worthless,” “insecure,” “useless,” “overwhelmed,” and other depressed feelings, and then they use this assesment to allow advertisers to target those people with adds for products they think they will be able to get them to buy.

Because of the continued instances of people committing horrific crimes while broadcasting them using Facebooks ‘Live’ feature, the company is developing an artificial intelligence system to watch live streams in real time , and monitor peoples posts in order to remove any ‘offensive’ og violent contend. If their A.I. is able to monitor all posts and live stream in near real time, it opens the door for Orwellian censorship straight out of a science fiction film, because those who control the parameters for having content be removed could choose to use the system to prevent the spread of certain views, as we have already seen with the Trending Topics scandal.

In May of 2017, Facebook hired another 3000 people to monitor live streams, and other posts that are flagged for potentially violent or ‘hateful’ content in an attempt to have such posts removed more quickly. So there is now a virtual army of moderators ready to not just delete post or videos, but to shut down livestreams if someone i talking about an issue in a way Facebook deems ’sexist,’ ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ or any other number of buzzwords that indicate ‘Thought Crime.’

A Threat to Free Speech

Relying on Facebook to communicate with friends and family has become a threat to free speech around the world as fewer people actually talk on the phone (let alone meet face to face). People are now being arrested for ‘hate speech’ for posting criticism about their government’s policies on Facebook. This isn’t just happening in Third World countries or Orwellian dictatorships like Communist China or North Korea; it’s happening i England, Scotland, Germany, Canada, and other supposedly ‘free’ countries. Facebook also frequently deletes users’ posts and lock their accounts (or deletes their accounts entirely) for posting statements critical of illegal immigration, the LGBT agenda and other policies the Leftists are pushing.

These alleged ‘terms of service’ violations aren’t for posting threats, they’re for simply criticizing the liberal agenda, or for using certain words that social justice warriors deem ‘hateful.’ This kind of Orwellian censorship is the equivalent of your phone company listening to every conversation you have, and then turning of your phone if they didn’t like what you were saying.

Facebook has deleted several of my posts and locked me out of my account for three days for such ‘violations’ after I criticized anti-white racism and a bizarre pro-transgender soap commercial. I expect that any day they may hust delete my account altogether for what they will claim is a ’serious violation’ of their terms of service.

When logging on one morning I was told, “We removed the post because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards,” and I found that Facebook had deleted a post I made that was critical of a Dove soap commercial featuring ‘Real moms’ which included a transgender ‘woman’ holding ‘her’ new little baby, and the person ‘identified’ as the child’s ‘mother’ even though he was the biological father. All I did was post a link to a story about the commercial, along with the comment, “Excuse me now while I go grab some Irish Spring to clean up my puke,” a sarcastic joke, referencing Irish Sprig, a competitor’s soap.

People often call this being put in a “Facebook Jail” which means you can’t log in or post anything for up to 30 days, depending on how many times you’ve been suspended for ‘violating’ their terms of service. Facebook has suspended people for simply posting Bible verses that are critical of homosexuality. Other post critical of of illegal immigration, black crime, LGBT extremists, or radical Muslims are regularly deleted as well.

Facebook employees have actually pressured Mark Zuckerberg to delete some of Donald Trump’s posts for violating their ‘hate speech’ rules for his stance on immigration. Again, imagine the phone company canceling your service because they didn’t like what you and your friends talked about. That’s basically what Facebook and the other social media giants are doing by policing what people post and then shutting down their pages if they feel something is too ‘offensive’ or violate their terms om service.

Facebook quietly admits censoring content for the Chinese government. The website was banned in China in 2009, so Facebook developed new censorship tools to appease the communist government there, an so they allowed the website back. The day befor Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding in the UK, Facebook suspended a bunch of pages of people and groups they suspected were going to ’cause trouble’ during the event. And Mark Zuckerberg has admitted working with various European countries in order to censor criticism of the mass influx of muslims into Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden.

Some are calling for Facebook (and other social media sevices, including search engines like Google) to be treated as public utilities. One of the arguments is that using them in today’s society is as necessary as having acces to traditional utilities like telephone, water, electricity and natural gas.

After the historic flooding Houston after Hurricane Harvey in 2017, many victims took to social media begging to be rescued, posting their address an pictures of the rising floodwater, and many were rescued by volunteers this way. One may argue that banning people from such sites could put their lives at risk, and is one more reason Facebook Twitter, and other social media services should be considered utilities that can’t be shut off just because someone is posting things the companies don’t agree with.

The Future of Facebook

Not only does Facebook want to be the middle man on all internet traffic, but they’re getting into commerce by enabling financial transactions, original content creation like Amazon and Netflix, and they hope to lead the virtual reality revolution. Mark Zuckerberg has even created flying solar-powered Wi-Fi routers to bring the internet to remote parts of Africa, and envisions a world where instead of physically going ti a friend’s house to watch a football game, everyone will stay at their own homes and put on their VR headsets to watch television ‘together’ while communicating with each other through avatars. They are calling it Facebook Spaces.

If you’re starting to think Facebook’s vision of the future looks like something right out of The Matrix, you wouldn’t be wrong. Zuckerberg himself says that in 50 years we’ll all be “pluggerd into the Matrix” through his mind-reading machines and using virtual reality headsets as part of our daily lives. He said, “I think you’re going to be able capture a thought [and take] what you’re thinking or feeling, in its kind of ideal and perfect form in your head, and share that with the world.”

Such themes have been explored in science fiction films like Surrogates (2009), eXistenZ (1999), and The Thirteenth Floor (1999), all of which warn about the dangers of this kind of society, but Zuckerberg is determined to make such a thing a reality.

Facebooks forsøg på at fremstille en kunstig intelligens, der kan censure øjeblikkeligt skal ses sammen med at kineserne råder over teknologi, der kan genkende ansigter i selv store menneskemængder og Google arbejder på teknologi der vil være i stand til at genkende menneskestemmer blandt mange.

Rygtebørsen

Diverse — Drokles on April 24, 2018 at 6:37 pm

The Last Refuge, næres den mørkeste frygt i skyggelandet mellem konspiration og plausibilitet. Nej, Deep State styrer ikke USA, men efterretningsvæsenet og justitsministeriet er magtfuld organer, og spørgsmålet er, hvor mange rådner æblers motiverede indsats, hvad de kalder “the smal group”, der overhovedet skal til, for at sætte statsapparatet op imod Folkets valg.

Adding fuel to the multidimensional motive, the U.S. media apparatus, writ large, is in alignment with the “small group” objectives.

The evidence of the media motive surfaces amid dozens of leaks surrounding the FBI raid against Michael Cohen.  From those leaks hundreds of stories are being written regardless of accuracy.  What each of those stories has in common is a baseline the FBI took information from the raid. This is the critical point to understand.

The actual content recovered from the FBI raid is irrelevant.  What the media needed was the raid itself.  The raid presents the factual cornerstone of every written article – from which any false assertion can be made about the content.  The media needed the raid, the media does not need the content.  See how that works?  We are seeing this in hundreds of articles based on anonymous sources who frame the narrative of content.

Accepting this reality we discover the big-picture “small group” motive.  That motive facilitated by the same ideological allies who conducted the 2016 campaign against the candidacy of their enemy, Donald Trump.

Leaking is inevitably” medgiver Alan Dershowitz, der forklarer at det bare er således justitsministeriet og dens organer opererer. Men nu ender det snart

Hvorfor Israel?

Diverse — Drokles on April 21, 2018 at 3:50 am

Det spørgsmål stiller Brendan O’Neill i Spiked Online og kommer frem til følgende konklusion

The treatment of Israel as uniquely colonialist, as an exemplar of racism, as the commissioner of the kind of crimes against humanity we thought we had left in the darkest moments of the 20th century, really captures what motors today’s intense fury with Israel above all other nations: it has been turned into a whipping boy for the sins of Western history, a punch-bag for those who feel shame or discomfort with the political and military excesses of their own nations’ pasts and who now register that shame and discomfort by raging against what they view, hyperbolically, as a lingering expression of that past: Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. They heap every horror of the past on to Israel, hence their denunciation of it as ideological, racist, imperialistic, even genocidal – in their eyes, and courtesy of their campaigning, Israel comes to symbolise the crimes of yesteryear. So when 18 Palestinians are killed, it is not simply a tragedy, it is not simply excessive, it is certainly not something that requires serious, nuanced discussion, including about the role of Hamas in organising such protests in order to shore up international sympathy for Palestinian victimhood. No, it is an act that reminds us of the entire history of colonialism and racial chauvinism and of concentration camps and genocide, because this is what Israel now reminds people of; they project their post-colonial guilt and scepticism about the Western project on to this tiny state in the Middle East.

The rage against Israel is actually more therapeutic than political. It is not about seriously addressing the reality of life and conflict in the Middle East, but rather is driven by the narrow needs of Western observers and activists for an entity they can fume against in order to give release to their own sense of historical and political disorientation. But the impact of this therapeutic rage, this almost primal-scream therapy against Israel, is dire. It contributes to the growing conspiratorial view that certain people, you know who they are, have a uniquely disruptive influence on international affairs, political life, and everyday safety and security. ‘It isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’, observers say, and they are absolutely right. Every nation state must be open to criticism and protest. But if you only criticise Israel, or you criticise Israel disproportionately to every other state, and if your criticism of Israel is loaded with Holocaust imagery and talk of bloodletting, and if you boycott Israel and no other nation, and if you flatter the dark imaginings of the far right and Islamists and conspiracy theorists by fretting over a super powerful Israel Lobby, and if the sight of an Israeli violinist is too much for you to stomach, then, I’m sorry, that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism.

Imens i Yemen, som også er “a barbaric sea, land and air blockade since 2015 that has resulted in devastating shortages of food and medicine, causing famine and the rampant spread of diseases like cholera

Stemning fra Gaza striben

Diverse — Drokles on April 15, 2018 at 4:24 am

“Despite Israel’s threats of violence” begynder en overskrift i Mondoweiss “Gaza protesters have peaceful dream”. Det er marchen mod Israels grænse, der tænkes på, den march som i sig selv, selv om den skulle have været fredelig, er en afvisning af Israels eksistensberettigelse. “Not only niggers have dreams“, som Dan Park bemærkede

It all started in 2011 with that Facebook post, the dream of a 33-year-old man in Gaza named Ahmed Abu Ratima. Gazing at a tree on the other side of the barbed fence that separates the Strip from the land now known as Israel, Abu Ratima thought, “Why can’t I go and sit under that tree just for a while, like a free bird?”

Ja, hvorfor lige det træ af alle træer i verden? I 2012 besøgte VICE, der ikke ligefrem er konservatismens bannerfører, Gaza, for at se på hvorledes Hamas håndhævede loven seks år efter dens folkevalgte magtovertagelse.

Selv om Vica kolporterer den almindelige historie om de 6-700.000 arabere der i 1948 forlod og blev fordrevet fra Israel - hvoraf der af de overlevende fra dengang, som endte i Gaza, nu kun er lige under 2.000.000 tilbage - så kan man konstatere flere småvigtige detaljer, hvis man vil forstå denne koncentrationslejrs dynamik og bevidne anatomien af israelernes folkemord på palæstinenserne.

Suroosh Alvi og hans medarbejdere rejser ind via den ægyptiske grænse, der på daværende tidspunkt var blevet delvist åbnet fordi daværende præsident Mursi og hans Muslimske Broderskab ønskede et tættere forhold til den palæstinensiske sag imod ‘besættelsesmagten’. Ved grænsen står der hundreder der er desperate for at kommen IND i koncen… Gaza. Suroosh Alvi udtrykker en vis uro ved at skulle interviewe Hamasfolk i deres kontorer af frygt for om Israelske droner skulle smide en hilsen - altså målrettet gengældelse. Gadebilledet i Gaza ligner gadebilledet i et hvilket som helst arabisk land. Hamas nægter nogensinde at anerkende Israel og omtaler bare landet som ‘besættelsen’, hvilket er en permanent krigstilstand. Hamas største problem synes dog at være ungdommens misbrug af alkohol, narko og Tramadol. Det sidste laves af indiske medicinalfirmaer, kontrolleret af jøder og alt sammen smugles ind via de tunneller som især børn bruges til at grave ind til Ægypten.

Og uden at reflekter fortæller Mondoweiss at The situation in Gaza today is at its worst in recent history”

“The streets are full of beggars,” says Hasan Ahmed (who asked that his last name not be used), a member of the coordinating committee for the Great Return March. “Our goal is to put the crises of Palestinians on the table for everyone to see, and we will do so by the gathering of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees close to the border line.”

According to a January report of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor:

  • 97 percent of Gaza water is unfit for human consumption.
  • 45 percent of medicines are absent from the warehouses of the Gaza Ministry of Health, along with 28 percent of needed medical equipment.
  • 50 percent of Palestinian children need psychological counseling.
  • Only 54 percent of requested medical transfers to outside hospitals in 2017 were approved—the lowest since 2006.
  • 44 percent of the adult Gaza population is unemployed. Among youth, it’s 62 percent and among those with disabilities, it’s 90 percent.
  • 65 percent of families live in poverty (95 percent among fishermen) and more than 72 percent don’t have enough food.

I 2006 sagde araberne i Gazastriben altså JA til den permanente krig.

“[A] whole new level of unfairness”

Diverse — Drokles on April 13, 2018 at 2:26 am

Trumps advokat har fået sit kontor og sit hjem ransaget af FBI, da Muellers efterforskning af Trump, tilsyneladende har ført til mistanker om slet spil. Ifølge Cohen var FBI meget høflige, hvilket de ikke var, da de med skarpladte våben, stormede Trumps tidligere rådgiver Paul Manafort midt om natten i dennes hjem, og visiterede dennes kone i sengen. Måske de lave forventningers taknemmelighed?

Alan Dershowitz mente derimod at det essentielle var den trussel, ransagningen af Cohens kontorer udgjorde mod advokaters fortrolige forhold til deres klienter

I deal with clients all the time. I tell them on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct. And now they say, just based on probable cause, even though there was cooperation with Cohen, they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent, and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.’ You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.

Mark Levin mente ”the entire department’s out of control now”. Newt Gingrich mente at det var en politistats metoder og ikke en retsstat og Scott Adams ville af samme årsag blive skuffet over Trump, hvis ikke hele banden blev fyret. Stormy Daniels advokat mente derimod, at Cohen ville blive den første dominobrik, der ville falde og at “history is going to look back upon this day and this is going to be a monumental day when the president on a Thursday refers everyone to his personal attorney, and Monday, that attorney’s offices are raided by the FBI”.

Men det er måske ikke rigtigt, skriver Andrew C McCarthy, der allerede for to uger siden, som han beskedent bemærker, “tried to explain that the Stormy Daniels scandal could be more perilous for Trump than the Russia investigation has been”. Hverken tolkningen af politistatsmetoder eller at Mueller skulle kunne bruge Sormy Daniels sagen til at afpresse Cohen til at vidne imod Trump, selvom de i den sag, som det skal forklares senere, sidder med et stort forklaringsproblem.

Ifølge McCarthy er man meget opmærksomme på de Forfatningsstridige komplikationer, der ligger i at ransage advokatkontorer, der kræver tilladelse fra de øverste lag i Justitsministeriet efter at have afsøgt mindstemiddelpricippet. Og han hæfter sig ved at ransagningen “related to several topics, including a payment to a pornographic film actress” og han minder om at “a federal judge found probable cause that evidence of at least one crime would be uncovered in Cohen’s premise”.

Det er vigtigt for McCarthy at påpege at Mueller ikke selv efterforsker Cohen, men altså har fundet noget snavs af en hvis substans, han ikke kan sidde overhørig. Derfor har han, som led i de forskellige depardementers naturlige samarbejde overdraget sagen til FBI og Statsanklageren for Southern District of New York (SDNY). Hvis SDNY finder noget af relevans for Muellers efterforskning, stakke af rubler, vil de selvfølgelig blive overdraget til ham. McCarthy, der selv har arbejdet for SDNY, har ingen tvivl om at der er vandtætte skotter imellem de forskellige efterforskere.

As I explained last November, when we learned that Mueller had forced an attorney who had represented Manafort to testify against him, there is a so-called crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. If a client’s communications with a lawyer are for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, they lose any claim to confidentiality. Theoretically, then, Trump and Cohen have a legal as well as a factual problem. Legally, if they conspired to execute a payment in violation of campaign laws in order to silence Clifford, their communications in this regard would not be privileged. Factually (if implausibly), both Cohen and Trump claim that the former did not tell the latter about the payment to Clifford; and that Cohen made the payment in his personal capacity, not as Trump’s lawyer. How, then, can they now claim attorney–client privilege in connection with the transaction?

(…) Even if it’s not nearly as consequential as the specter of “collusion” with a hostile foreign power, the porn-star payment undeniably happened. I argued then, and I’m even more convinced now, that “the best argument in Trump’s favor is one that claims mitigation, not innocence.”

Compared with other possible campaign-finance infractions that have been settled without criminal charges, this one — if it is one — is a trifle. And while the underlying behavior is debauched, it happened a decade before Trump was elected. While extramarital, the tryst was consensual by Clifford’s account. (The White House half-heartedly denies it happened.) As for Trump’s fitness for the presidency, the scandal tells us exactly nothing that we didn’t already know about the flawed man that Americans chose to elect.

Det har altså taget at år for Muellers efterforskere, at finde beviser på, at Trumps “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary“. Men McCarthy giver dog Dershowitz, Levin og Gingrich ret i, at det ville se anderledes ud for Hillary Clinton. “Michael Cohen”, skriver McCarthy, “has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now”

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

(…)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Og det er den sørgelig konklusion på en uhæmmet undersøgelse, som Dershowitz fra starten advarede imod, Berias ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen’ diktum.

Klynk fra gode mennesker

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 4:26 am

De gode mennesker vånder sig over at Israel har den frækhed at forsvare deres egne grænser. Indtrængende skal belønnes og ynkes, ikke skydes på. Man reagerer stærkt på udvalgte billeder der viser de forhutlede og fustrerede unge mennesker i deres kamp modpolitistatens overmagt. Tablet Magazine sætter konflikten, hvor mindst 10 terrorister er blevet bekræftet dræbt

Having withdrawn from the strip in 2005, Israel no longer has any territorial claims on Gaza; but Gaza, as this weekend makes painfully clear, still has territorial claims on Israel. In its continuous attacks on their neighbors to the north, and in its most recent efforts to cross into Israel, Hamas has again proven what the organization’s charter so clearly states, namely that its singular goal is the utter and absolute destruction of the Jewish state. It wants all of the land, not peace or coexistence or any other sensible and reasonable goal, which is why any territorial compromise on Israel’s behalf is nothing more than an invitation to the next, even bloodier conflict.

Think that’s Zionist propaganda? Here is the leader of Hamas himself, explaining the point of last week’s protests: The “March of Return,” said Yahya Sinwar, “affirms that our people can’t give up one inch of the land of Palestine. The protests will continue until the Palestinians return to the lands they were expelled from 70 years ago.”

Imens trækker småting overskrifter. Et par israelske soldater jubler højlydt, som de skyder en tilsyneladende ubevæbnet palæstinensisk araber i hovedet. Hvorfor og hvad der er gået forud får man ikke at vide. Det er også lige meget, de barske mænd står under anklage fra de veludhvilede gode mænd, for at have begået vold på deres vegne på en uæstetisk måde.

En palæstinensisk-arabisk journalist filmer i den tætte røg fra de brændende bildæk og bliver ramt i brystet af en israelsk snigskytte. Reporters Without Borders skal ikke bruge flere oplysninger end det til at anklage Israel for at have gjort det med vilje. Forsvarsminister Lieberman hævder den brystskudte journalist styrede en drone ind over grænsen (med et kamera eller en bombe?), mens hæren, IDF, klogeligt vil udtale sig når man er færdige med at undersøge hændelsesforløbet. Det kunne jo være et forståeligt uheld

Ofir Gendelman, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted on his Twitter account last Friday that the protesters burned tires to provide cover for Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who he said “will try to storm the border, infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis.”

For palæstinensernes løgne falder tættere end røgen fra bildækkene.

pallywood-2pallywood-1

In the beginning was the lie

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 3:23 am

Trump gik til valg på sit America first slogan og det er ikke svært at se den indenrigspolitiske interesse i at ægge ham til en krig imod Assads Syrien på grund af en mistanke om regimets brug af giftgas. Tucker Carlson med nogle eftertænksomme ord, midt i hysteriet

“What we do know for sure is that the rationale for going to war was based on lies” skriver Matthias von Hein for Deutche Welle om beslutningen i 2003 om at banke Saddams Irak

Six weeks before the war began, Powell spent 76 minutes influencing international public opinion in favor of war. The core of his speech was that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, that his regime was supporting international terrorism, and that it aimed to build nuclear weapons.

The presentation culminated in a claim, backed up by detailed illustrations, that in order to evade strict controls by UN weapons inspectors Iraq had converted a fleet of trucks into mobile chemical and biological weapons labs. We remember Powell’s speech primarily because all of these claims turned out to be false. In 2005 Powell himself described the speech as a lasting “blot” on his career.

Ray McGovern is a security services veteran. He worked for the CIA for 27 years, and held senior positions within it. In 2003, he and some colleagues from the CIA and other intelligence services founded the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which critically examines US policy. McGovern told DW, “The intelligence was not mistaken; it was fraudulent — and they knew it.” And a significant part of Powell’s presentation was based on intelligence provided by Germany.

Codename ‘Curveball’

In 1999 the Iraqi chemist Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi came to Germany as a refugee. Alerted to his presence, Germany’s foreign intelligence service (the BND) interrogated him. They were hoping for information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Al-Janabi — referred to by his codename, “Curveball” — realized that the more information he provided, the more his status improved. He was given a German passport, money and his own apartment.

Så kan jeg ikke planke mere fra den forudsigelige historie. Min personlige holdning var og er at vi havde og har al mulig grund til at slå til, hvis vi føler os truede på vores eksistens. Og Saddam gjorde alt for at holde Verden i den tro da det gav ham et godt navn i den arabiske gade. Og han havde brugt giftgas i rigelige mængder, både i krigen mod Iran og mod civile kurdere. Han havde også haft store ambitioner om en superkanon og et atomvåbenprogram, begge projekter israelerne stoppede effektivt. Og disse ambitioner var aldrig døde, blot sat på vågeblus under truslen fra amerikanerne.

Men en krig bygget på en løgn er en krig uden formål og en sejr defineres af om man når sit mål. Ergo kan den slags krige ikke vindes selv om man nedkæmper en fjende man har defineret. Man bytter blot et onde ud med et andet, som man endnu ikke kender og ved, hvorledes man skal forholde sig til. Stay out!

Et angreb på retsstaten

Diverse — Drokles on April 6, 2018 at 11:21 am

Det er ikke så tit man læser noget nyt om det Trump-russisk samarbejde. Men i Townhall skriver Byron York, at efterforskningen af Trumps stab, i sig selv er et angreb på retsstaten i og med at brudene på lovens principper begås af den aller øverste top af politifolk, embedsmænd og politikere. Først og fremmest, skriver York, er der brugen af the Logan Act, en lov fra 1799, der gør det forbudt for andre end Præsidenten af føre udenrigspolitik. Men the Logan Act strider samtidig mod Forfatningens forståelse af borgernes frihed og er derfor kun forsøgt taget i brug to gange i løbet af første halvdel af 1800 tallet. Ingen tager den seriøst og den teoretiske mulighed for en juridisk argumentation for, at Trump skulle have overtrådt den, er for længst knust under vægten af præcedens.

Ikke desto mindre opviglede Demokraterne en stemning, der i forvejen var ond med voldelige overfald på Trumps tilhængere, om at Trump forbrød sig imod USA ved at føre udenrigspolitik i samarbejde med russerne bag ryggen på den siddende præsident. Og derfor pressede de på for, at justitsministeriet skulle indlede en efterforskning. Ingen eksperter tog det for andet end “political posturing”, men det var der andre der gjorde

[U]nbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn’t; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act.

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when, in fact, the new administration’s real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor’s policies.

Derefter er der FBIs brug af den uvederhæftige rapport, Hillary Clintons valgkamps maskine bestilte hos den engelske tidligere efterretningsofficer Christoffer Steele, til at opnå dommerkendelser til at aflytte et par af Trumps medarbejdere (og alle de kommunikerede med, hvilket vil sige de fleste af Trumps medarbejdere). På daværende FBI direktør Jim Comeys første møde med Trump, inden Trumps indsættelse, informerede han Trump om, at FBI var i besiddelse af Steeles rapport og hvad den i grove træk indholdt. Det er velkendt, men jeg har aldrig tænkt over implikationerne af dette møde

Imagine that. The very first time the incoming president met the FBI director face-to-face, the FBI’s message was: We know about you and those hookers in Moscow.

In their new book “Russian Roulette,” authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:

“Trump had seen this sort of thing before,” they write. “Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn — the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols — knew how this worked. So too did Comey’s famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute.”

The intel chiefs’ briefing of Trump soon leaked to the media. And the fact that top officials had seen fit to tell the incoming president about the dossier made it a legitimate news story. Within hours, Buzzfeed published the entire dossier on the internet.

Så toppen af lov og orden bruger en dubiøs lov og en uvederhæftig rapport til at efterforske, aflytte og offentligt tilsvine den indkomne præsident. Det kan godt være at den tidligere så glimrende Jonah Goldberg forkaster dette som endnu en konspirationsteori, men det er der ikke tale om. Der er tale om et miljøs selvopfattelse, hvor den enes overtrædelse af god skik retfærdiggør den andens og gradvist og umærkbart forandres arbejdskulturen, hvor de betroede embeder. “If there is such a thing as a dangerous “deep state” of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy” skriver Victor Davis Hanson i National Review

On March 17, former CIA director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you.”

That outburst from the former head of the world’s premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Brennem, der skulle have lækket Steeles rapport til et Demokratisk medlem af Senatet, beskrives som en politisk opportunist og vendekåbe, der manøvrerer i et betændt system.

Former national-security adviser Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi tragedy, the nature of the Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo detainee exchange, the presence of chemical weapons in Syria, and her role in unmasking the identities of surveilled Americans.

Andrew McCabe, recently fired from his job as FBI deputy director, openly admitted to lying to investigators, claiming he was “confused and distracted.” McCabe had said that he was not a source for background leaks about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. He wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that “some of my answers were not fully accurate . . .”

Former FBI director James Comey likely lied about not drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in her email scandal before interviewing her.

Comey misled a FISA court by not providing the entire truth about the Steele dossier. He falsely assured the president that he was not under investigation while likely leaking to others that Trump was, in fact, under investigation.

Former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he said that the National Security Agency did not collect data on American citizens. When caught in the lie, Clapper claimed that he had given the “least untruthful” answer to the committee that he could publicly provide.

In the past, Clapper had also misled the country about the “secular” nature of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Og ikke en af dem, er holdt ansvarlig, bemærker Hanson.

Morten Østergaards brune underbevidsthed

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Det er ikke meget danske medier beskæftiger sig med urolighederne ved Israels grænse. 17 palæstinensere har ellers allerede fået som fortjent om endnu flere er sårede. Således nøgternt indledes en artikel i Arab News(!) under overskriften “Israel threatens to expand response”.

Israel will target “terror organizations” in Gaza if violence along the territory’s border with Israel drags on, the chief military spokesman warned Saturday, a day after thousands of Palestinians staged protests near the border fence.

Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the chief army spokesman, denied allegations of excessive use of force, saying those killed by Israeli troops were men between the ages of 18 and 30 who were involved in violence and belonged to militant factions.

He alleged Gaza health officials exaggerated the number of those wounded, and that several dozen at most were injured by live fire while the rest were merely shaken up by tear gas and other riot dispersal means. Det er altså Israels der svarer igen og Israels synspunkt, der danner det første indtryk for resten af historien.

Tidligere formand for Sinn Fein, kaldte det et “calculated slaughter by Israeli military snipers of unarmed Palestinian protesters” og krævede israelske diplomater udvist fra Irland. Og i samme radikale dur, skrev Morten Østergaard på sin Facebook side

Skarpe skud mod varslet demonstration? Det er jo det rene vanvid. Mere end 700 demonstranter såret af de israelske patroner. Verdenssamfundet må fordømme og kræve fuld undersøgelse, så de ansvarlige kan stilles til regnskab.

Israel må og skal acceptere folkeretten og menneskeretten. I Gaza gør man hverken det ene eller det andet. Her skyder man med skarpt mod demonstranter. Ufatteligt.

“Det er selvfølgelig en fremmed tanke for en radikaler, at se et land forsvare sine grænser” skrev en Peter Andreas Fog. Men østergaard lod sig ikke anfægte og demonstrerede istedet sin indsigt i striden mellem israelerne og deres muslimske bødler in spe

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-04-03-kl-113856

Flere forsøgte at forklare at Israel rent faktisk ikke har besat Gaza, der er omstridt land, da de rykkede ud i 2007, men en jævnlig skylle af missiler fra tid til anden som resultat. Andre at det ikke var en fredelig demonstration, men en koreograferet aktion i flere led, hvor nogle agerede fredelige til ære for fotograferne, mens andre, bevæbnede med skydevåben, forsøgte at engagere israelske sikkerstyrker til kamp og i den situation var der igen andre, der stillede deres, eller nogle andres?, børn i forreste linie kastende sten og afbrændende bildæk, som det er opstandskutyme på de kanter. alt sammen for at fremprovokere så meget balladen og ulykke over sig selv at man kunne paradere offergørelsen for en verden altid mere end villig til at tro det værste, når der er jøder i ligningen.

At det var et regulært stormløb mod Israels grænse understøttedes også af af at, som det blev påpeget af flere, der ikke er ytrings- of forsamlingsfrihed i Gaza, altså en Hamas aktion mod Israel. “Hvis man som politiker vil tages alvorligt, burde man så ikke sætte sig ind i sagerne i stedet for at køre på automatreaktionerne?” spurgte en Morten Margolinsky Østergaard med den implikation, at Østergaards automatreaktion kommer fra et mere brunt sted i hans underbevidsthed.

Zuckers

Diverse — Drokles on April 2, 2018 at 8:57 am

“Suspenderet direktør afslører flere møder med Trump” hed en overskrift på TV2, “Whistleblower: Selskab stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump” hed en overskrift på Danmarks Radio, der snart bliver en ægte statskanal, Information skrev “Stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump”, Finans Tech skrev “Historisk datatyveri: Oplysninger fra 50 mio. Facebook-brugere hjalp Donald Trump til sejr”, Politiken “Whistleblower: Kontroversielt analysefirma har misbrugt data fra 50 millioner Facebook-brugere for at hjælpe Trump til sejr” og Ekstra Bladet præsenterede enddog end opbyggelig morale og et offer med overskriften “Hans metoder hjalp Trump: Nu har han kostet Zuckerberg 40 milliarder”osv

Det var det første danskerne lærte om selskabet ved at præsentere det sammen med hvad man allerede havde lært danskerne om, hvad de skulle vide om Trump. Fra valgkamp til sociale medier, alle er tabere i kontakten med Trump. Men nogle dage senere kunne man på CBS læse

The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data’s reporting — principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value. The profiling approach utilized by Cambridge Analytica allowed it to predict the voting likelihoods of individual people based on personality, the firm claimed.

Facebook announced on Friday that the firm — which is partly owned by billionaire donor Robert Mercer and which was paid $5.9 million by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — has been suspended for violating the social media company’s standards and practices.

In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn’t share its data.

The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump’s campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.

Sandheden var at Facebook, med sin forkærlighed for identitetspolitik, i stedet hjalp Hillary Clinton i valgkampen, som de, sammen med andre sociale medier, generelt bare bekæmper konservative stemmer, eller statsdissidenter i fremmede lande

Så, Trump benyttede ikke stjålen information fra Facebook om Facebooks brugere. Men, viser det sig, Facebook levere derimod helt gratis deres information om deres brugere til Hillary Clintons kampagne, så de kunne påvirke vælgerne mere målrettet.

Israel kan slå til nu

Diverse — Drokles on March 31, 2018 at 2:19 am

Erdogan drømmer om en samlet muslimsk hær, som han mener kan besejre Israel, skriver Express. Avisen Yeni ?afak taler gerne på hans vegne og spurgte “What if an army of Islam formed against Israel?” og argumenterede “The number of active soldiers would be at least 5,206,100, while the defence budget would reach approximately $175billion”. 250.000 soldater skulle deltage i første angrebsbølge forestillede man sig. Had og mindreværd i en enkelt trussel. “Det gnaver i vore sjæle, at et så lille land som Israel med kun syv millioner indbyggere kan slå de arabiske nationer med 350 millioner. Det ydmyger vores kollektive ego.” har Al Jazeeras redaktør Ahmed Sheikh udtrykt det ifølge Lone Nørgaard og Torben Hansens glimrende gennemgang i Altinget af konflikten

Men det palæstinenserne trænger til, er en ordentlig røvfuld, skriver Daniel Pipes og citerer Victor Davis Hansen, hvad der altid er klogt; “Conflicts throughout history become serial when an enemy is not utterly defeated and is not forced to submit to the political conditions of the victor.” Alternativet, skriver Pipes, er prøvet uden held

By 1993, frustrated with the slow-moving and passive nature of deterrence, Israel’s impatient citizenry opted for an immediate resolution with the Palestinians. In the Oslo Accords, each of the two parties promised the other what it most wanted: recognition and security for Israelis, dignity and autonomy for Palestinians.

In their haste to end the conflict, however, Israelis made three profound mistakes that summer morning on the White House lawn: (1) Granting Yasir Arafat, leader of an unofficial, dictatorial, and murderous organization, diplomatic parity with Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of a democratic and sovereign state. (2) Believing Arafat when he claimed to recognize Israel, when in fact he (and his successors) still sought Israel’s elimination, now enhanced by his controlling two adjoining pieces of territory, the West Bank and Gaza. (3) Making concessions under the illusion that wars conclude through goodwill, when concessions actually had the contrary effect of signaling weakness and thereby amplified Palestinian hostility. These mistakes, tragically, turned a would-be “peace process” into a counterproductive “war process.”

(…)

Therefore, to gain Palestinian acceptance, Israel must return to its old policy of deterrence, of punishing Palestinians severely when they aggress. One example: When three family members were murdered in July 2017 while sitting down to Sabbath dinner in the Israeli West Bank town of Halamish, the Israeli response should have been to construct new buildings in Halamish and extend its boundaries.

That’s deterrence; it’s more than tough tactics, which Israeli governments already pursue; it means developing consistent policies to break rejectionism and encourage Palestinian acceptance of Israel. It implies a strategy to crush irredentist Palestinian ambitions so as finally to end the demonizing of Jews and Israel, recognize historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem, “normalize” relations with Israelis, close the suicide factories, and shutter the entire machinery of warfare. This process will be neither easy nor quick: it requires Palestinians to suffer the bitter crucible of defeat, with its attendant deprivation, destruction, and despair. Unfortunately, there is no shortcut.

If Palestinian defeat is good for Israel, it is ironically even better for Palestinians, who will finally be liberated from ugly ambitions, revolutionary rhetoric, and genocidal fantasies.” Og nu er chancerne gunstige, med en amerikansk ambassade på vej til Jerusalem og arabiske stater, der modsat deres let antændelige befolkninger, er kørt sur i palæstinenserne og under Trumps myndige ledelse endda taler med ‘den zionistiske entitet’. Og det er ikke kun frygten for Iransk dominans, skriver Shai Feldman og Tamara Cofman for Foreign Policy, der driver den bevægelse

In particular, two developments over the past decade have been key. First, a regional energy revolution transformed Israel not only into an energy independent state but into an energy exporter. The recent 10-year, $15 billon agreement signed between Israeli and Egyptian companies for the sale of natural gas is a game-changer in Arab-Israeli politics. This agreement will allow Egypt to profit from liquefying and re-exporting the purchased gas to Europe and Africa, boosting its prospects as a regional energy hub and creating economic interdependence between two former enemies.

No less significant are new opportunities for economic interdependence between Israel and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council rooted in Israel’s technological prowess and innovation economy. Gulf states reportedly already enjoy support from Israel in defending against terrorist threats through advanced surveillance technology and intelligence sharing. Just imagine the potential for civilian tech cooperation as Gulf states move to diversify their economies away from their complete dependence on oil and gas revenues to more service-based, technology-based, and knowledge-based economies.

The growing advantages to Arab states of cooperation with Israel are further boosted by a parallel decline in Arab governments’ interest in the Palestinian issue. While these governments remain formally committed to the Palestinian cause, they also show growing signs of fatigue regarding all matters Palestinian. At least in part, this results from the fact that more than seven decades of Arab support of the Palestinians has yielded very few gains. But weighing even more heavily, perhaps, is Arab governments’ impatience with ineffective and divided Palestinian leadership and continued efforts by various governments, including Arabs and Iran, to use conflictual Palestinian factions as tools in their wider struggle for regional dominance. Layer on top the looming struggle over who might replace the aging Mahmoud Abbas as leader of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and many Arab governments are far more concerned about their narrow interests in who wins these battles than they are in advancing Palestinian claims against Israel.

Erdogan didn’t get the memo, som man siger. Shai Feldman og Tamara Cofman advarer dog Israel mod at udnytte situationen og afgøre konflikten til egen fordel; “Sometimes, it’s easier to have an implacable foe“. Og det er da også nogle gange lettere, men det gælder ikke i Mellemøsten.

Et cock holster slår igen

Diverse — Drokles on March 30, 2018 at 8:53 am

For 12 år siden bollede daværende realitystjerne og nuværende præsident for USA Donald Trump med pornostjernen Stormy Weather. Det fortalte Weather, hvis egentlige navn er Stephanie Clifford (og ikke Vladimir Putin!), til nyhedsprogrammet 60 Minutes i et interview med Anderson Cooper. Og det skal nok være rigtigt, selv om Clifford ikke er et helt troværdigt vidne, da hun i 2006 skrev under på en benægtelse af netop det forhold. For Trump indrømmer aldrig sine fejl så længe de ikke er bevist ud over al tvivl og i dette tilfælde betalte hans advokat Michael Cohen 130.000 dollars for Cliffords tavshed - og det op til et afgørende primærvalg(!)

Clifford har valgt at se bort fra tavshedserklæringen, da Trump ikke selv underskrev den (og altså stadig ikke selv har indrømmet, hvad hans advokat gerne ville holde hemmeligt) og dermed tolker hun den ugyldig. Muligvis har hun kalkuleret med at hun, ved at sætte Trump i forlegenhed, kan tjene nok på opmærksomheden til eventuelt at betale de 130.000 tilbage og stadig sidde med et godt overskud, der er besværet værd. Theres no business like showbusiness.

Og det er altså, hvad nyhedsstationer også er sunket ned i, showbusiness, svælgende i allehånde detaljer om Trumps genitalier og sexuelle formåen. Men hvis vi skal tro Clifford, knaldede de kun 1 gang, ikke til Cliffords fornøjelse, og Trump forklarede sit sidespring med at han og konen Melania lever forskellige liv. Det sidste har de Trump-besatte medier allerede spekuleret hoverende i, hvilket underminerer den moralske anfægtelse.

Det skriver Andrew C McCarty mere detaljeret om i National Review og deri er jeg enig. Men så skriver han også, hvad jeg blot læser med andægtig interesse

The point is that the concealment effort may involve criminal violations of campaign-finance laws. That is, a prosecutor could rationally commence an investigation based on suspicion that the $130,000 payment to Clifford was (a) potentially an in-kind campaign contribution that was astronomically above the legal donation limit for individuals, (b) from a potentially illegal source (depending on how Cohen’s LLC, Essential Consultants, was structured), and (c) not disclosed as required by federal election law.

On this score, it does not matter that one may not be a fan of the campaign-finance laws — they are the law, and as we’ve seen, they can be enforced by criminal prosecution. It does not matter that one may not be a fan of the special-counsel appointment of Robert Mueller — he is the prosecutor, and it is a commonplace for prosecutors, and especially quasi-independent prosecutors, to investigate crimes that are disconnected from the original rationale for the investigation (compare, e.g., Kenneth Starr’s shift from Whitewater to the Lewinsky scandal in the investigation of President Clinton). And it does not matter that one may be skeptical about Mueller’s legal theory that any frustration of government functions by two or more people may be prosecuted as a conspiracy to defraud the United States under Section 371 of the penal code — such cases are prosecuted, the U.S. Attorney’s Manual supports them (as I pointed out in a recent column, notwithstanding my disagreement), and actions that undermine the Federal Election Commission’s oversight and record-keeping would align comfortably with the fraud conspiracy charges Mueller has brought in other cases.

As a factual matter, a shoddy cover-up of an extramarital tryst with a porn star a decade before Donald Trump became president would be a trifle compared to the oft-repeated but never established claim of Trump collusion with Russia. As a legal matter, though, when highly aggressive prosecutors are circling, any kind of something is always more perilous than nothing.

Monica Showalter kasserer ligeledes den slibrige del af ’skandalen’ grundet Cliffords utroværdige ageren i forhold til underskrivelse af kontrakter, der alligevel brydes, hendes besynderlige påstand om at hun ikke er interesseret i penge og at hun lægger sig ud i en potentiel shitstorm for at beskytte sin lille datter mod offentlig opmærksomhed. Showalter konkluderer at der er “powerful forces from the left [] behind these Daniels claims and her unwillingness to keep her contracts”, fordi hendes advokat og stab har stærke bånd til Demokraterne og Hillarys kampagne. En nothingburger, som de siger, men deri misser Showalter McCarthys pointe, som Alan Dershowitz også fanger og sætter det ind i en politisk ramme; nemlig at det for disse kræfter handler om at få Trump til at vidne under ed, så der vil være en chance for at Trump begår mened - og så har man det lovbrud man skal bruge til at rejse en rigsretsag

Jeg holder IKKE med Kina

Diverse — Drokles on March 27, 2018 at 4:24 pm

Men jeg er enig i, at dem skal man ikke grine ad. Trump har en bemærkelsesværdig kvalitet. Hvis Trump forsvarer USAs eller Vestens interesser, bliver  Trumps kritikere slået af forbavselse og beundring for vores fjender. Ved Ambassade flytningen til Jerusalem var de despotiske arabere og deres bizarre krav om vetoret for amerikansk udenrigspolitik fornuftens stemme og hvad angik kontrol med atomvåben var Iran den modne stemme. Eksemplerne er mange og nogle er endda skizofrene, som frygten for at Trump ville føre en atomkrig mod Rusland fra Putins lomme.

Ved vinter OL frabad enkelte sportsstjerner sig fra at mødes med Præsidentfruen og Vicepræsident Mike Pence, der var med ved legene, og også et efterfølgende besøg i det Hvide hus. At besøge Nordkorea havde ingen problemer med. Så galt var det, at medierne endda forelskede sig i Nordkoreas propaganda minister Kim Yo-jong og fordømte Mike Pence for ikke at værdige hende et blik under åbningsceremonien. CNN skrev at Yo-Jung ville vinde guld, hvis diplomatisk dans var en olympisk disciplin. Hun ville i hvert fald have gode chancer for guld, hvis det var en olympisk disciplin at drive koncentrationslejre thi det er hendes profession.

Uffe Ellemann beskrev i en blogpost i 2017 Trumps opførsel som “ulideligt og skabagtigt”, som han med “sin forvredne mund” kun fremtvinger ‘dumme grin’ blandt “hans følgeskab af klimafornægtere og isolationister”. Dette satte Ellemann overfor “det kinesiske triumftog i Europa” efter at Trump klogt havde lagt Parisaftalen i graven. Og nu er det igen Kina, som lanceres som garanten for den globale frihandel overfor isolationisten Trump og hans forkærlighed for ødelæggende handelskrige. Men det forholder sig omvendt, skriver Lawrence Solomon i National Post, Trump er ikke ved at starte en handelsekrig han slår bare igen og hans kritikere “need to open their eyes and see the world as it really is — dominated by protectionists.”

Take automobiles, one of the world’s largest industries. American automakers selling into the European Union face a 10-per-cent tariff, four times that faced by European car makers selling into the U.S. American car makers selling into China face a 25-per-cent tariff. But these high tariff barriers are better, in a way, than the hurdles American automakers face when they sell into Japan, which has no tariff at all yet effectively shuts out U.S. exporters: Toyota sells more cars in a single California dealership than all U.S. automakers sell in Japan.

Instead of tariff barriers, the highly disciplined, uniquely structured Japanese economy employs non-tariff barriers — a host of formal regulations and informal understandings. Korea likewise employs non-tariff barriers, despite (or perhaps, because of) KORUS, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. As put last year by American Automotive Policy Council President Matt Blunt, “Clearly, KORUS has had mixed results for America’s automakers and it has failed to live up to expectations. There is no question the Korean marketplace is one of the most difficult for any automaker to export into in the world.” Each of the Big Three U.S. manufacturers is allowed to bring in just 25,000 vehicles built to American standards. “Anything above that needs to be on Korean standards (which) really restricts the access that U.S. companies have to the Korean market,” said U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Non-tariff barriers exploded throughout the world following the formation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization. As governments at international gatherings solemnly vowed to lower or eliminate tariffs, at home they silently replaced them with non-tariff barriers. “Both the OECD and the World Bank have been pointing to the rising impact of ‘non-tariff trade barriers’ on international trade,” notes David Hanson, associate professor of international business at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University, in his book Limits to Free Trade: Non-Tariff Barriers in the European Union, Japan and United States.

Lars Løkke håber fornuften vinder og betegner “told på stål og aluminium, som er en provokation, og som verden ikke har brug for” - helt uden at nævne de danske afgifter på biler. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation slår til lyd for et opgør med den eftergivenhedspolitik

A far more proactive, whole-of-government response, in tight partnership with our allies, is needed to ensure that Chinese innovation mercantilism is contained and then rolled back and a genuine market- and rules-based global trading system restored.

Unless U.S. policymakers want to blithely accept Chinese innovation mercantilism and the damage it inflicts on the U.S. economy and its advanced industries as beyond their control, it’s time for a new approach that moves beyond the naïve push for further dialogue and instead makes it clear to Chinese leaders that such unfair, harmful policies cannot be practiced with impunity. But this fight cannot be about individual tactics, for the Chinese government has shown itself to be quite adept at abandoning certain tactics when they become discredited due to global pressure, only to adopt new and more effective ones in service of its overall mercantilist strategy. The focus needs to be not just on tactical wins, but on more broadly enlisting the global community to help roll back the entire Chinese innovation-mercantilist enterprise and getting China to finally become a responsible player in the global trading system. As such, the Trump administration has a unique opportunity to work with our allies to press Chinese leaders for a fundamental economic policy reset that will move the world economy back toward the rule of law and market-based policies.

However, to succeed, a new approach to U.S.-China economic and trade policy from the U.S. government will need to be pursued with great care and sophistication. The Chinese government is not without weapons, and it has demonstrated a strong willingness to use them to fight back against legitimate efforts to try to get it to stop manipulating the global trade system. And because of the lack of rule of law in China, the Chinese government could very well use its powers to capriciously punish U.S. firms producing or selling there. But doing nothing due to the fear of retaliation should not be an option.

As such, the Trump administration needs to make crystal clear that any such strategy is based not on punishing China nor seeking to hold it down. Indeed, it is in America’s interest to have China rapidly increase its citizens’ per-capita incomes. The administration also needs to make clear that the strategy is not based on making America great again or putting America first, but rather that it is based on saving the global trading system by restoring it to a rules-based one.

Det er ikke blot et spørgsmål om penge og handel, men magt. Og mellem Vesten og Kina er det et spørgsmål om hvilken kultur, der skal dominere, frihedens eller tyranniets, skriver John Haywarth i Breitbart

A funny thing happened on the way to that inevitable triumph of liberty: authoritarianism adjusted its tactics, teamed up with the Western left to attack the foundations of classical liberalism, and found ways to not only control the Internet but turn that gushing firehose of intellectual freedom into an instrument of control. If you enjoyed watching Russia use social media to vandalize Western democracy, you are going to love how China uses it to surgically dismantle the Enlightenment.

China is already directly controlling Internet access for about a quarter of the entire planetary user base, and it exports its expertise by sending consultants abroad to teach other authoritarian regimes how to lock their nets down, too. China aggressively pushes its vision of tightly regulated speech and information as essential to social harmony. Does anyone doubt that it will find a growing audience among the increasingly censorious Western left?

Social media companies that long ago knuckled under Chinese demands for censorship, in exchange for access to its huge online marketplace, are growing more comfortable with speech policing and ideological control in Western markets as well. Twitter’s recent purge of “blue checkmark” account verification for purely ideological reasons, when the system was originally presented as a completely impartial means of confirming that some users are who they claim to be, is a perfect example of Chinese thinking infecting the West, especially since the purge makes glaring exceptions for politically correct purveyors of “hate speech.”

(…)

China has become very adept at exploiting stress points in Western society and co-opting the language of its political class to sell authoritarian ideals. Social justice and income inequality? Those are staples of Chinese political speech, which boasts of using centralized power to distribute resources more fairly and efficiently – even though China has one of the worst “wealth gaps” in the world.

Environmentalism? China is keenly aware that hardcore environmentalists already fantasize about doing away with representative democracy to save the Earth, because free citizens are short-sighted and foolish. China will boast incessantly of how its system prioritizes doing the “right thing” over antiquated notions of inalienable rights and self-governing citizens. Certain quarters of Western academic thought are quite receptive to the idea that only command economics can save the Earth from the ravages of capitalism.

“It will not be difficult for China to tempt young people with a tale of socialism done right, a benevolent tyranny run by honest and wise planners who finally manage to deliver the proverbial free lunch.” Jep, de unge let påvirkelige sjæle har altid været udset som ofrene for alle totalitaristers drømme, blanke tavler som de er.

Trumps evne er ikke uden fortilfælde, han er blot last man standing imod den eftergivelsespolitik, der vokser ud af den kulturelle selvlede. Om det er at kalde Churchill eller Reagan for krigsmagere mens de ser den sagtmodige rimelighed Nazitysklands og Sovjetunionens trusler til harcelering over Jyllandspostens religionskritik som civilisationskritik og formummelsens frigørende kvindesag til aflad for historiske bedrifter fordi shithole countries ikke er shithole countries fordi de har været kolonier, men blev kolonier fordi de var shithole countries til at starte med, men i det mindste en overgang, nød lidt af driftighedens og åndsfrihedens frugter, venstrefløjen og deres medier er altid på fjendes side imod deres landsmænd og endda egne idealer.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress