Nya besked om danska kärleksflyktingar

Vi er poetiske. Vi tager “kærlighedsflygtninge” med. Bemærk den sproglige bæ, Sydsvenskan skal røre ved : “Udlændingeservice“. En “udlænding” er en asylsøger, Sverige ikke har gjort til EU borger endnu. Det kommer. Under 5 % har formel asylgrund, men de har krav på Moder Sveas omsorg alligevel. De koster trecifrede milliarder, men det er umagen værd. EF domstolen mener også, de skal kunne  hente “familie” og bo i Danmark allihoppa. Venstres menige vælgere og medlemmer mener det ikke, hvad Rønn  Hornbech nok allerede ved.

Danska integrationsministern Birthe Rønn Hornbech (Venstre) lovar att ompröva de fall där danska medborgare nekats att bo i landet med sin utländska partner.Beslutet har fattats efter den stundvis skarpa kritiken från bland andra folketingets ombudsman. Den så kallade danska utlänningsservicen menar till exempel att de äkta paren har vilseletts om vilka regler som gäller. Beskedet från Venstres integrationsminister kommer ett drygt halvår efter att de strikta reglerna för familjeförening satts ur spel efter ett beslut i EG-domstolen. Nya besked om danska kärleksflyktingar

Gidsler i Tingbjerg

Få kilometer fra Nørrebro – i den københavnske bydel Tingbjerg er bebeoerne plaget af overfald og uro. Den lokale præst erklærer nærmest bydelen i undtagelsestilstand og overvejer at flytte fra området.

Sten Eiler Rasmussens »Menneskesamfundet Tingbjerg«, ‘en lavmælt og ydmyg’ arkitektur“,  et sindbillede på og et  monument over Socialdemokraternes historiske svigt, burde man nok tilføje. Jeg kom en del i Tingbjerg, dengang jeg for mange år siden kørte taxi om natten. Lutter  hæderlige arbejdere, pensionister og enlige mødre. Sosse-kernevælgere allesammen, nu forrådte af deres parti hvis daværende formand kan himle  med kors og bånd og stjerner på og som multimillionær. For nogle år siden, var Tingbjerg et DF stronghold, men de sidste  danskere må være på en white-flight bølge ud. Tung bagage for Thorning og Søvndal, men lur mig om de klarer den. Amnesi er det stærkeste, politiske aktiv. Det behøver man ikke være spindoktor, for at vide. Alt skal glemmes og genopleves, jævnfør Papazu, en must-read artikel.

Vilks uden Vilks

Friseret ytringsfrihed: En udstilling om bla. Lars Vilks, der ikke tør vise Lars Vilks :

Nej, Nobels fredssenter i Oslo, som producerat Nobelmuseets nya utställning, har dessvärre haft en uppsjö av exempel att ösa ur för att berätta om yttrandefrihetens pris, från Sokrates till Lars Vilks. Utställningen har, i sin svenska version, kompletterats bland annat med en nyinspelad intervju med Ingvar Bratt, den Boforsanställde ingenjören som avslöjade företagets olagliga vapenaffärer på 1980-talet. Därtill har SVT-filmen Makten och sanningen, om IB-avslöjaren Peter Bratt, fått ersätta originalversionens norska tv-dokumentär om Muhammedkarikatyrerna. Det som ger utställningen dess nerv är dock frågan i titeln: var går gränsen för yttrandefriheten?

Just därför är det synd att museet inte redovisar sina skäl till att inte visa Lars Vilks bilder av Muhammed som rondellhund, när man nu ändå omnämner affären. Kanske gör museet rätt i att inte visa dem, men det hade varit intressant att få veta hur resonemangen gått. SvD

Nobelmuseet “Hvor går grænsen for ytringsfrihed?”, Anders Morgenthalers “Burka på skateboard“, og Nadia Plesners “Skateistan“,  der pt. er på auktion hos Lauritzen com, ville nok heller ikke være hængt op  hos Nobel i Stockholm. Better safe than sorry.

Could Americans’ Discontent Turn Violent?

We are only a few thousand points and runaway inflation away from a potential societal explosion

Jeg skriver vist i tide og utide, at vestlige mennesker har mistet evnen til at blive vrede. Jeg tager her udgangspunkt i det grelle misforhold man kan observere i f. eks. Holland og Storbritannien mellem en åbenlyst forværring af samfundets fred og frihed påført af multikulturalismen, og manglen på reaktion fra vælgernes side herpå. Jeg venter og venter på at overlevelsesinstinktet, og ren og skær harme, skal overtrumfe frygten for stigmatisering som uanstændig og fremmedfjendsk. Intet tyder på at noget bobler under overfladen – jo, Geert Wilders’ parti og det norske Fremskridtsparti oplever massiv fremgang, men den rigtige og sunde vredesreaktion ville udmønte sig i et pres nedefra i samtlige partier for kursændring – dette handler jo i sidste ende ikke om højre kontra venstre, liberal kontra konservativ kontra socialistisk, men om civilisation kontra barbari. Marginalisering af vreden til udvalgte partier – deres kvaliteter til trods – viser i bedste fald kun at noget er ved at komme op til overfladen.

Ind på scenen træder så finanskrisen, og lige i øjeblikket skorter det ikke på prognoser om vrede briter eller andre i en Summer of Hate/Summer of Discontent. Hvis magelige vesterlændinge alligevel stadig besidder nogle urinstinkter, herunder evnen til at give udtryk for vrede, er det selvfølgelig et sundhedstegn i sig selv. Det er bare lige et spørgsmål om hvordan vreden kanaliseres ud. Jeg personligt orker ikke tanken om meningsløse optøjer over finanskrisen, optøjer der vil være ren katarsis og intet konstruktivt vil kunne medføre. Jeg orker ikke tanken om Europa eller USA som en global udgave af franske bønders og industriarbejderes sanseløse destruktion. Nu er det hele jo stadig rent hypotetisk, men personligt føler jeg en undren over hvorfor finanskrisens konsekvenser opleves som mere personligt alvorlige end erosionen af hårdt tilkæmpede frihedsrettigheder. Vrede kan være en god ting, men anarki og destruktivitet er ikke bare en infantil afreageren, men afslører også hvor lang vej der er med at gøre truslen fra multikulturalismen personligt vedkommende – og med at kanalisere vreden herover ud på en mere frugtbar måde end sommerens ‘street fighting men’ måske vil gøre det til overflod (LFPC).

At what point does discontent turn to violence?

Economically, we may or may not be close to hitting rock bottom, but policy-wise, this market still has a long way to fall. While there are individual sectors that in normal recessionary times would still be good hedges against further downturns, these days investors don’t seem to be as concerned with equity, value, and earnings as they are with Washington’s proposals. Stable, profitable companies, like many energy firms and pharmaceutical companies, see their equity slashed by the threat of regulation, while others with little prospects for profitability increase in value through the infusion of taxpayer subsidies. This is no way to rebuild an economy.

Unfortunately, the president’s actions have put the country on notice that dependency-building not economy-building is his plan. His budget has the federal government spending an astounding one-third of the nation’s GDP, fully half of which is borrowed from the future.

While his “rescue” plans threaten to create a double-dip recession, they simultaneously court increased corporate reliance on the government for help. Auto manufacturers, banks, and insurance companies are already there – locked into a cycle of dependency. Chrysler and GM want their second bailout while AIG has asked for its fourth. Soon it will be the pension funds of companies and unions, as well as those for state and municipal employees, that will come begging to Washington. The Obama administration gives every indication that it will “help” those who then must depend on them. That, of course, means that Americans who rely on their own investments and see their accounts already battered by the market, will have them further eroded by taxes and inflation.

The risk to the administration – nay, the risk to America – is that when we reach bottom, it won’t be an economic bottom, but a socio-cultural one. Ayn Rand was a great observer of economic principles, but having grown up in Russia, she was less astute about the American psyche. In Atlas Shrugged, her dystopian novel about an overbearing government, the productive protagonist simply refused to produce. That, after all, was the response of Muscovites, who in 1812 burned, then deserted their capitol rather than fight to retain their city in the face of Napoleon’s advancing army. However, passive aggression has never been the American way. Around the same time in American history, General Andrew Jackson dealt with foreign invaders quite differently. His forces slaughtered 2,000 British soldiers two weeks after the war was over, rather than let them reach New Orleans. Americans don’t go John Galt. We go postal.

At some point, protests against mortgage bailouts turn into bricks tossed through the windows of bailed out homes, or baseball bats taken to car dealerships, or Molotov cocktails thrown at bank branches and government offices. When Americans lose hope, instead of taking handouts, they bite those whose hands are out, especially if those hands are holding guns. Worse is that Americans seem less inclined than ever to channel their rising anger into a current political alternative. The last two elections were a denunciation of what the Republican Party had become: a party to Washington’s leaderless excess. But if Barack Obama’s Democrats are similarly denounced by the electorate, I wouldn’t automatically conclude that the pendulum will swing back to the GOP. Instead, I would expect many Americans to look outside the existing political system for real change.

Never in my lifetime have I seen the nation as ripe for a third-party takeover as it is now. But if President Obama and the Democratic Congress further propel the economy down a rat hole, the party that emerges might not be the kind we want. There would be just enough truth in the charge for a demagogue to portray the shambles as the fault of those who took sub-prime mortgages they knowingly couldn’t afford and the bankers who greedily lent them the money. In other words, minorities and Jews. This could become very ugly, very quickly.

We are only a few thousand points and runaway inflation away from a potential societal explosion, and how is the president responding? He is attacking the man he believes is America’s greatest enemy: Rush Limbaugh. It is a pathetic spectacle of leadership. And foolish too, as nothing propels rebellion faster than an attempt to silence rebel leaders. Just ask Polish Communists or the apparatchiks of South African Apartheid.

While America has suffered through severe economic times before, it has never done so when its government is so disconnected from its people. Even during the downturn of the 1970s in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, it was largely the youth that rejected the establishment. Their parents were the nation’s walls that kept rebellion outside the body politic. Today those youth are the parents, and they have yet to show sufficient stability to be the bulwark that keeps barbarians at bay. Meanwhile, President Obama is building his walls with cases of dynamite, while he sits inside and plays with matches. Bob Krumm: Could Americans’ Discontent Turn Violent?