Peace, Pacifism, and Arms Trading

The European Commission is setting up a witch-hunting panel looking at the “impropriety” of Greece and Spain buying naval vessels at a time like this.

As EU officials are packing their holiday suitcases in Brussels, prosecutors in Germany, Portugal and Greece are on to a hot summer, tracing the complex trails of bribes and side-contracts to the German submarines each of the southern countries signed up for at a price of over €1billion.

The EU hypocrisy of allowing Greek and Portuguese governments allocate huge parts of their budget for questionable defence purchases, while they are being pressed for austerity measures to cap their deficit, already made headlines such as "The submarine deals that helped sink Greece" in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

Oh really? While the article does volunteer an explanation and the identities of the sellers, they’re months late.

France is pushing to sell six frigates, 15 helicopters and up to 40 top-of-the-range Rafale fighter aircraft.

Greek and French officials said President Nicolas Sarkozy was personally involved and had broached the matter when Papandreou visited France last month to seek support in the financial crisis.

They made political and monetary support of the Greek financial sector contingent upon it, calling the subsidy-cum-aid and blend it in with the “offsets” which are meant to function as a “buy European” clause for government contracts. Okay, fine. There’s more than one problem there, but they eventually mutates into a good-old-fashioned dirty dealing contracts which make arguments about conditional aid AND the Airbus v. Boeing deal seem venal.

"These contracts totally violate the EU's internal market competition rules," Portuguese Socialist MEP Ana Gomes told this website. "They are contracts negotiated among companies with government favouring and in total disregard of the competition rules. There are plenty of reasons why the European Commission should investigate, and make it an exemplary case to deter such behaviour from now on from any member state."

What’s hilari9ous about the whole thing is that we’re talking about arms sales from states such as Germany where 70% of the population opposes the pittance of a German force in Afghanistan, and a Superstate that fantasizes about it’s peaceful and pacifizing nature. In reality, they want someone else to take their risks of securing their space for them, and sell them the weapons to do it with. When that doesn’t work, they also want to sell them to one another as well.

But use them? Never!

The JournoList Issue No One Is Bringing Up

Why is it that you believe — nay, why is it that you know — that the intricacies of, say, Barack Hussein Obama's relationship with the Reverend Wright are entirely unfounded, at best highly exaggerated, and, in the final analysis, not worth dwelling upon?

Is it because it is — is it because it happens to be — a fact?

And why is it that you believe — that you know — that, say, George W Bush is a helpless clod while Sarah Palin is a hopeless cause, and that Rush Limbaugh is a racist while Fox News is run by fascists or the equivalent thereof?

Is it because it is, is it because it happens to be, a fact?

Or is it because you have been told that it is a fact?

Is it because you have been told it is a fact by people with an undying commitment to neutrality, to objectivity, and to the truth (to the truth, to the whole truth, and to nothing but the truth)?

Or have you been told it is a fact, as it happens, not by nonpartisan truth seekers who are neutral and objective — although they claim to be (indeed, they are convinced that they are the epitome of neutrality and objectivity) — but by political activists and political tools who turn out to be, more or less secretly, (surprise!) pro-Democrat, pro-statist, and pro-Obama while being anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, and anti-conservative?

1. The JournoList and the Left's Demonization of Opponents

Some of the best articles on the JournoList scandal — what the Spectator's R Emmett Tyrrell Jr calls "a mother lode of left-wing bigotry, screeds, and semi-literate gibbering" — come from a fellow Spectator commentator: "as worldly wise as I like to think that I am," writes John R. Guardiano, "I have been stunned, shocked and appalled by the raw partisanship and animalistic lust for power displayed by this pack of left-wing journalists."

Of course I always [k]new most Washington journalists were leftists. But what I didn't realize were the depths of intellectual dishonesty and dishonor to which many Washington journalists would descend in order to protect leftist pols and smear conservatives.

Indeed, for anyone not familiar with the case (i.e., for anyone used to get his information from the mainstream media — or what (Glenn Reynolds agrees) should be called the One-Party Media), John R. Guardiano gives the run-down of the emails' "extremely troubling and reprehensible" content:

• the Journolisters' attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama's relationship with "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright;
• their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as "racists" and "bigots";
• their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;
• their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and
• their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.

John R. Guardiano explains more in detail:

We always knew that most liberal journalists were biased. Now we know that many of them are dishonest — and that, like their leftist forbearers in the Soviet Union, they reserve unto themselves the right to lie and to cheat to further their political ends.

We know this because of the Daily Caller's astonishing report … that a cabal of liberal journalists, activists, and academics acted in concert, and with malice aforethought, to kill and bury stories that were unfavorable to their political masters: Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Indeed, these "journalists" were so blindly and zealously committed to the left-wing political agenda that they advocated smearing their political opponents with wholly unfounded charges of "racism" and "bigotry."

Thus Ackerman's call for his fellow lefty "journalists" to "pick one," any one conservative. After all, "who cares" who it is? Who cares about their innocence? Just pick a prominent conservative and call him a racist. Smear him! Show no mercy! Destroy his reputation and kill his public image! Now!

Reason's Michael C. Moynihan points out (via Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit) that "the charming and efficient pundits of Washington, D.C." turn out to be

members of a listserv inhabited by liberal journalists and academics expressed their desire to see Rush Limbaugh die of a heart attack; to toss their enemies through plate glass windows; to call random conservatives racists; and to rid the country of those “fucking NASCAR retards.” … While commenters have noted blogger Spencer Ackerman’s sleazy suggestion that liberals start labeling random Republicans “racist”—pick a conservative, like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists"—few noticed the obsession with accusing opponents not of being misguided or wrong, but motivated by racial animus and Nazi-like…

In fact, as the Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong points out (thanks to Instapundit who has been following the controversy on a daily basis), it turns out that the JournoList membership included quite "a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans."

What's more, according to Jonah Goldberg (who describes the Journolist members as speaking "freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success"),

it turns out that the "O" in Journolist stands for "Obama."

The author of Liberal Fascism adds that during the 2008 campaign,

participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.

Incidentally, one of the key passages of Goldberg's 405-page book reads as follows:

That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung works; contrary voices are regulated, barred, banned when possible, mocked and marginalized when not. Progressive voices are encouraged, lionized, amplified — in the name of "diversity," or "liberation," or "unity," and, most of all, "progress."

Now, let's see — what other subjects have been described as "out of bounds" and in what other Obama-related matters have the people interested in out-of-bounds subjects been described, with a smirk or with a snort — i.e., "mocked and marginalized" — as racists and/or as nutcases?

Well, just about everything regarding Barack Obama and his past. All of it has been declared off-bounds or of little interest, whether it is his connections to the Weather Underground, to Bill Ayers, to his university's law journal, and to Acorn — and, indeed, whether it is Acorn's own alleged dedication to fair and honest work methods. Did (any of) the JournoListers uncover anything worth knowing regarding Obama, or, indeed, did they even refuse to try to uncover, or even investigate, anything at all (unlike, say, the bogus report of John McCain's infidelity or the innumerable stories on Sarah Palin's family members)?

And so, we finally get to the subject of this post, the matter of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate…

2. The Obama Birth Certificate and the Alleged Racists and Nutjobs

As a reader of JustOneMinute told Tom Maguire (as linked by Glenn Reynolds):

I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.
But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about [the occupant of the Oval Office].

Now, before you react to this by saying "Oh God there's another one!" or "Lord haven't they gotten over this yet?" — whether you are liberal or conservative or neutral (independent) — then ask yourself, am I rolling my eyes heavenwards while sighing and saying/thinking this because it is a fact that it is a tiring subject (since the people asking for Obama's birth certificate can only be racists and/or nutjobs) or because I have been told that (it is a fact that) it is a tiring subject (since the people asking for Obama's birth certificate can only be racists and/or nutjobs) — having been told so, again, by people who just happen to be supporters of the Democrats' élitist world view, people who just happen to have a tradition of progressivism, and people who just happen to have a tradition of… demonizing any and all members of the opposition?

As it happens, No Pasarán has written about Barack Obama's birth certificate a total of three times. Over a period of, say, three years where Barack Obama has been in the national limelight, and calculating an average of one post a day (it has often been more), this comes to one post out of 365 or an average of less than 0.3 % of our coverage, which, I take it, any neutral observer will agree can hardly be said to be the product of extremism or zealotry. (But then again, do we know that interest in Obama's birth certificate can only be explained by extremism or zealotry because it is a fact or because we have been told it is a fact? — you should be getting the idea by now…) What's more, in two of the three posts the birth certificate is not even the main topic of the post.

So, as you can see, No Pasarán has refrained from approaching the birth certificate issue — certainly, we feel safe to say, because it hasn't interested us, but then is the reason it hasn't interested us (sorry if this sounds repetitive, but it also happens to be necessary) been because it is a fact that it is an uninteresting (and — yawn — tiring) topic? Or because we have been told, because it has been hammered into our heads, that it is an uninteresting (and tiring) topic and that, furthermore, if we do approach the topic we will be denigrated (with reason or otherwise), by the liberal élites as well as by conservatives who think (I mean, who "know") that it is an uninteresting (and tiring) topic in which racists alone and/or nutjobs alone and/or extremists alone and/or zealots alone can be interested — yes, I know: you get the idea by now…

Let's be honest: Have you been reluctant to examine the "rants" of the "Birthers" and have I been reluctant to examine the "Birthers'" "rants" because they in fact are racists and/or nutjobs (something — conveniently — inherent in the very word, Birthers) or because we have been told that they are (as a fact) racists and/or nutjobs — told so by people with a slobbering love affair (thanks, Jenny Erikson, via Instapundit) with Barack Obama? It is entirely possible that a number of the "Birthers" may in fact turn out to be racists and/or nutjobs, but if we wander away from the (demonized) personalities and the ad hominems, what can we tell about the facts alone of the case? Can we see just the arguments, whether or not they are voiced by intelligent responsible people (like the members of… the JournoList?), by racists and/or nutjobs, or by whoever may be in-between?

Since the left's modus operandi is to go after opponents' personal lives (now that's a revelation) and portray them as racists and… nutjobs, can we simply review the facts, Ma'am?

3. A Dispassionate Examination of the Facts, of the Nutjobs, and of Obama's Youth

May we be allowed to examine this issue — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

[Update: Not until April 2011 did the White House finally release Barack Obama's original birth certificate.]

Let us find out to what degree it is demented, ludicrous, and/or offensive to put into doubt the Hawaiian birth of Barack Obama — a man who has complained that he can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead (something no one has asked him to do and thus turns out to be a(nother) straw man of his)…

Why are there some Americans who doubt the narrative that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii, or elsewhere in the United States? After all, noone ever doubted that George W Bush was born in the United States or that John Kerry or Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Bob Dole or Ross Perot were born in the United States.

So, isn't this proof that only Obama's color is the only reason for these nutjobs, these racists, these birthers, to claim, preposterously, that Obama was born abroad — or that he is a Muslim, or a socialist, or indeed a communist?

But then, again, neither George W Bush nor John Kerry nor Al Gore nor Bill Clinton nor Bob Dole nor Ross Perot had a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did they spend numerous years of their childhoods abroad — many years, if not most, of which were in a Muslim country.

Should Allen West, or JC Watts, or Thomas Sowell [or Herman Cain, or Ben Carson] run for president, noone would ask where they were born or demand to see their their (original) birth certificate as proof. But perhaps that is because those black men are Republicans (proving thereby that conservatives are biased)?

Hardly. That is because those African-Americans (emphasis on the "Americans" part) are known to have grown up in the United States and are known to have had parents who were not foreigners — certainly not at the time of their birth (i.e., if either of the parents was born abroad, he or she had become an American citizen by the time of his or her famous offspring's birth). And indeed, it is the same for left-leaning blacks (as it is for whites, left-leaning of otherwise).

Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and 1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad, and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend numerous years abroad. Similarly, it is unlikely that Al Sharpton (who grew up in Brooklyn) would ever be asked for his birth certificate. Neither Baptist minister would be likely accused of being a Muslim, although both might very well be described as socialists, or as communists — and that, for reasons that, in the final analysis, are pretty valid…

For the record, I am an American citizen (a dual citizen, actually), a WASP-ish blue-eyed blond white male who has a foreigner for a father and who spent many years of his childhood in foreign countries, and if ever I were to run for president, I would think it entirely normal for fellow citizens to ask for my birth certificate — indeed, I would think it abnormal if they did not. (In case you're interested, I was born in Prague, but because of the circumstances of my birth — comparable to John McCain's (I was born in a diplomatic family) — as far as I can tell, this should not prevent me from running… So: see you in the year 2024…)

But in the event that Jesse Jackson, or Allen West, or Bill Gore, or George W Bush should be asked for their birth certificates — what is the big deal? Provide the (original) birth certificate and put the controversy behind you (and behind us — behind us all)… The very fact that they (i.e., the promisers of an era of transparency) refuse to provide something so simple, as James L Lambert points out, and get the controversy over with, once and for all, tends to be — whether you like it or not — suspicious.

After all, Barack Obama is not being asked to provide his tax statements or medical records (both of which actually turn out to be the norm for politicians to provide to the public and each of which is a far more intrusive document than a simple statement about an infant's birth location), nor is he being asked to provide some sort of far-fetched Jim-Crowe-era certificate, such as, say, the birth certificate of a grand-parent.

Besides, there are many basic things that a president, that any president (whatever the pigment of his — or her — skin), owes his populace, i.e., the people who are his "masters"…

As I've written before, in one of No Pasarán's rare birth certificate posts (re "rare": notice how I feel constantly forced — even now [indeed, that's one reason I took so long to get around to the main subject] — to justify myself regarding the birth certificate controversy):

It may well be that most of the writings concerning the wherabouts of Obama's birth sound delusional, but, as far as I can tell, James L Lambert's arguments are far from nonsensical… There are two problems with the alleged deluded "Birther" conspiracy that are ignored by Kos (and everywhere else). They are, first, that the real, original "long" birth certificate never seems to have materialized (the certificate of live birth being, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, a recent production); second, that to believe that an American citizen (whatever the color of his skin) born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country turns out not to be that far-fetched at all.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life? Let me ask everybody a simply question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?

To return to John R. Guardiano:

As the Daily Caller reports, several hundred journalists, activists and academics secretly conspired on Journolist. What did they know and when did they know it — and with whom did they conspire and why? … there are a lot of unanswered questions that still surround the lingering Journolist scandal. … We're not talking about private love letters, after all. We're talking about coordinated journalistic actions designed to shape and influence what is reported in the public prints.

For the type of people who didn't find it abnormal, in response to questions regarding a presidential candidate's relationship to a hate-filled pastor, for one of their number to call for picking one (or several) of the candidate's critics — “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists”, it sounds suspiciously like it was par for the course to agree, directly or not, overtly or otherwise, to call racist or fanatic anyone who brought up common-sensical questions regarding that candidate's (undetectable) birth certificate.

The question we need to ask, what is there about Obama's past — including the birth certificate, but not only that — that was discussed among JournoList members, on the surface or in depth, not necessarily to hide a particular secret, unpalatable or otherwise (I doubt that Ezra Klein, David Weigel, Jonathan Chait, Michael Tomasky, Matthew Yglesias, or Spencer Ackerman have any better idea than I do where a given politician was 49 years ago — and they certainly do not seem to have been interested in finding out), but simply to make sure the topic continued unexplored, that it would remain unperturbed — while at the same time demonizing anyone (as racist, as fascist, as extremist, as a nutjob) who might demonstrate a (far from unreasonable) interest therein.

The Goldilocks of Supranational Supergovernments

France is proud of having a diplomatic apparatus that resembles an industrial scale powerhouse. The EU’s “External Action Service” seems otherwise to be too large by half, even in its crib, writes Boris Biancheri in La Stampa [IT] [EN] .

As always, at the heart of the dealing lies the question of the distribution of power among the various players, who represent the different branches of the EU: How are tasks distributed between the Commission and this new service, notably in the sensitive dossiers concerning development aid and humanitarian projects? How much control will the Parliament have over the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and this new diplomatic service? Who will be responsible for its administration?
Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The one question that goes unasked is: “how can anyone ELSE deal with them?” The question doesn’t seem to come up.

Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The other individual sovereign states, that is to say the rest of the world, on the other hand, will continue to find them to be just another squabbling and infighting party to deal with in among 27-30 other entities that Europeans represent themselves in global dialog.

Without some logical order of precedence, ‘federalization’ of authority, or separation of powers, how, in heavens’ name, are they to be taken seriously or dealt with in with any more seriousness as a well-meaning delegation from the Lions’ Club?

In truth, you aren’t. You’re just supposed to designate them as relevant, important, and render them the respect that comes with experience and authority: each of which they have absolutely none of.

The Community machine has in the past known the problems of gargantuan bureaucracy, where the desire for prestige mixes with national ambitions: some have already placed their bets on the identity of the future Secretary General of the new European diplomatic corps, which will probably be – Hear, hear! – a Frenchman, the ambassador Vimont, flanked by – and not by chance – a German woman. However, it would be a shame if the first child of the Treaty of Lisbon were not the embryo of a concrete and efficient external policy, but rather just another weighty bureaucracy, the fruit of secret agreements, with no identity of its own.

Biancheri’s clarity of thinking needs to be applauded, as he asks that if one is to establish this new leviathan, that it do what its’ assigned to actually do:

At a time where public opinion is focused on harmonising divergent national interests and stabilising the euro and political objectives within the EU, allowing little consideration for external political policy. At a time when everyone can see that the larger external issues facing the EU, including dealings with Russia, Turkey and the United States, have met with more divergence than agreement. And finally, at a time when it is more than ever necessary to have a concrete sense of reality, one wonders if it is in the EU's best interests to advance a project whose function and role have yet to be clearly defined.

Odds on, it will molt away over and over for a decade or two until it gets there, but be little more than a make-work outfit for former newspaper-writes who can tie a necktie, and mop up an army of recent “peace studies” graduates.

Good luck with all that.

The Happiest Nation on Earth: “Way too many Danes think ‘What’s in it for me?’ instead of considering what’s best for Denmark”

"…in light of the credit crunch and a growing public debt problem, Denmark’s generous public spending has come under scrutiny" writes Natalia Rachlin in the New York Times after referring to the country as "something out of a fairy tale: a place where social benefits are not just a last resort for the underprivileged, but an ingrained part of everyday existence, even for high earners."

Specifically, the state-funded pension program … has fueled a discussion about the paradox of Denmark’s high earners receiving many of the same social benefits as the very neediest citizens.

“Way too many Danes think ‘What’s in it for me?’ instead of considering what’s best for Denmark,” Bendt Bendtsen, a member of the European Parliament and a former leader of the Danish Conservative Party, told the financial daily Boersen in a recent interview.

…Denmark has the highest overall tax burden of all O.E.C.D. member countries, with taxes to G.D.P. reaching 48.2 percent in 2009. Furthermore, numbers from the O.E.C.D. show that Denmark has one of the highest marginal tax rates for high earners — 67 percent — when consumer taxes are included.

“If you take away social benefits from high earners, it’s basically the same thing as taxing them even more heavily,” said Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist at Cepos, a center-right research organization in Copenhagen. “The question quickly becomes, why stay in Denmark? And the thing is, we need high earners here to invest in businesses, to keep the economy rolling.”

…Mr. Hansen of Cepos pointed to calculations done by his organization, based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Statistics Denmark, that show that in 2010 the percentage of the adult population living entirely off transfer income — whether it be welfare, student checks or state retirement funds — is at 43.2 percent.

…Lars Bruhn, founder and chairman of NorthCap Partners, a major venture capital firm … acknowledged that Mr. Bendtsen’s comments had started an important discussion about how to get Denmark back on track. But he added that any solution that amounted to increasing the burden on the country’s handful of high-net-worth individuals would be counterproductive — no matter how politically popular it might be.

“This will undoubtedly lead some business angels, those wealthy individuals who will invest in the next generation, to leave the country in order to avoid being a Dane – leaving behind what’s supposedly the happiest nation on earth,” he said.

“Activism”: Ever for the Good of the None

Activists disable some London BP petrol stations, as if a station operator or franchise owner was spilled oil with intent on wrecking his own business.

LONDON (Reuters) - Protesters from environmental group Greenpeace disabled some of BP's 50 petrol stations in central London on Tuesday in protest at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Greenpeace said its activists had managed to close down 47 service stations in the capital. BP confirmed 30 had been forced to close temporarily. The company branded the demonstrations an "act of vandalism" and said it would reopen the sites as soon as it was safe to do so.
The protests coincided with BP's second-quarter results where the oil company reported a $17 billion loss and said it had set aside $32 billion to tackle the spill.

They are angry, therefore, 'Capitalists' may not have earnings, simply because they aren't smart enough to figure out how to benefit from them themselves. Setting aside the obvious ignorance of this style of ‘activism’ (it’s actually just a fig leaf for adolescent lashing out), leftism is an exhibit of envy and hatred. Without invective, it has little to believe in.

Europe Recycles!

Mach Mit, and all that sh*t.

September 1944: From the German magazine “Simplissimus”, we find the same argument employed by the French left today. That American and British, nay ”Anglo-Saxon” hostility is poisoning their bucolic, egalitarian idyll.

The “Context” was a Brutal, Left-Wing Fascist State

Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone in an interview decried what he called the Jewish lobby's control over Washington's foreign policy and said that Hitler's actions should be put "into context.”

Oliver Stone, have long lost an audience in the North America is obviously reaching out to Europe and the Near East when he makes the Hitler made the trains run on time kept the gas chambers running argument:

On Hitler, Stone said that the German leader “did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 million. Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein -- German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

As if that makes it okay. After all, when you’re a died in the will agitational revolutionary trying to crash test civilization until it turns into a authoritarian state, human rights means human rights for SOME with whom you feel politically warm to, and not those of the individual’s rights.

Demonize him? Sure. He earned it with his moral illiteracy.

Stone recently completed a documentary on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and is working on a documentary series about American history.

It follows a familiar pattern: parrot some patriotism only in a “Born on the 4th of July” context, so long that it degrades society, turn the murder of JFK into a history lesson in factually absent cabal conspiracy, rattle on about “an American empire”and so forth. All for “the cause” of reconstructing “the context” around some people and ideas, but not others. Yadda yadda. Basically, it’s a repetition of Nazi propaganda.

Here’s the historical context behind Stone thoughts:



”Lustige Blätter” (the Nazi funny pages), circa 1942. The caption reads: "Behind the Curtains." A Jewish puppeteer is looking nervously at his remaining puppets: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. On the floor are broken former puppets, including Neville Chamberlain.

For Stone, it’s okay, because Nazism was just another form of the Marxist-Leninism that he tacitly promotes and advances the cause of.

French Gangsters Put Members of an Élite Grenoble Police Force on a Hit List; Government Gives Threatened Officers Furlough

According to Le Point, French gangsters have put every member (some reports say several members, not all) of Grenoble's 45-strong anti-gang police force on a hit list, following the latter's killing of a gangster during a casino hold-up, writes Le Monde.

Selon le Point.fr, un "contrat" aurait été lancé sur la vie des 45 membres de la brigade anti-criminalité grenobloise impliqués dans la fusillade du braquage du casino qui avait fait un mort. … En représailles à la mort du braqueur et à ces affrontements, ces policiers ont, selon Brice Hortefeux, fait l'objet de menaces de mort "totalement indignes et bien réelles".

In order to protect the lives of the members of the élite police force, they have been given furlough.

The Fresh Reminder of Commie Flesh Peddling

Castros offer dissidents for sale.

There’s nothing new under the sun.

Líder Maximo emerges as "Maximo Dealer," puns Tageszeitung in the wake of the July 21 announcement by the Spanish Foreign Minister and the Cuban parliament chief that all of the island’s political prisoners would now be released. According to the Berlin daily, Cuba, which urgently needs to restore economic relations with the European Union, is applying a method reminiscent of the communist state in East Germany: to obtain hard currency, the GDR was in the habit of imprisoning anyone it believed West Germany would pay to have released. TAZ warns that there is no guarantee that the current state of affairs "will not lead to a new wave of arrests."

They are speaking from experience.

Please Tell me that you’re Kidding

Assimilation, Euro-Style, at an event meant to celebrate social diversity and togetherness:

"The Germans say: Foreigners out!" the girl replied. "Why can't we say: Jews out?" Then she ran away.

Of course officials are “concerned”. They're always "concerned". Maybe even concerned enough to actually do something about this neo-Kristallnacht consensus that been ubiquitous for a decade.

Following an anti-Semitic attack in Hanover, German authorities have identified a new source of anti-Semitic hatred in Germany: young migrants from Muslim families. The ideological alliance has officials concerned.

The author goes on to parrot the tripe about the neo-fascists, who invariably gravitate toward the idea of a muscular, all powerful state, as being “right wing”.

It was supposed to be a carefree festival in Sahlkamp on the outskirts of the northern German city of Hanover. Billed as an "International Day" to celebrate social diversity and togetherness, the June celebration included performances by a multicultural children's choir called "Happy Rainbow" and the German-Turkish rap duo 3-K. Music from Afghanistan was also on the program.
But then the mood suddenly shifted.
When Hajo Arnds, the organizer of the neighborhood festival, stepped onto the stage at about 6:45 p.m. to announce the next performance, by the Jewish dance group Chaverim, he was greeted with catcalls. "Jews out!" some of the roughly 30 young people standing in front of the stage began shouting. "Gone with the Jews!"

The striking stupidity of this kind of story, as frequent as they are, is that the people righting them up always seem to be pretending to ‘just realize’ the state of affairs, and exhibit a kind of puzzlement at connecting the dots.

Further in the nuance-land report, there never seems to be a shortage of retrograde European nostalgia:

During a football match in April, for example, supporters of SV Mügeln-Ablass 09, a district-league football club in the eastern state of Saxony, chanted "a tree, a noose, a Jew's neck" and "we're building a subway, from Jerusalem to Auschwitz," until the match was stopped.

The litany of defaced cemeteries and modern day pamphleteering on the internet also makes the expected appearance, but the dots that no-one seems to be able to connect is the historical frequency that these same demonization movements re-emerge.

Perhaps they’re covering their eye with a kind of foreknowledge of the outcome, if they are as passive about it as they were in the last century. Perhaps heads turn away from a kind of self-awareness of how ‘natural’ these phases of factional hated comes to those noble people of the “EMEA”.

How do you Import the Bad Weather and Peevishness?

An Austrian real-estate developer is seeking a fortune with a set of European-themed islands in the Persian Gulf. The Vegas-style glitter of Dubai may have faded since the boom -- but not for everyone

It’s a kind of Busch Gardens for gullible Arabs and Iranians, possibly finding some unstated appeal to indulge in some Jew hating with a Teutonic flair, or maybe their famous emotionally distant self-abuse, or something like the apathy. Who knows:

Today, Josef Kleindienst is €200 million richer and far from Schrattenberg, on his own building plot covered in grey, shell-flecked sand. It's a deserted piece of property in the steaming water of the Persian Gulf, and Kleindienst calls it "Germany." Now a real estate broker, he bought the island outside Dubai together with "Austria," "St. Petersburg," "Sweden," "Switzerland," and "the Netherlands," which is destined to become a party island.

After all, the image of the Netherlands has long-since ceded any notion of cheap bastards, or hardworking farmers and fishermen, always willing to sell their grandmother for a nickel. Even an article in NRC Handelsblad rues over is:

Two utterly contradictory images of the Netherlands circulate in the international press. One is the idea of a wild, unruly place where policemen smoke marijuana, gay men dance in the streets, and euthanasia can be arranged in an instant,

The elite of Teheran should feel right at home.

A Cuban Dissident Asks: Why do you (heart) Marxist-Leninist Autocrats?

You don’t get peristroyka through enablement. A group of recently freed Cuban dissidents ask the EU to stop its’ misguided policy of friendly engagement with Havana.

On their arrival in Spain, nine of the 52 political prisoners whose release was announced by the Castro regime on 8 July announced "that they would like to consult with the European Parliament before next September’s review of the EU’s Common Position on Cuba, which has remained unchanged since 1996."

With a flair for having more unbridled rage Gitmo detainees than the entire Cuban population, it comes as no surprise to find the reaction of the Precambrian 68ers now ruling Festung Europa to be more ‘reactionary’, and subject to the conditioned reaction of a state of ‘false consciousness’.

One of the freed dissidents, Normando Hernández, who had been sentenced to 25 years in prison, described the Cuban government’s decision as "a smokescreen," and further insisted abandoning the Common Position would be an “aberration” because "its objectives have yet to be attained."

Without pointing out the political ideology of Spain’s foreign minister, a member of the Socialist Worker’s Party, the article continues:

This view not shared by Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who, during a recent visit to the island, announced that there was "no reason" for the EU to maintain its Common Position on Cuba.

Emphasis mine. After all, you know a left-leaning Spanish paper surely wouldn’t want to draw too much attention to the reality of ‘real, living socialism’.

In God we Trust vs. In Loco Parentis

Ah, those continental sophisticates.

So intelligent, in fact, that they believe that their employers “give” them vacation and benefits, as though the resources used to fund them fell from outer space. They don’t, you dimwitted sucknozzle, they just pay you less, and pretend to be generous with what they didn’t give you in the first place.

Further, to reinforce the delusions that they frequently beat off to when they’re otherwise far less likely to be be employed to begin with:

What’s more striking is that serious analysts rarely talk about “laziness”. The reason is simple: European laziness may seem an alluring explanation for the observed differences, but the statistics tell a different story. The fact that Europeans work less isn’t due to laziness, but to a voluntary trade-off, says Andrew Moravcsik, a political scientist at Princeton and Newsweek contributor. The unemployment levels distort the figures: the US has known lower unemployment than Europe for the past ten years and a smaller non-working population. So it’s logical that the “average European” should put in fewer hours.

According to Moravcsik, Europeans are fully capable of working more, but they opt to spend more time at leisure than at making money. Economists say that trade-off gets more prevalent as a society gets richer. Americans, however, are the exception to the rule. The US, he continues, is the only developed, industrialised country in which working hours have increased enormously.

It’s not a trade, it’s a “take it or leave it” sh*t sandwich. “Getting more hours” when employed by someone else is something you see a lot more drooling over in EUtopia than in the US. In fact, in the US, you see a lot more people who know full well that they can take all of the leisure time that they like, because in normal times you actually CAN find a job after taking “a pause that refreshes” without waiting the European averages which range from 6 to 18 months for another job, even in boom times.

But let’s not be too harsh. There are a few people who DO get it:

The German press has been focussing recently on a group of “eternally unemployed” who for decades have been living off the state, reports Gazeta Wyborcza. Some, the Warsaw daily notes, receive up to €1,085 per month which is enough for food and accommodation, and still leaving some for leisure and entertainment, or even a short vacation on the Baltic coast. The last time Arno Dübel, 54, had a job was twenty seven years ago. Every month he receives a cheque for 359 EUR and the state also pays rent for his two-room flat in Hamburg. According to him, being unemployed has nothing but advantages: he doesn’t have to follow anyone’s orders, doesn’t get stressed, doesn’t have to get up early. So what does he do during the day? Shopping at Lidl, walking the dog, watching some TV. “Working is a beautiful thing when others do it. I’m no good for it,” says Mr Dübel with disarming honesty. No wonder Bild tabloid has called him Germany’s “cheekiest” jobless person. There are many more like him in Germany, points out the Warsaw daily.

Send that man a flotilla! He’s having a humanitarian crisis !!!

Journalism’s Leftist Flunkies

Or How I decided to stop worrying and became a servile scribbler acting at the will of a politician.

Spencer Ackerman:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

Oh, but I think he DOES endorse the kind of behavior that connot be confused as being consistent with fascism, or to be charitable at the very least, a style of political rule that "tolerates" a society's democratic institutions merely to mute its' challengers:

Mussolini was raised by a strong socialist father and followed in his father’s footsteps by inheriting fervent socialist beliefs. Schooled as a teacher, Mussolini tried his luck in Switzerland but could not hold a steady job.

Changed groundwork executed by the ‘socially concerned’, etc., etc. Slowly altering the landscape to seem the same, but constructing sanctions and co-opting one sector of society after another: politicizing education, journalism, industries, DISempowering union members in the face of the political agenda of the Union leadership... it’s all too familiar, and Ackerman’s rueful oath shows that he’s as willing as any Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter to pitch in and damage civilization for the sake of the political shortcuts he wants to take, knowing that it’s needed to make an unwilling public take the bait.

Most everything about the parliamentary system was changed under the dictatorship and all law codes were rewritten. Teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the Fascist regime and Mussolini personally chose newspaper editors. To practice journalism at all, the writer had to possess an official certificate of approval from the Fascist party. The trade unions were also deprived of any independence and became part of a larger group with the aim to place all Italians in various professional organizations and ultimately under governmental control. Most industrial industries were transferred to private ownership but then placed rigid government control over and the change hurt the Italian economy.

It is NOT an overextension to say that the Obama White House hasn’t done a modern form of the same thing. Ackerman and his cohort of Journalists-cum-propagandists (using their employers’ resources to do it whether they conscented or not) have actually carried water for a political campaign to enable it.

Now you know why all the “Faux News” tirades are needed – to cover for the participatory “news MAKING” (not news REPORTING) antics of the likes of... The Nation, Slate, American Prospect, The New Republic, Mother Jones, Media Matters, the Huffington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBS, PBS “News” Hour, NPR, Pacifica, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times,

Etal.

The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far

Der Spiegel has a report (danke zu Ben) regarding one "of the goals of the German 1968 movement", namely "the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive."

For instance,

In his 1975 autobiographical book "Der Grosse Basar" (The Great Bazaar), Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit describes his experiences as a teacher in a Kinderladen in Frankfurt. When the children entrusted to his care opened his fly and began stroking his penis, he writes, "I was usually quite taken aback. My reactions varied, depending on the circumstances."

Protocols of the Elders of Les Zones Urbaine Sensible

It’s strange, in describing Nazi attempts to infiltrate American culture and leadership in 1939, John L. Spivak could have been describing the behavior of second-string politicos in present day Europe: having a predilection very much like the American mainstream flunky press, to construct a portrait of evil to distract from a rather real one.

For a while Jung collected from terrified employers by promising to inform them about the threat of revolution--what time it would occur and who would lead it. In return he collected plenty. In time employers got fed up when the rowboat loaded with bomb-throwing Bolsheviks failed to arrive from Moscow. Pickings became slim. Jung was badly in need of a new terror-inspiring "issue" with which to collect from the suckers. He found it at the time Emerson was sent here from Germany. Gulden, Pelley and their associates were launching an anti-semitic campaign as the first step to attract people to the "Friends of Germany." Jung likewise discovered the "menace of the Jew" and peddled it for all it was worth.

There was an air of secrecy about the whole outfit. Even the location of the office in the Chicago Tribune Tower was kept from the membership; all they were given was the post office box number. As soon as he collected enough material from the Daily Worker and other Communist publications, he sent agents to call on the gullible businessmen with horrendous stories of the Muscovites now on the high seas on their way to capture the American Government. The salesmen collected and in turn got forty per cent of the pickings. When Jung heard that William Dudley Pelley was making money on the Jew-and-Catholic scare and that others like Edward H. Hunter of the Industrial Defense Association were talking with the German Consul General about getting money from Germany for propaganda, he got busy peddling "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," long discredited as forgeries.

Armed with these, Jung's high pressure salesmen scoured the country, collecting shekels from Christian businessmen and getting their forty per cent commissions. It was not long before Jung, Pelley and others were working in full swing with secret Nazi agents sent into this country for propaganda and espionage purposes.

- “Secret Armies”

“Reaches Out?”

EU reaches out for new powers at United Nations

In an act of arrogant reverse-suzerainty the EU member states have unilaterally declared to make the EU a speaking member of the UN. This brings their "handicap" as an entity to 28 times that of China or India, with only half of the population of each of them, not to mention their over-representation on the security council.

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy will in future be able to address the UN chamber no differently from US President Barack Obama or Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad under draft reforms agreed by member states.

But that’s not all, folks!

There will also be additional seats put in for the EU's foreign policy chief, High Representative Catherine Ashton and her officials.

This, for an entity that has no legitimate sovereign power if the member states are to maintain their seats, numbers, delegates, etal.

An EU diplomat said the idea behind the changes is to boost the profile of the EU as an entity in itself at the international level.

This, from the world’s least plausible “partner in security”n which would not need to be “boosted” were it not for their outright irrelevance.

The new rights flow from changes established by the EU's Lisbon Treaty

Which, at last reading, was not signed by anyone from whom recognition would be found with, or in any other way form a legally legitimate graduation of the sovereignty of the member states. It is simply an exercise in having it both ways, and be counted twice, with an expectation that the rest for the world will play dress-up for them, and officially declare them “big and powerful” with no basis in reality.

Earn your chops first? Never.

A Bounty of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes

Berlin Fashion Week: The Good, the bad, and the Terrifying.

You might be a German if...

...you’re prone to go along with things just because you think it would seem otherwise un-cosmopolitan, when in fact it’s just awkward, feeble, and out of touch.

Gardez le Nez

An apparently ever rising trend when the economy turns down.

- Danke sehr, Jacob

Social Justice for Unsucessful Criminals! Now!

Guess which tense, developing nation, riddled with barbaric secterianism this took place in, and get a Chinese knock-off kewpie doll.

Rioters burned cars, attacked a tramway and shot at police in the xxxxxx city of xxxxxxxx overnight in protest at the death of a local Muslim man, identified as 27-year- old Karim Boudouda, fleeing police after allegedly holding up the city's casino.

In the screwed up world of post-rational European nihilism, scratching your chin and opining about this stuff is considered sociologically interesting, and a good use of a social thinker's time.



Anyone thinking clearly, without the intervention of political conditioning about "social sensitivities" will see it cultural backwardness imported from a failed, third world society.

Police said they intervened after local residents stopped a tramway by setting a fire on the rails and stoned it. At least 50 cars were burned and police said they were shot at once and returned fire.

Oh, but to Channel the Gauche Caviar

What ho!

You know, I rather think I agree with those poet-and-philosopher Johnnies who insist that a fellow ought to be devilish pleased if he has a bit of trouble.

All that stuff about being refined by suffering, you know. Suffering does give a chap a sort of broader and more sympathetic outlook. It helps you to understand other people's misfortunes if you've been through the same thing yourself. As I stood in my lonely bedroom at the hotel, trying to tie my white tie myself, it struck me for the first time that there must be whole squads of chappies in the world who had to get along without a man to look after them. I'd always thought of Jeeves as a kind of natural phenomenon; but, by Jove! of course, when you come to think of it, there must be quite a lot of fellows who have to press their own clothes themselves and haven't got anybody to bring them tea in the morning, and so on. It was rather a solemn thought, don't you know. I mean to say, ever since then I've been able to appreciate the frightful privations the poor have to stick.

- P. G. Wodehouse, “My Man Jeeves”

Top Obama Adviser Admits to the French that the July 2011 Withdrawal Date From Afghanistan Is Not to Be Taken Seriously, Being Purely Symbolic

In an interview with Le Monde's Sylvie Kauffmann and Gilles Paris during the National Security Advisor's brief stay in Paris, James Jones stated, rather unequivocally, that "the month of July 2011 will not signal the big departure of our forces" from Afghanistan (emphasis mine), adding, again rather unequivocally, that it is only a symbolic date (symbolic à la "positiveness", à la "new direction", à la "hope 'n' change", etc): "July 2011, that is a date to give us hope, that of being able to pull back some troops — the exact number is not predetermined — to show the Afghans as well as our own citizens, a new direction, a positive one, so that one day the responsibility for Afghanistan will revert to Afghan citizens."

Peut-on dire à la fois "nous allons gagner en Afghanistan" et "nous allons partir" ?

Vous avez oublié un mot : nous allons partir éventuellement. Ce qu'il faut bien comprendre, c'est que le mois de juillet 2011 ne marquera pas le grand départ de nos forces. C'est la période où nous pensons que nous pourrons transférer plus de responsabilités aux autorités afghanes. Il est raisonnable d'espérer qu'après dix ans de présence les Afghans puissent prendre en main leur destin. Il est impossible de se résigner à rester en Afghanistan une vingtaine d'années. Juillet 2011, ça nous donne un espoir, celui de pouvoir retirer quelques forces — le chiffre n'est pas prédéterminé —, pour montrer aux Afghans et à nos propres citoyens une nouvelle direction, positive, pour qu'un jour la responsabilité de l'Afghanistan revienne aux citoyens afghans.

Sylvie Kauffmann and Gilles Paris: Can one say both "We will win in Afghanistan" and "we will leave" at the same time?

James Jones: You forgot one word: we will leave eventually. What you need to understand is the month of July 2011 will not mark the great departure of our forces. This is the period when we believe we will be able to transfer more responsibility to Afghan authorities. It is reasonable to expect, after ten years of presence in the country, that Afghans can take control of their destiny. It is inconceivable to resign yourself to stay in Afghanistan for twenty years or so. July 2011, that is a date that gives us hope, that of withdrawing some forces — the exact figure is not predetermined — to show the Afghans and our own citizens a new direction, one of a positive kind, that one day the responsibility for Afghanistan will revert to Afghan citizens.

See also an interview with a French general: McChrystal Ripple: French General Also Is Summoned by Authorities to Cease Criticism of Obama's Strategy and of the "American" War

The government calls it "sealed management."

BEIJING – The government calls it "sealed management." China's capital has started gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.

Erm... NOT. It’s more of that “colonialism of the mind” crap imported from Europastani internment camps. You’ll note that Eye-talians found themselves doing the same thing.

The gated villages are the latest indignity for China's migrant workers, who already face limited access to schooling and government services and are routinely blamed by city folk for rising crime. Used to the hardship of the farm and the lack of privilege, migrants seem to be taking the new controls in their stride.

Which, as I understand it, is even worse than the Arizona of the left’s imaginary dystopia. I wonder, does the fact that they are avec-papiers and citizens make it okay, lefty?

"Sealed management" looks like this: Gates are placed at the street and alley entrances to the villages, which are collections of walled compounds sprinkled with shops and outdoor vendors. The gates are locked between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., except for one main entrance manned by security guards or police, there to check identification papers. Security guards roam the villages by day.

That, friends, is the China that the European Reducto ad Hitlerium Anti-American types won’t tell you about, or will imagine to be some sort of “social cohesion” paradise on earth. They seem to love every other kind of womb-like social incarceration otherwise, so why not this.

Maybe it says something about THEIR notion of the paradise on earth that they want for the “collectivist mass” (from which the generous and munificent intellectual may always get an equality-based, authority-granted exception from). After all you have that Isra-NaziApartheidSecurity”Separation”Wall to recreationally throw stones at.



Don’t get all sentimental about it, already.

France Says It Has the Planet's Second Diplomatic Network Behind That of the United States

Nous restons, et resterons, le deuxième réseau du monde derrière les Etats-Unis

Foreign minister Bernard Kouchner answers a Le Monde op-ed by two former ministres des affaires étrangères (Alain Juppé and Hubert Védrine), criticizing the current state of affairs of the Quai d'Orsay, with his own op-ed in which he states, among other things, that "we remain, and we will remain, the second [diplomatic] network [on the planet] behind the United States".

Des Chinoiseries Arabe

Deep in the Eutopian ethno-bunker of Belleville, a sort of Bobo-land cum ‘hood, friction in the district of Paris, (inside the Périferique) is growing more familiar. The latest comes in the form of the Algerian proletariat sticking it to Chinese immigrants, who up until recently were more interested in getting ahead than competing in the race to achieve maximum victimhood, and thus handouts

”Regular Tension”

The tense scene is almost a regular event in the first Chinatown in the Arab world, where disputes are regular. "I never go out without my knife," reflects Chu Jung, a bricklayer, who arrived in Algeria three years ago.

"The Algerians are racists, but my business is looking great! Too bad the violence turned a small paradise for business into hell.”

A few months ago, clashes in the city, where buildings have sprouted like mushrooms, have nearly ended in a pitched battle. The Chinese Embassy has responded quickly and asked the Algerian authorities to ensure the security and oversight of this large village with over 300 Chinese families.

Not quite: there are more like 10 000 overseas Chinese in the area, and they are demanding, quite simply, that les flics do something about crime. Even non-residents have felt the heat:

Cases of Chinese tourists being robbed in Paris have happened time and time again, with even the vice-chairperson Uyunqimg of China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee having also been previously robbed during a visit to Paris.

So what do police do to “maintain the peace”? Fire tear gas at the Chinese immigrant protesters. After all, they know which klan runs Belleville.

Sort of a “Clash of Civilizations” thing which cannot be mocked for its’ foolish simplistic-ness, because of its rather real clash of civilizations, foolish simplistic nature and all.

Quiet at first, the demonstration degenerated and turned into an outright witchhunt for thugs.

Without the mobile police units, we would have had serious ethnic clashes in Paris. Believe me, I was there. Here is what we will not tell you in the national press.

[snip]

...the bobos go about their business. No solidarity with fellow Chinese immigrants?
Very few whites in the demo. No blacks, no Arabs.

[snip]

First incident. The guys on the right just busted the young Chinese guys’ face. He is the oriental type.
His assailants took flight. Suddenly, to my right, a band of thugs did not lose a second to get in on it. It will be a difficult day to live together.

The cops arrive and surround the victim. I try to learn more. A bobo journalist looks at the scene angrily. She tells the guy "Don’t add in the provocation, you have caused some too. "

A older Arab approached me:
"Why did they do that? Five against one, wow."
"Who did it, sir?"
"The Chinese. They did it."

And so on, and so forth. They really can’t all just get along, especially in that haven of diversity. The festivities continued with trash can fires, overturned cars, broken windows, and CS gas.

Titanic Piano

Obama's Falling Poll Numbers: The Logical Conclusion of the Leftists' Talking Points

Are you ready to accept your share of the blame for Obama's collapsing poll numbers? If only "spoiled Americans" would stop nitpicking his amazingly successful run as president, our country would be less child-like, or something like that.

In the face of ominous poll data splashed on the front page of today's Washington Post, libtalkers were in a tough position today. But only ultra-partisan Democratic Party crony Bill Press could manage to blame voters for Obama's failure to thrive.

If Bill Press's opinions (thanks to Instapundit) are (or if his meltdown is) taken to their/to its logical conclusion…

…then Americans should go through some sort of reeducation centers (or re-education camps) to be made to understand the good they are being bestowed, and to be made to refrain from criticizing (at least, not too much) the Spiritual Guide who is benevolently bestowing them upon us;

…then democracy should be curtailed and elections banned (polls as well, probably), at least temporarily, so that the benevolent Great Helmsman can implement his (benevolent) policies in the absence of obstacles from clueless idiots — be they common citizens or the unpatriotic naysayers in the opposition;

…in fact, then Barack Obama should be allowed to dictate his (benevolent) policies to the nation (the nation of clueless clods who are preventing him from carrying those dashing avant-garde ideas of his through to completion).

Of course, Bill Press is not saying this — he might even deny, quite sincerely, saying anything to that effect if he were told so in those exact words; still, this is inescapably the end result if his "viewpoints" are taken to their logical conclusion…

(And liberals, leftists, and statists wonder why, and think we are exaggerating when, some of us issue warnings about socialism and when we warn about it being a path to tyranny?!)

Update: thanks to Instapundit (again)…

Related: The Only Good Woman Is a Leftist Woman

Thoughts for Bastile Day

[none]

There's no point for a nation to celebrate freedom when they've largely abandoned any modicum of love they have for it a long time ago.

As EU Implements a Diplomatic Service, Eastern European Diplomats Are Snubbed for Not Agreeing on a Rosy View of Russia

« La frustration est particulièrement forte en matière de relations extérieures, constate un responsable polonais, le recrutement de nos ressortissants a été bloqué par crainte de leur russophobie présumée. »

As the European Union starts implementing a union-wide diplomatic service, writes Philippe Ricard in Le Monde, with 6,000 positions to fill, diplomats from Eastern and Central Europe feel left out. With the singular exception of Poland's Jerzy Buzek, elected head of the European Parliament in July 2009, only an infinitely small number of Eastern and Central Europeans have been nominated to fill one of the 136 European delegations throughout the world.

And the reason for the stiffing, it is believed, is because the alleged Russophobia of the former Warsaw Pact countries prevents them from seeing their Russian neighbor in a rosy enough light…

Allons Enfants

U.S. History Lesson for Minorities

American heroes you may not have heard of — and why not…

That Inconvenient Truth

Just call him Mr. Natural:

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

- The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)

Almost as Good as “Confusius Say”...

...and also largely true of the EU’s behavior when it comes to trying to match up to their ambitions to be a big, barking bow-wow on the world stage™©®

Cunning and treachery are the offspring of incapacity.

- François duc de La Rochefoucauld, ”Sentences and Moral Maxims”

Then again, you can always try starting with lowering people’s expectations of what “superpower” means.

From dictating the size of Coke bottles to dissuading Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions, the EU has arrived as a force to be reckoned with in the world.

Ooh! Can you feel the Pow-ah!
In reflection, it really is rather funny, and rather consistent with Rochefoucauld’s understanding of incapacity being the mother of mendacity.

Confusion in the Grand Confederation of Ethno-Statelets

Where saying that you’re really neo-nationalistic and post-gravitational remains a fashionable intellectual palliative.

Union fails most vital test of a democracy

There is no overlap between the space in which people believe they have something to say (which, like it or not, is and will remain the space of nation-states) and the space in which more and more decisions are being made, decisions that are increasingly unpopular.

says José Manuel Fernandes.

The European Union is failing the most vital test of a democracy: it doesn’t know how to replace its own government by peaceful means. The European Parliament can, of course, dismiss the Commission, but it can’t dismiss the Council, nor does anyone think about who will be the next president of the Commission whilst voting for members of the European Parliament.

If you use history (mostly unimaginably bloody,) this is perfectly normal for the continent.