Fire Marshal in Defense of Trump: A burning cathedral is in far more danger of collapsing than one that is covered with flying water tankers' air drops

Among the people who reacted on the day that the Notre Dame cathedral caught fire was the president of the United States, who sent out a tweet:

So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!

Not long thereafter, France's civil security agency responded to Donald Trump's tweet by saying that using Canadair planes is not an option: dropping tons of water on the building could cause the entire structure to collapse.

#NotreDame

@PompiersParis

Le largage d'eau par avion sur ce type d'édifice pourrait en effet entraîner l'effondrement de l'intégralité de la structure. Aux côtés des #sapeurspompiers qui font actuellement le maximum pour sauver #NotreDame.

This led in turn to a reaction from a reader who, after a talk with his local Fire Marshal, wrote that "If it's a firefighter [who made that comment], he should be fired immediately."

Terrekain says that he

just talked to [his] local Fire Marshal.

Whoever said that going for an air drop on the Notre Dame cathedral would cause it to collapse, is an IDIOT.

If it's a firefighter, he should be fired immediately.

Aerial water drops typically disperse in the atmosphere; they do not apply that much more weight on the structure than a heavy rainfall and a BURNING cathedral is in much more danger of collapsing than one that is covered and mist-doused in a fire-retardant slurry. Even if it were true that the building would collapse, the only reason to worry about that is if anybody was in the building...but artifacts and architecture are endangered by the FIRE, far more than any collapse unless we're talking about WTC collpases - we're not.

The building's structural integrity is being degraded by the fire, not any amount of water. So you just let the building keep burning?

Whoever claimed that idiocy is either ignorant, or is gas-lighting the public to make Trump look bad...it's idiocy. What were these idiots waiting for? For the entire structure to burn down?

Terrekain goes on to add that 

 

This is like waiting for the WTC to "burn out" when you are given an opportunity to put out the fire (there was no such opportunity then, but hypothetically speaking)...

Trump: "Put it out with water".

Macron: "Oh, if we put water on it, it might collapse...."

Trump: "What are you talking about? If it's going to collapse because of an air-drop, it'll collapse ANYWAY in the time it takes you to call in the air-drop due to the fire. So why not try it and give yourself a chance?"

Macron: "Ummm....RACIST!"

Related: Yes, the Notre Dame Fire Was a Tragedy; But Does It Really Warrant Comparison with 9-11 in America?

In any case, a number of Frenchmen responded to the civil security agency by saying that dropping water from the air does not need to involve sizable planes filled to capacity with huge loads of water — as it happens, Trump did not specifically mention airplanes either, simply aircraft — but can entail helicopters doing the work (with one tweet showing a Los Angeles county chopper in action).

🤔 J'ai bien compris qu'une intervention des canadaires était trop dangereuse pour l'édifice, mais quid d'hélicoptères bombardiers d'eau? #NotreDame pic.twitter.com/D8M5CJxO9v

— Thibault Lbt (@Nomad1108) April 17, 2019

 

Yes, the Notre Dame Fire Was a Tragedy; But Does It Really Warrant Comparison with 9-11 in America?

At a time when an unimaginable fire has left one of humanity's most famous and most beautiful buildings partly in ruins, everybody around the world would like to join together in unity with the French, while nobody really is yearning for the opportunity to descend into controversy.

That is why on the day that the Notre Dame cathedral caught fire, I wrote that now is not the time to go into (old) polemics, but at the same time, I couldn't refrain from calling out the wife of the elderly French couple interviewed that very night on TF1 (no, t'wasn't Ilhan Omar) who said that when the church's spire collapsed, it reminded her of New York in 2001 when the Twin Towers caved in. (Merci for the link, Instapundit.)

This idea is getting traction — probably because it is so simplistic — and you can perhaps get an idea of the degree to which the French and the Europeans hold dear the lives of Americans and capitalists (or lives in general — like all leftists?) when one Frenchman after the other compares the destruction of the roof of a cathedral — granted, one of the two or three most famous on the planet, as well as a symbol of Paris and France — with the attacks on September 11 2001.

Why not with Pearl Harbor, while you're at it?

Teeny-tiny reminder: in the space of less than two hours (far less than the church's roof was in flames), the 9-11 attacks on New York and DC led to the deaths of 3,000 people.

Here are just two examples, both from a single French weekly: The Notre Dame disaster, "It's a bit our September 11" (« C’est un peu notre 11 Septembre »), Le Point's Jérôme Cordelier was told by Rémi Brague, a philosopher, historian, and medievalist.
 
As the weekly's Louis Chahuneau noted that the Gothic cathedral is a miraculous survivor of history (« miraculée » de l'histoire) and that it has become a symbol for the French, he was given a slightly different wording by another medievalist, Joëlle Alazard: "It's a kind of heritage 911" (« C'est une sorte de 11 Septembre patrimonial »).

It looks like deep down, people know that they cannot deny the lack of proportion between the events, so they have the (weaselly?) presence of mind (la présence d'esprit) to resort to "kinda/sorta" wordings…

Actually, it turns out that — in response to this post's heading — no, the Notre Dame fire may not have been a tragedy (at least not one as devastating as previously feared). Indeed, during a concert only five days after the apocalyptic images of destruction on our screens, there is an entirely new and unforeseen development: according to the French government, "the rescue of Notre Dame is almost complete" (« Notre-Dame est quasi sauvée »)! As the culture minister (Franck Riester) himself says, this is "tremendous good news" (« c'est une formidable nouvelle ») — no disagreements there — although it does tend to make the 9-11 comparisons even more frivolous, shallow, and jarring.

Le Point  : Qu’avez-vous ressenti en voyant Notre-Dame de Paris brûler ? 

Rémi Brague : La même chose que tout le monde, j’imagine, une réaction très banale : surprise, stupeur, inquiétude, chagrin. Puis admiration pour le courage des pompiers. C’est un peu notre 11 Septembre.

Related: Le Monde's front-page cartoon comparing France's 2002 election to 9-11, after Jean-Marie Le Pen managed to become one of the finalists in the first round (with the twin towers representing the ballot's two rounds while the Front National leader is depicted as a destructive airplane aiming for both)

In the previous post's comments, Terrekain says that he

just talked to [his] local Fire Marshal.

Whoever said that going for an air drop on the Notre Dame cathedral would cause it to collapse, is an IDIOT.

If it's a firefighter, he should be fired immediately.

Aerial water drops typically disperse in the atmosphere; they do not apply that much more weight on the structure than a heavy rainfall and a BURNING cathedral is in much more danger of collapsing than one that is covered and mist-doused in a fire-retardant slurry. Even if it were true that the building would collapse, the only reason to worry about that is if anybody was in the building...but artifacts and architecture are endangered by the FIRE, far more than any collapse unless we're talking about WTC collpases - we're not.

The building's structural integrity is being degraded by the fire, not any amount of water. So you just let the building keep burning?

Whoever claimed that idiocy is either ignorant, or is gas-lighting the public to make Trump look bad...it's idiocy. What were these idiots waiting for? For the entire structure to burn down?

Terrekain goes on to add that

This is like waiting for the WTC to "burn out" when you are given an opportunity to put out the fire (there was no such opportunity then, but hypothetically speaking)...

Trump: "Put it out with water".

Macron: "Oh, if we put water on it, it might collapse...."

Trump: "What are you talking about? If it's going to collapse because of an air-drop, it'll collapse ANYWAY in the time it takes you to call in the air-drop due to the fire. So why not try it and give yourself a chance?"

Macron: "Ummm....RACIST!"

Republicans Pounce Dept.: Nuanced Democrat's behaviour "gave an opening to her critics," "threaten[ing] reform"

The blurb for Peter Slevin's New Yorker article (How the Jussie Smollett Case Threatens Criminal-Justice Reform in Chicago) reads thusly:

Kim Foxx was elected as state's attorney on a promise to bring nuance to the law-enforcement system. Her office's handling of the Smollett case gave an opening to her critics.

Sigh…

For more details, see "Republicans Pounce!" Department: The "Far Right" Sees "Opportunity in Tragedy" and Uses a Muslim Refugee's Murder of a 14-Year-Old Girl as "a Political Weapon"

Update: it turns out that “Republicans rejoice” is just a variation on “Republicans pounce”.  Stephen Green saved you a click.

Fire Engulfs Notre Dame Cathedral; "No Guarantee that the Paris Building Can Be Saved"

Terrible news from Paris, as gigantic flames keep leaping from the Notre Dame cathedral, and it doesn't look like it will be ending any time soon.

An assistant to the Interior minister has just tweeted (9:50 pm) that there is no guarantee that the cathedral can be saved (le sauvetage du cathédrale n'est pas acquis) while the fire chief has stated that he is pessimistic about containing the fire, which may spread to the north tower…

Just a few minutes ago, French firefighters responded to Donald Trump's tweet ("Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put [the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral] out. Must act quickly!") by saying that using Canadair planes is not an option: dropping tons of water on the building could cause the entire structure to collapse.

Fox News's Lucia I. Suarez Sang:

The famed Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, France was engulfed in flames on Monday leading to the collapse of the structure's main spire. The intense flames leaped out from two of its bell towers minutes before the spire collapsed, and later spread to one of the cathedral's iconic rectangular towers.

A church spokesman told French media that all of Notre Dame cathedral's frame is burning after the spire collapsed.

"Everything is burning, nothing will remain from the frame," Notre Dame spokesman Andre Finot told local outlets.

 … Paris emergency services said they were trying to salvage the artwork stored in the cathedral.

The French capital's police department said no deaths have been reported but didn't say anything about injuries.

 … Sources told Fox News that it appears the fire, which comes one day after Psalm Sunday, was related to recent construction done at the cathedral.

Now is not the time to go into polemics, but at the same time, I cannot refrain from calling out the wife of the elderly French couple interviewed on TF1 (no, it wasn't Ilhan Omar) who said that when the church's spire collapsed (see above), it reminded her of New York in 2001 when the Twin Towers caved in. Again, now is not the time to revive old polemics, but if there are good news from the Île de la Cité, it is that there has (thankfully) not been a single victim…

Update — from Instapundit: “Nothing will remain from the fire,” spokesman says…

Update 2: Yes, the Notre Dame Fire Was a Tragedy; But Does It Really Warrant Comparison with 9-11 in America?

From the comments:

Terrekain says that

I just talked to my local Fire Marshal.

Whoever said that going for an air drop on the Notre Dame cathedral would cause it to collapse, is an IDIOT.

If it's a firefighter, he should be fired immediately.

Aerial water drops typically disperse in the atmosphere; they do not apply that much more weight on the structure than a heavy rainfall and a BURNING cathedral is in much more danger of collapsing than one that is covered and mist-doused in a fire-retardant slurry. Even if it were true that the building would collapse, the only reason to worry about that is if anybody was in the building...but artifacts and architecture are endangered by the FIRE, far more than any collapse unless we're talking about WTC collpases - we're not.

The building's structural integrity is being degraded by the fire, not any amount of water. So you just let the building keep burning?

Whoever claimed that idiocy is either ignorant, or is gas-lighting the public to make Trump look bad...it's idiocy. What were these idiots waiting for? For the entire structure to burn down?

Terrekain goes on to add that

This is like waiting for the WTC to "burn out" when you are given an opportunity to put out the fire (there was no such opportunity then, but hypothetically speaking)...

Trump: "Put it out with water".

Macron: "Oh, if we put water on it, it might collapse...."

Trump: "What are you talking about? If it's going to collapse because of an air-drop, it'll collapse ANYWAY in the time it takes you to call in the air-drop due to the fire. So why not try it and give yourself a chance?"

Macron: "Ummm....RACIST!"

“The Conceptual Penis” was such an obvious gag that no one could have taken the ludicrous paper seriously — no one except a gender studies scholar

Starting in June of 2017, three academics — James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian — began writing intentionally ludicrous papers under false names and submitting them to peer-reviewed academic journals. The authors mimicked the catchphrases and buzzwords of the “grievance studies” fields they sought to expose — the language of intersectionality, privilege, and feminism.

writes Benny Huang on Liberty Unyielding (welcome Maggie's Farm readers).

Though the papers were fake, the experiment was very real. The hoaxers wanted to see if the hallowed journals’ peer reviewers could discern twaddle from real scholarship. In short: the reviewers couldn’t, at least not when it appealed to their prejudices.

The experiment was interrupted in October 2018 when a Wall Street Journal reporter, Jillian Kay Melchior, exposed the project. Melchior had noticed one of the papers, “Dog Park,” which focused on “dog rape culture,” and found it just too ridiculous to be believed. She apparently had more sense than the staff of Gender, Place & Culture, which gladly published the confabulated paper.

By the time the Wall Street Journal blew the whistle, twenty papers had been submitted in total. Seven papers had been accepted, though only four had been published; seven others were at various stages of review and only six had been rejected.

Gender, Place & Culture even recognized “Dog Park” as “excellent scholarship,” and no wonder — its subtitle was “Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon.” I’m sure they lapped that up with a spoon.

The paper’s pseudonymous author, “Helen Wilson,” claimed to have based her findings on a data set consisting of just fewer than ten thousand canine genital inspections. This was so crazy that “Wilson” — who is actually James Lindsay — expected some much-deserved incredulity.

But it never came. Not only did the journal fail to question the data set; it didn’t lift a finger to determine the identity of “Helen Wilson,” much less to verify her credentials as an expert. They simply accepted Dr. Wilson as an authority in doggie sexuality.

“We flattered what they wanted to hear and then they told us it was an important contribution to feminist geography,” said James Lindsay.

As a college grad myself, I can tell you that this is exactly how academia works. Students learn early on that the key to academic success is to emulate the style, tone, and above all the message of their professors. If the profs are talking endlessly about the “social construction of whiteness” — or maleness, or heteronormativity — they should too. That’s how to get an A, how to get recommended for grad school, and how to get hired as an adjunct professor.

An environment like this is fertile ground for farcical “scholarship.”

And it’s been this way for years. 

[Alan Sokal's 1996 paper about the social construction of gravity], and later Lindsay’s, Pluckrose’s, and Boghossian’s papers, stand as shining examples of Poe’s Law. For the uninitiated, Poe’s Law states simply that it is impossible to parody extremist views because the parody will inevitably be mistaken as a genuine expression — even by people who hold those extremist views.

 … Two of the more recent pranksters, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, had already scored a stand-alone hoax paper “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct,” which was published in Cogent Social Sciences, a misnamed journal if ever there was one. The paper appeared in May 2017, which appears to be right before they undertook the more audacious twenty papers project the following month.

“The Conceptual Penis” was such an obvious gag that no one could have taken it seriously — no one except a gender studies scholar, which tells us a lot about gender studies as a field. The thrust of the paper is that penises “conceptually” cause global warming and all sorts of other really bad stuff, an obvious attempt to suck up to their reviewers’ biases.

The paper drips with misandry. Penises are bad because men are bad.

 … The rush to publish anything that sounds sufficiently “woke” has an equal but opposite counterpart — the reluctance to publish anything considered reactionary.

 … No paper, no matter how carefully researched and written, would ever be published if it came to the “wrong” conclusions. Conversely, no paper, no matter how sloppily written, would be rejected if it came to the “right” conclusions. Conclusions drive the research, not the other way around. …

Ventriloquist Journalism: Most MSM journalists already have their story written and are looking for a specific quote that fits their narrative

Scott [Johnson’s] two posts on his and Victor Davis Hanson’s treatment by The New Yorker calls to mind one of the first and most important lessons I learned from my mentor in journalism, the great M. Stanton Evans

writes Powerline's Steven Hayward (thanks to Instapundit):

Most “mainstream” journalists are not merely biased, but have a narrative story line in mind when they begin “reporting,”  so that when they call you on the phone, they aren’t looking for actual information and perspective—they are looking for a specific quote to drop in their story that fits their narrative. The point is: when you deal with the media, it is not just their innate liberalism you need to be on guard for—you need to keep in mind that they already have their story written.

There’s nothing Scott could have done to alter the Wallace-Wells attack on him since it is obvious that he had his story line already done. There’s another especially egregious example of ventriloquist journalism going on right now besides Scott and Victor’s experience that I’ll come to in a moment.

Stan Evans had a typically great label for this—he called it “ventriloquist journalism.” Reporters have in mind a specific quote they’d like to have from you, and have developed great skill in teasing it out of people. Think of it as just one aspect of fake news. I had quite a bit of first-hand experience with this during my years in Washington, and I got good at spotting the technique and having the discipline not to give in to the usual reporter’s tricks.

Often I’d get a call from a reporter wanting my comment on something the Bush Administration was doing, and the question, in substance, was usually: “Don’t you think the Bush Administration is doing the wrong thing?” (Though always more artfully put than that.) And when I didn’t give the answer the “reporter” was looking for, they’d keep asking the same question over and over again in different forms, because what they needed for their story was a way to say something like, “But even a conservative at the American Enterprise Institute thinks Bush is making a mistake. ‘Bush is making a mistake,’ said Steven Hayward. . .”

Sometimes a reporter would keep me on the phone for 30 minutes or more, hoping I’d give in. I learned the discipline of never giving in to this trick, and what do you know? I was never quoted in any of the stories that “reporters” like this filed. Nor did any of the information or analysis I had about the issue make it into the story, because background information and perspective was not what the reporter was looking for.

 … You need to do your due diligence about any reporter who contacts you. I try to look up stories by any reporter who contacts me to see if I can divine their slant or predominant practices.

There is one other piece of advice I give to everyone: always run your own complete audio and/or video recording of any interview you do with a reporter. Then you have your own complete record to use in follow ups with editors, or if you want to do you own story about how it really went down.

15th Anniversary of My First Post for No Pasarán

A few weeks after the founding of No Pasarán, 15 years ago, I was invited to join as the blog's fourth blogger (after Douglas, Jonathan, and Liminal aka U*2, and prior to N Joe).

The blog's inaugural pledge was that we

 "will commentate on current events with all the psychotic calm and serenity of a Palestinian father who explains that he can't wait for his 2 surviving sons to become martyrs"

Of the more than 13,000 posts that have been written since 2004 (13,362, to be exact, as of today), I consider the following couple of posts to be two of the most important:

• The Era of the Drama Queens: Every Crisis Is a Triumph

• The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables

Today is the anniversary of my first contribution (thanks to Ed for the Instapundit link), which related how I attended a conference in Normandy (at a museum linked to the D-Day landings, no less!) with some of France's best-known journalist VIPs and how I rose to challenge the group on the French media's coverage of the Iraq conflict.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Growling for Colombani

Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).

So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?" [What freedom for information in a distressing world?], organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time.

And sure enough, the first thing any of the five intervenants did (with a constant wry smile on his face) was to attack the lies of politicians, ridicule the partisanship of the media, and bemoan the jingoism of the population (meaning those of the US, the UK, and Aznar's Spain exclusively, bien sûr). It was Jean-Marie Charon, "Sociologue des médias" (whatever that means), who opened the débat — the others being (left to right on the admittedly unclear photo) Colombani, Walter Wells, Directeur de l'International Herald Tribune (beard), Jean-Jacques Lerosier, Grand reporter à Ouest-France, and Jacqueline Papet, Rédactrice-en-chef de RFI, with the moderators answering to the names of Daniel Junqua, Journaliste et Vice-président de RSF, and Jean-Claude Escaffit, Journaliste à La Vie et Directeur des Amis de La Vie.

Before I left Paris, I'd reviewed and written down (in telegraph-style) a handful of arguments: these ranged from the Iraqis quoted in Reason, on Iraq the Model, and in Le Monde itself, to Doug's post on Le Monde's partisan mistranslation of Michael Ignatieff's piece in the New York Times.

The only problem was a rather big one, I learned as a I headed for my seat: questions would not be permitted, except in written form on small pieces of paper handed over to one of the animators. So I knew I had to pay close attention if I wanted to find an appropriate moment when to jump in. And I would obviously not have time to develop any of the arguments (especially since Eskaffit seemed to be a control freak).

It happened towards the end. There was a brief lull as Wells was about to make his last extensive remarks. Suddenly everybody turned to me as I let out : "Je pense que nous devons tous remercier les médias français pour leur admirable abilité à détecter les mensonges. Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces spécialistes en la matière ignorent des sujets qui ont été traités dans le Herald Tribune, par exemple." (This was punctuated by Eskaffit's protests on his mike, you realize.) "Nous avons pu y lire des articles détaillant ce qu'on pourrait taxer de mensonges dans le camp de la paix, comme le fait que les Allemands, les Russes, et les Français avaient pas mal d'affaires avec les autorités baasistes, et que Total devait avoir un contrat exclusif avec Saddam Hussein. Pourquoi les médias français n'en font-ils pas autant état que de ce qui concerne les Ricains, les Rosbifs, et les Espagnols?"

[Translation: "I think we should all be grateful to the French media for their admirable ability to detect lies. But I do not understand why these experts in the field are ignorant of topics that have been covered in the Herald Tribune, for example." (This was punctuated by Eskaffit's protests on his mike, you realize.) "We have read articles detailing what could be taxed as lies from the peace camp, such as the fact that the Germans, the Russians, and the French had quite a lot of business dealings with the Baathist authorities, and that Total had an exclusive contract with Saddam Hussein. Why don't the French media make as much fuss about that as about the Yanks, the Limeys, and the Spaniards?"]

Eskaffit was growing increasingly more vocal in asking/telling me to keep quiet (shades of Chirac?) — he claimed that "de toutes façons", nobody could hear me — so seeing the end approaching (and having a hard time competing against a microphone), I pulled out my final ace — the final ace being a book, which I held above my head. (Yes, there did seem to be a somewhat theatrical element to this scene; why do you ask?) "Et en matière de mensonges, il y a ce livre d'un rédacteur de La Croix, qui a été licencié pour l'avoir publié, qui s'appelle Comment la presse nous a désinformés sur l'Irak. Et qui raconte les partis pris des Français pour diaboliser Bush, pour sanctifier Chirac, et pour communier avec les partis de la 'paix'."

[Translation: "And in terms of lies, there is this book by an editor of La Croix, which is called How the Press Disinformed Us on Iraq, and who indeed was fired for publishing it. And who details the bias of the French to demonize Bush, to sanctify Chirac, and to commune with the 'peace' parties."]

Even a few audience members had by now started to tell me to keep quiet, but that seemed an appropriate place to end anyway, so with that I sat down.

As for Eskaffit, he went on talking to the intervenants… ignoring completely what I had said. (While a couple of people behind me asked to see the book.) Well, I felt I had done my blogger's duty, so to speak, so I sat back, pretty content with myself.

Then, as Junqua made his last remarks, I understood that some people had heard me; the RSF moderator surprised me by pulling out his own copy of Alain Hertoghe's book (which he had in his briefcase), and explained that it provided a negative view of the French media during the Iraq war. But then he added that there was another book, detailing the French press's doings during the first Gulf war, with a positive slant, and that one could not read the first book without comparing it to the second. He tried to conclude that Hertoghe's book was a partisan "brûlot" that was not very friendly to his colleagues. (This from a colloque which had just declared that, happily, the old tradition in the press of refusing to criticize one's colleagues had now become "caduc"!)

I wasn't going to let him get away with that as the final word, so I let out another comment: "Les médias ont complètement censuré ce livre!" (But Eskaffit immediately started interrupting again.)

 [Translation: "The media thoroughly censored this book!"]

Afterwards, I went up to speak to some of the intervenants. Wells asked to see Hertoghe's book, which he wanted to check out. As for Junqua, he admitted it was news to him that the La Croix editor had been fired as a result of the book's publication.

So, all in all, a satisfying 10 minutes. (But hardly worth doing again, not at that distance. At least not without a couple of chums to have a drink with, afterwards.)

P.S. This is my first post for ¡No Pasarán! Muchas gracias, amigos, for inviting me to participar.

Posted by Erik at 20:03

Har Donald Trump ikke ret om socialismen?

    I sin tale om nationens tilstand (the State of the Union) sagde Donald Trump, manden som er beskrevet i hele Europa som en værre – og farlig – tåbe, at »Vi må … beslutte os for, at Amerika aldrig bliver et socialistisk land«

    Den generale holdning i Vesteuropa, samt blandt USAs demokrater, er det kan kun være en dyd at oprette et velfærdssystem.

    Men er Venezuela ikke blot et eksempel (og kun, desværre, det allerseneste) på at det – tydeligt – er forkert?

    Efter 20 år af Hugo Chávez og Nicolás Maduros socialistiske Revolution, kan borgerne i hvad var engang Sydamerikas rigeste land nu nyde manglen på mad, medicin og toiletpapir, samt strømafbrydelser, hyperinflation, og generelt en økonomi i frit fald, mens millioner af folk søger at flygte til nabolandene (google BBC's "How Venezuela's crisis developed and drove out millions of people").

    Som så mange andre, både i USA og andetsteds i verden (ikke mindst Danmark), var Michael Moore fuld af begejstring og beundring over den Bolvarianske revolution da Hugo Chávez kom til magten for 20 år siden.  Så sent som i 2013 skrev filminstruktøren f.eks. at "Chavez har erklæret at olien tilhører folket.  Han brugte olie dollars til at eliminere 75% af ondartet fattigdom, og til at forsyne alle med et gratis sundhedssystem og uddannelse."

    Hvad er det, at en Michael Moore, en Oliver Stone, en Bernie Sanders, en Michael Tackett og en Dan Jørgensen, samt millioner af danskere, ikke forstår, at i Venezuela er socialismen ikke blot mislykket, det har bragt borgerne i Latinamerikas allerrigeste land til fattigdommens rand?

    I deres iver efter at vise hvor overlegen resten af verden – eller i hvert fald Europa – er i forhold til USA glemmer de at omtale de (mange) lande hvor det har vist sig at "tåberne" (udtrykket – som de fleste danskere er givetvis enige med – stammer fra Niels Jespersen i Berlingske vedrørende sådanne folk som Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, og Donald Trump) som er skeptiske overfor indførelsen af et nationalt velfærdssamfund har utvivlsomt haft ret.

     Fordi det ikke har et sundhedssystem som "alle andre lande" bliver Kapitalismens hjemland regelmæssigt beskrevet som et "mareridt".  Skulle ordet ikke hellere anvendes om Venezuela, en nation med tomme supermarkedhylder der lider en 85% mangel på medicin og hvor millioner prøver at udvandre?

    Donald Trumps udtryk for sådan nogle lande skulle være "shitholes" (hvis det virkeligt passer at præsidenten har brugt det ord), et udtryk der er blevet ganske vist kritiseret over hele kloden.

    Nu taler vi om lande med tomme supermarkedhylder hvor man skal bruge flere timer hver dag til at købe et stykke brød eller en rulle toiletpapir (hvadenten det er i Leningrad – for en generation siden var det Sovjetunionen – eller Caracas) – hvis sådanne varer overhovedet kan findes.

    Er det virkelig taktløs at kalde sådan nogle lande for "shitholes"?

    Hvad ellers skal man kalde et land hvor en væsentlig del af befolkningen – hvadenten der er fra Latinamerika (i Venezuela er det en sjettedel) eller Syrien – er udvandret til udlandet i de sidste ti år?!

    Betyder det så ikke at emigranterne selv siger —  i så mange ord – at deres egne lande kan de facto beskrives som et shithole? 

"THE BLIND SPOT" I FOX NEWS KONTROVERSET

    I dette sammenhæng har der været meget humor over at en Fox News journalist har sammenlignet Venezuela med Danmark.  Der har utvivlsomt været overdrivelse i Trish Regans reportage, men kan det ikke virke lidt indskrænkende at den eneste lektie, som danskerne synes at have taget fra kontroverset er (igen) at de konservative amerikanere er ikke andet end nogle uvidende tumper som burde kende mere til verdenen?  (Samt selvfølgelig den stedsegrønne drøm om at USA burde efterligne Skandinavien og – endelig – få et socialistisk samfund.)

    Sig mig:  Passer det virkelig at danskerne bare kan lay back and relax?  Har danskerne ikke egentlig også en lektie at lære?  Som måske er vigtigere…  At når "tosserne" er betænkelige om lande (eller rettere om revolutionernes ledere) der har valgt socialismen, har de ofte haft… god grund til det?  Er Chavez's Venezuela (efter bl.a. Lenins USSR, Ceausescus Rumænien, og Maos Kina) ikke et godt bevis på det?

    Har alle lande (eller rettere, alle revolutionernes ledere) ikke lovet samme fremtid i skandinavisk stil?

    Hvem kan forudse med sikkerhed, om en venstreorienteret regime vil følge Denmarks eksempel eller Venezuelas?  Er der nogen (Michael Moore?  Bernie Sanders?  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?  Dan Jørgensen?), der har svar på det spørgsmål?

    Da Donald Trump gav sin første tale i FN i 2017, fokuserede medierne (det, som han kalder for "fake news") på det kontroversielle – hans kommentarer om Nordkorea og "Rocketman"; både i USA og i udlandet undlod de for det meste at berette om, hvad præsidenten havde at sige om socialismen.

    “The problem in Venezuela, is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.  From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”  Følgende år sagde Trump at “Today, socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.”

    Vedrørende Trumps State of the Union: i Information griner en George Blecher af "talens gammeldags præg – og selv dens 1950'er-agtige udfald imod socialismens røde fare", men sandheden er, at socialismen synes at være den eneste ideologi som man skal bedømme på alene deres (sjældne) "succeser." Aldrig skal følgende lande nævnes: Albanien, Algeriet, Angola, Burma, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopien, Laos, Somalien, Vietnam, Yemen, osv osv osv…

    Næh, kun de skandinaviske lande og/eller Vesteuropa skal nævnes – selv om vi her i Skandinvien protesterer (med rette) at udtrykket Socialisme er langtfra en tilpassende beskrivelse om vore lande.

    I The Daily Signal forklarer David Harsanyi at "nutidens socialister [amerikanske såvel som udenlandske] klukker højt ved at lade som om kollektivistiske politik ikke fører til andet end uskadelige resultater som lokale biblioteker. Men i mange år priste de også diktatorerne i Cuba, Nicaragua og Venezuela" (for ikke at nævne Sovjetunionen og Kina).

    Det er ikke kun det danske system som danskernes yndlingspolitiker i USA, Bernie Sanders, har hyldet. "For ikke særlig længe siden," fortsætter David Harsanyi, roste Vermont Senatoren "Hugo Chavez som arkitekten af the American Dream, endnu mere end selveste USA." (!)

    Socialister i udlandet og i USA, som Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), "kan lide at bebrejde enhver ulighed, enhver glubsk forbryders handling, enhver nedtur og enhver social sygdom på kapitalismens uretfærdighed. Men ingen af dem indrømmer, at kapitalismen har været den mest effektive måde i historien til at afskaffe fattigdom."  Samt den mest effektive måde i historien til at financiere… det enkelte lands hele velfærdssystem.

NOGLE PINLIGE SPØRGSMÅL OM DET DANSKE VELFÆRDSSYSTEM

     Det siges at hvis socialismen har været en katastrofe i visse lande der fører til elendighed og fattigdom, så kan det ikke nægtes at det været en succes i en del andre lande.

    Det bringer os til adskillige pinlige spørgsmål:

    Passer det ikke, at de fleste lande hvor velfærdssamfundet blev oprettet nogenlunde godt efter Anden Verdenskrig – hovedsageligt Japan og Vesteuropa – er netop de lande som fik kæmpe injectioner af penge fra udlandet efter krigen; dvs milliarder af dollars fra – who else? – Amerika (i Europa, via Marshall-planen)?

    Udover det, har man lov til at sige at danskernes stolthed over deres sociale system nogengange undlader nogle betydningsfulde detaljer?

    To af de ting, man mest beskylder USA for er dels, at amerikanerne ikke bruger nok på det sociale og dels, at deres "krigsgale" generaler bruger (alt) for meget på militæret – mens de peger på deres egne landes fredelige, og gavmilde, brug af deres BNP (dvs af deres skatteyderes skattepenge).

    Men hov! passer det ikke, at hvis lande i Vesteuropa bruger lidet på deres egen militær medens de har penge til råde til at bruge penge på det sociale, er det ikke fordi – et det ikke netop fordi – Uncle Sam bruger så meget på Amerikas forsvar; som også fungerer som forsvar for hele Vesten?

    Forklarer det ikke samtidig amerikanske presidenters regelmæssige bønfald til Europa at bidrage mere til forsvaret, senest Donald Trumps vrede i Brussel over NATO i 2018?

    Det korte af det lange er følgende:  Europæerne kan gå rundt og prale over deres status som alhellige fredsstiftere i kontrast til de afskyelige amerikanske tumper præcis fordi deres regninger bliver betalt af og deres forsvar bliver garanteret af samme afskyelige amerikanske tumper.

    Hvorom alting er, så gentager vi danskere, hvor stolte vi er, at vi har dette sundhedssystem som vi allesammen har gavn af.

    Må nogle flere spørgsmål blive stillet?

    Var vi ikke lige så stolte af vores sundhedssystem for 10 år siden?  For 20 år siden?  For 40 år siden?  For dem som var i live dengang kan svaret næppe være andet end et helt sikkert ja.

    Ligeledes med andre emner, som vore kørefartøjer, eller vore telefoner.  Er vi ikke tilfredse med vore telefoner nu?  Var vi, eller vore forældre, ikke lige så tilfredse med vore telefoner for ti àr siden?  For 40 år siden?  Var vore forfædre ikke lige så tilfredse med vore telefoner for 100 år siden?  Med vore kommunikationsmidler i det 16. århundrede?  I det 11.?

    Men I dag ville vi ikke være tilfredse med vore kommunikationsmidler for 1000, eller 500, år siden.  Vi ville ikke være tilfredse med telefonerne fra 1930erne, eller fra 1970erne, eller fra 1990erne.  Faktisk ville vi den dag idag næppe være tilfredse med vore telefoner for blot 3-4 år siden.

    I mellemtiden er der nemlig kommet fremskridt.  Og hvor kommer den fremgang fra?  Kommer det ikke primært fra Nordamerika?

    Det er der ikke mange der tror på (fordi der ikke er mange der tænker over emnet?).  Find en liste på nobelpriserne i medecin (samt andre videnskabelige emner): Det er ikke altid amerikanere der vinder.  Men det er det oftest.  Og mange af de englændere og andre udlænginge der vinder har ofte arbejdet på… amerikanske instituter.

    For eksempel blev den franske presse stolt, da en franskmand var blandt Nobel vinderne i medecin i 2008 for forskninger om AIDS. Men dengang var Luc Montagnier ikke længere til at findes på l'Institut Pasteur; han var blevet tvunget ud af sit arbejde på grund af hans pensionsalder (social retfærdighed, forstås) og arbejdede i… USA.  (Den dag idag findes han forresten i Kina.)

    De seneste udviklinger der hjælper medicinens fremgang er personal computers og smartphones, opfindelser der var helt utænkelige da jeg blev født, og som ikke engang fandtes i science fiction historier.

    For et par år siden sad jeg ganske fredeligt på en café i Paris og nød en drink da jeg pludselig begyndte at se uhyggelige brune pletter der dansede foran det ene øje.  Jeg ringede til en venindes far som var pensioneret øjenlæge, og han sagde at jeg måtte øjeblikkeligt (hvis jeg må have lov til at bruge udtrykket) tage til l'Hôpital des Quinze-Vingts.  Det viste sig at være begyndelsen af en retinal løsrivelse.

    Næste gang vi mødtes, spurgte jeg ham hvordan det ville være gået da han var øjenlæge for 30 år siden.  Jo, jeg ville have fået en aftale med en specialist, og efter en tretimers operation ville jeg have overnattet i en hospitalsseng.  Men i 2016?  Der fik jeg laserbehandling fra en medicinsk pratikant, en pige 23 eller 24 år gammel, og efter 20 minutter var det slut og jeg fik lov til at gå hjem (givet, efter to-tre timer i ventesalen).

    Igen:  Ville danskerne (eller franskmændende) være tilfredse den dag idag for den velfærdssystem Danmark (eller Frankrig) havde for 50 år, eller 20 år, eller blot 5 år, siden?

    Nu ønsker man inderligt, at amerikanerne efterligner Europa — gid de der yankees kunne, ligesom os, bare ingen bekymringer have og fokusere på at have det sjovt og more sig — uden at det påvirker landets "can do" spirit.

    Da langt de fleste opfindelser der i de sidste 200 år – hvadenten det er i Nordamerika eller andetsteds i verden, hvadenten det er dampskibe eller jernbaner, hvadenten det er personal computers eller smartphones – er kommet fra eller er blevet forbedret i USA, burde alle forsøg på at ødelægge eller hæmme fornyelser (også kaldet: killing the goose that lays the golden eggs) ikke afværges?

    Som Stanford "policy expert" Lanhee Chen fortæller i en Prager University video (What's Wrong with Government-Run Healthcare?), "systemer hvor regeringen kontrollerer sundhedsvæsenet, nedtrykker på søgen efter nye botemidler og innovation … [og] medicinske gennembrud kommer sjældent fra sådanne lande. De kommer fra USA, hvor regeringen holder sig fra. … Biomedicinske forskningsudgifter i USA overstiger langt fra ethvert land med nationaliseret sundhedspleje … Løvens andel af de biomedicinske forsknings- og udviklingsudgifter i USA – over 70 milliarder dollar i 2012 – kommer fra den private sektor."  Dermed får amerikanerne innovation, som alle andre folkeslag eventuelt får nytte fra.

    (Men i det hele taget må det siges at danskerne burde holde sig bort fra de circa 200 korte Prager University videoer på internettet; det ville jo være forfærdeligt hvis den almindelige dansker ikke længere kunne overbevises om, hvor tumpet den almindelige yankee var.)

DEN SANDE GRUND HVORFOR USAs DEMOKRATER HYLDER SKANDINAVIEN
(OG HVORFOR EUROPÆERNE HYLDER USAs DEMOKRATER)

    Men lad os droppe Danmark som eksempel, så den almindelige læser ikke bliver forarget.  Lad os tale i stedet for om et af nabolandene.

    I sin bog om de nordiske lande (“The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia”, på dansk “Det er et lykkeligt land”), skriver Michael Booth at i "størstedelen af det 20. århundrede har Sverige de facto været en etpartistat, og partiet hed Socialdemokraterna.  De regulerede alle aspekter af deres pligtopfyldende, føjelige borgeres liv og gjorde deres yderste for at sørge for, at alle overholdt deres moderne, progressive samfundsnormer."

    Når forfatteren (som iøvrigt er venstreorienteret) beskriver Sverige som "en totalitær stat", er det selvfølgelig ikke i samme grad som f.eks. Sovjetunionen, men fordi der "var ikke ret mange aspekter af svenskernes liv, som staten ikke bestræbte sig at kontrollere – fra lønninger til børneopdragelse, drikkevaner, tv-vaner, længden af deres ferier og deres syn på Vietnam-krigen" (cf. Uncle Sams påståede forfærdelige undenrigspolitik).

    Men danskerne, og resten af de nordiske lande (hvis ikke hele verdenen), er overbevist om at intet kunne blive bedre for USA, og for verden selv, end hvis USA blev "fundamentally transformed" (Barack Obamas ord) og endelig fik lige så ekstensiv en administrativ formynderstat (på engelsk: a nanny state) som de europeiske lande har.

    Hvis det er rigtigt at Barack Obama var den vidunderligste amerikanske præsident i verdenshistorien (ligesom, i deres tid, Lenin og Che Guevara, for ikke at glemme Mao og Chávez, etc etc etc…), bliver den eneste logiske konklusion så ikke at det ville være vidunderligt for landet hvis sådan et pragtfuld Übermensch blev livsvarig Leder?

    Hvis det er rigtigt at demokraternes modstandere er så væmmelige som de beskyldes for ("deplorables", kalder Hillary Clinton republikanerne jo), er den logiske konklusion så ikke at disse umenneskelige barbarer burde miste flere rettigeheder, deriblandt deres free speech (ytringsfrihed) samt deres valgrettigeheder?

    Og er den logiske konklusion så ikke at republikanerne faktisk er folkefjender, som burde straffes — hvadenten det er med tab af valgrettigheder, høje(re) skatter og beslaglæggelse af adskillige egendomme?

    Eller måske burde Republikanerne faktisk sættes i genopdragelseslejre, for at blive omskolet?  Så kunne de endelig anerkende hvor vidunderligt det er for et folk at have venstreorienterede politikere, professionnelle funktionærer, og utallige love til dannelse af en nanny state der regerer ethvert aspekt af deres daglige liv?

    Det er jo ganske ufatteligt at amerikanerne ikke kan indse, hvor heldige de ville være, hvis blot Hillary eller Bernie eller AOC (eller Barack, stadig) var i det Hvide Hus.  Det er også ubegribeligt at amerikanerne ikke kan forstå hvor lykkelige de ville være hvis blot de havde lige så høje skatter som i Danmark, hvis blot de havde lige så mange funktionærer som i Danmark, og hvis blot de havde lige så meget bureaukrati som i Danmark.  (Og hermed lukker vi for sarkasmehanen.)

    Husk Booths beskrivelser om Sveriges etpartistat:  er den logiske konklusion ikke at drømmen om USA under demokraterne (hvadenten det er i selveste USA eller i udlandet) bliver et spejlbillede af Sverige under Socialdemokraterna?

    Bliver den logiske konklusion så ikke af den almindelige kritik af USA lyder temmelig meget som et spejlbillede af socialismens/kommunismens drømme?

    (Og forresten, forstår vi nu ikke lidt bedre hvorfor amerikanerne ønsker at skulle holde fast til deres våben og til deres Second Amendment?)

We "will commentate on current events with all the psychotic calm and serenity of a Palestinian father who explains that he can't wait for his 2 surviving sons to become martyrs": No Pasarán Celebrates 15th Anniversary

Fifteen years ago, after enduring months of unceasing tirades of criticism and venom from Europe (and especially France) linked to George W Bush's 2003 invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a handful of independent bloggers (Douglas, Jonathan, and Liminal aka U*2) made good on their vow to unite their efforts and create a single, common weblog, one by the name of No Pasarán! (I would join five weeks later, and N Joe a year or two later.)

Of the more than 13,000 posts that have been written since 2004, I consider the following couple of posts to be two of the most important:

• The Era of the Drama Queens: Every Crisis Is a Triumph

• The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables

Below are the first two days of No Pasarán!

Friday, February 20, 2004

Let's cool off	Il faut décompresser
Being a tad worried about my reputation [over at the blog Merde in France] I have decided to not write any controversial posts on this blog. Therefore, I will commentate on France's current events with all the psychotic calm and serenity of a Palestinian father who explains that he can't wait for his two surviving sons to become martyrs. How's that?	Etant un tant soit peu soucieux de ma réputation, je tâcherai de me limiter à des postes qui ne provoquent point de polémiques sur ce blog. Donc, je vous relaterai la situation en Fwance avec tout le calme et toute la sérenité psychotiques normalement employés par un père palestinien qui vous explique qu'il a hâte de voir ses deux fils survivants se transformer en martyres. Ça vous va?

United States

Le Monde's website is advertising a "lexicon for better understanding the United States" on the right-hand side of its front page. Although you have to pay in order to access the dictionary that contains over 400 "words of America," the advertisement is telling. If you click on the ad, a slide show opens with the following definitions:

(1) Sex: Sodomy remains illegal in a number of American states, and Bush promotes abstinence.
(2) Botox: 7.4 million Americans spent 7.7 billion euros on plastic surgery in 2000.
(3) Televangelists: The successors of nineteenth century traveling preachers, televangelists are television stars.

It's comforting to know that Le Monde is doing its part to break down misunderstandings and stereotypes between French and Americans. Now we just need Conan O'Brien to come up with a dictionary for Americans to understand France.

International Law:

Last month, the ship, Bugaled Breizh, sunk off of southern England. Five Frenchmen died. The culprit was allegedly a Philippine-registered vessel called the Seattle Trader, which may have collided with the Bugaled Breizh. Although the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea indicates that vessels are under the jurisdiction of the country in which they are registered and therefore any action with respect to the Seattle Trader should be authorized by the Philippine government, France is bringing justice to the alleged culprits and is hunting them down. Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has denounced France's actions as "gun-boat diplomacy."

International Law:

Three years after the Convention was created, France has ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which restricts production of certain pesticides, industrial chemicals and unintended byproducts of combustion such as DDT, PCBs and dioxin. France was the fiftieth country to ratify the Convention, and "fifty" was the number required for the Convention to enter into force.

The United States is a signatory to the treaty, and President Bush submitted the Convention for ratification to the Senate back in 2002.

Posted by Jonathan at 14:37

And here is the second day of the blog: 

Saturday, February 21, 2004

We have no bananas to-day!

Let's check in on our friend Dieudonné. Where do we find his career?



The stunt he pulled seems to be costing him dearly, according to Le Monde. The paper writes that the show he was supposed to have yesterday at L'Olympia was canceled. The venue's directors issued a press release stating that, after receiving anonymous threats, they were canceling the show due to the "climate of extreme tension we have observed over several days." They say that Olympia would "not have the means to guarantee the security of its audience and employees." Indeed, Olympia claim that on Tuesday they received a letter from police headquarters that "reminded [the director] of his responsibilities" and pointed out "that the staff in private establishments are responsible for safety and security on their premises." Contacted by the AFP, Dieudo's agent said the "funny man" didn't want to "react in anger."

So much for that. Dieudonné decided to hold his show in the street outside the theater.

They came by the hundred to chant the slogan "freedom of speech" and to support Dieudonné, who decided to have his show on a platform erected on the sidewalk opposite Olympia, the venue where he was supposed to have performed on Friday and which canceled this.

The humorist raised his arms, greeted his fans, the "descendants of slaves," the "Arabs," the "blacks" and also the whites of all ages who had massed on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris, surrounded by anti-riot police. "We love you," shouted young girls, waving their cameras.

Libération is writing derisively that now Diedonné "takes himself for a defender of the black cause" and reports that the "comedian" said "400 years of slavery and we don't have the right to speak!"

Alain Finkielkraut is criticizing those who leveled threats against l'Olympia (causing the venue to fear for its safety), as he thinks they are "transforming [Dieudonné] into a martyr for human rights and freedom of speech."

Dieudonné is now claiming that he's been banned from French public television. "I've been banned from the TV... just like Coluche and Bedos once were." This was categorically denied however by France 2. Do you imagine they have any interest in seeing him ever again? Do you think many other venues will want to book him now? Can we now ask, as W. once did, "Dis donc Dieudo, les recettes de ton dernier spectacle, ça achète beaucoup de bananes?"

reconnaissance

Le Monde is also offering a slide show of reconnaissance photos (note that in French reconnaissance means "gratitude") from World War II. Some are from the Imperial War Museum, some from the Aerial Reconnaissance Achives and some from the Public Record Office. They include that now famous photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau ("at its criminal apex") and of Omaha Beach (on D-day).

On décompresse...

Ça se fait comme ça... con nosotros

Posted by Douglas at 20:32

Strings attached: Chinese authorities, censors, and consumers influence nearly every aspect of American moviemaking in China

Hollywood has become so entangled with China that the movie industry can’t run without it

writes Erich Schwartzel in the Wall Street Journal.

Chinese investors and more than a billion potential moviegoers have made China indispensable to the film business. The country’s box-office total last year, at $6.6 billion, was the world’s second-largest compared with the first-place U.S., $11.4 billion. In a few years, analysts predict, China will be No. 1.

While the U.S. movie-ticket sales have remained relatively flat, China’s have more than tripled since 2011.

 … Private and state-backed Chinese companies have invested tens of billions of dollars in U.S. film ventures over the past decade. The relationship comes with strings attached. Chinese authorities, censors and consumers influence nearly every aspect of American moviemaking in China, from scripts to casting to greenlighting sequels.

… “We’re in a moment of significant disruption,” said Richard Lovett, president of Creative Artists Agency, which represents such clients as Sandra Bullock and J.J. Abrams. The firm announced Monday it was expanding its footprint in the country with a division called CAA China.

China’s ambition befits the big screen—to compete with the U.S. as a global storyteller and spread its perspective in the same fashion American filmmakers have for a century.

 … Chinese investors bring the support of a Communist Party that under China’s leader, President Xi Jinping, has made cultural influence an important piece of its long-term growth plans.

“We must make patriotism into the main melody of literature and art creation, guide the people to establish and uphold correct views of history, views of the nation, views of the country and views of culture, and strengthen their fortitude and resolve to be Chinese,” said Mr. Xi at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art in October 2014.

Tensions between China and the White House have accelerated since the presidential election. Mr. Xi is seeking to strike a contrast with President Donald Trump as a champion of globalism, and he appears eager to advance China’s narrative—both by pressuring Hollywood studios to portray the nation favorably and, in the long term, by adopting Western filmmaking techniques for China’s own movie industry.

 … That desire got a push from a Hollywood panda named Po. The animated star of “Kung Fu Panda” was created by DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., the Glendale, Calif., studio then run by Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Mr. Katzenberg didn’t cook up “Panda” to win over Chinese audiences. He and the DreamWorks team conceived of the movie in 2004, when China sales were barely an afterthought. At its 2008 release, China’s market was small but growing.

Yet “Kung Fu Panda” was a hit in China, grossing $26 million, a surprise to everyone. Members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Committee—a top political advisory body—debated how a U.S. company could understand Chinese culture well enough to make the movie.

 … Hollywood executives can rattle off the rules for getting a movie approved by Chinese censors: no sex (too unseemly); no ghosts (too spiritual). Among 10 prohibited plot elements are “disrupts the social order” and “jeopardizes social morality.” Time travel is frowned upon because of its premise that individuals can change history.

 … No company has been more aggressive in pursuing Hollywood partnerships than Wanda, a conglomerate run by Wang Jianlin, China’s richest man, that made its name building shopping malls across China in the 1990s.

In 2012, Wanda bought AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., a Leawood, Kan., exhibitor that is now the largest movie-theater operator in the world. The company’s other entertainment holdings include Legendary Entertainment, the production company behind “Kong: Skull Island.” It recently built Wanda Studios in the coastal city of Qingdao, which houses 50 soundstages, the largest stretching to more than 100,000 square feet.

Check out the ending of Ridley Scott's “The Martian”, to see how a Chinese rocket is instrumental in saving the life of (again) astronaut Matt Damon. Or check out the ending of Roland Emmerich's “2012”, where the first nations to show compassion and allow thousands of commoners on the Arks — built in China, natch — prove to be China, Russia, and Japan; quickly followed — to the American commander-in-chief's dismay — by a handful of nations from Europe…

Related:
• Hollywood's Offerings Promise Only to Get More Anti-American

• In an effort to placate China's cultural sensitivities, Hollywood is willing to make all manner of changes to their films

• Hollywood alters film content to satisfy the communist gatekeepers in Beijing

• Is Kung Fu Panda 2 "a Metaphor for the China-US Struggle"?

• Further Inroads into Hollywood for China's Communist Party and Its Censors

• Chinese Film Studios Are the Planet's Largest, Mass-Producing Films Designed to Build a Positive Image of the Country

In a separate Wall Street Journal article five months earlier, Erich Schwartzel wrote that

Once a blip on studios’ radar, the Chinese box office grew nearly sixty-fold from 2003 to 2015, when its revenue passed $7 billion, and is expected to become the biggest in the world in 2019.

But those sweetened terms come at a cost, beginning with rules that can feel like creative straitjackets and on-set safety requirements that can be looser than in the U.S.

 … Filming [the $150 million historical fantasy “The Great Wall”] in China posed inherent problems, like Beijing’s infamous pollution. “How do I look Matt Damon in the face when he’s the only one not wearing a mask?” one producer asked in a meeting.

Clearer skies and more space were found when the crew started filming in Qingdao, a coastal city 400 miles southeast of the capital where Wanda is constructing a sprawling real-estate development known as Wanda Studios Qingdao. Wanda bought Legendary for $3.5 billion in early 2016.