Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

vrijdag 5 juni 2009

Wilders! 2

De NRC bericht:

'Wouter Bos reageerde geschokt op de slechte uitslag van zijn partij.'   (Foto WFA)

Daar begrijp ik nu werkelijk niets van. Als sociaaldemocratische minister van Financien besliste Bos op een vrijdagmiddag zonder de volksvertegenwoordiging te raadplegen dat er miljarden aan belastinggeld naar failliete banken gingen om het al even failliete kapitalisme te redden, en dat zonder de garantie te kunnen geven dat deze subsidie ook zou helpen. Vervolgens maakte zijn kabinet enkele weken later bekend dat de pensioengerechtigde leeftijd naar 67 jaar moet worden opgetrokken en dat het pensioenbedrag van gepensioneerden die net hun belastinggeld naar incompetente bankiers zagen gaan, omlaag moet omdat er geen geld genoeg meer is. En tenslotte 'reageerde Bos geschokt op de slechte uitslag van zijn partij.' Is Bos nu autist of een politicus. Begrijpt hij werkelijk zo weinig van de werkelijkheid? Waarom zoeken de commerciele massamedia zoals de slijpsteen voor de geest dit niet eens uit? Zouden mijn collega's werkelijk denken dat hun lezers, kijkers en luisteraars net zo stupide zijn als zij? Ik bedoel, zouden mijn collega's niet beseffen dat de doorsnee burger allang doorheeft dat de uitkeringen aan de economische elite toch ergens vandaan moeten komen, dus ten koste gaan van de bevolking? Het is socialisme voor de rijken. En dat noemt men de vrije markt. Daar geloven mijn collega's zo rotsvast in dat ze zich niet kunnen voorstellen dat er mensen zijn die dwars door deze nonsens heen kunnen kijken. Opmerkelijk, nietwaar?

Wilders!


Alle commerciele massamedia melden:

               PVV grote winnaar verkiezingen      

Deze overwinning is toe te juichen en wel om drie redenen:

1. De -- in de woorden van Henk Hofland -- 'politiek literaire elite' van de polder is al meer dan twee decennia uiterst zelfingenomen, denklui en hautain. Dat zet op den duur kwaad bloed. Zoals de auteur van de Amerikaanse Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring en latere president, Thomas Jefferson, verklaarde heeft iedere generatie een revolutie nodig. Ikzelf heb in de jaren zestig een dergelijke (vreedzame) revolutie meegemaakt, waarbij de elite uit die tijd van hun zetel werd verdreven. In een moderne samenleving is een permanente wisseling van de macht noodzakelijk om te voorkomen dat de elite de macht behoudt via nepotisme, vriendjespolitiek en algehele lamlendigheid. Daar moet op een gegeven moment in een parlementaire democratie een eind aan worden gemaakt. De lange mars door de instituten, zoals Joop den Uyl die predikte, heeft in Nederland geleid tot een nieuwe generatie regenten en die moet nu opzij gezet worden.

2. De rancune onder de bevolking, als gevolg van onder andere hetgeen ik hierboven heb geschreven, moet er op een of andere manier uit. Wilders kan geen oplossingen bieden voor onze structurele problemen, dat kan niemand meer. Maar in elk geval geeft hij de rancune een gezicht. En zolang dat gezicht zichtbaar is, hoeft niemand bang te zijn. Burgers moeten alleen in beweging komen als het hen niet bevalt wat Wilders doet. Maar wat is daar op tegen? Niets, toch!

3. Op een gegeven moment zal blijken dat Wilders een praatjesmaker is, die geen structurele oplossingen heeft. Dan zal hij als een luchtballon door geprikt worden. Heeft iemand van u daar iets op tegen? Je moet Wilders met Wilders bestrijden.

The Empire 457

Paul 2 emailde me dit:


Obama to Muslims: Put Up and Shut Up

by Paul Craig Roberts, June 05, 2009

What are we to make of Obama’s speech at Cairo University in Egypt?

"I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Cairo is the capital of Egypt, an American puppet state whose ruler suppresses the aspirations of Egyptian Muslims and cooperates with Israel in the blockade of Gaza.

In contrast to the Islamic University of Al-Azhar, Cairo University was founded as a civil university. Obama’s Cairo University audience was secular.

Nevertheless, Obama said startling words that many Muslims found hopeful. He said that colonialism and the Cold War had denied rights and opportunities to Muslims and resulted in Muslim countries being treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. The resulting blowback from "violent extremists" bred fear and mistrust between the Western and Muslim worlds.

Obama spoke of the Koran, his middle name, and his family connections to Islam.

Obama praised Islam’s contributions to civilization.

Obama declared his "responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Obama acknowledged "the responsibility we have to one another as human beings."

Obama acknowledged Iran’s "right to access peaceful nuclear power."

Obama declared that "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other."

Obama’s most explosive words pertained to Israel and Palestine: "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Obama declared that "the only resolution [to the conflict] is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires." For Obama’s commitment to be fulfilled, Israel would have to give back the stolen West Bank lands, dismantle the wall, accept the right to return, and release 1.5 million Palestinians from the Gaza Ghetto. As this seems an unlikely collection of events, the nature of the "two-state solution" endorsed by Obama remains to be seen.

After the euphoric attention to idealistic rhetoric dies down, Obama will be criticized for extravagant words that create unrealizable expectations. But were the extravagant words other than a premier act of schmoozing Muslims designed to quiet the Muslim Brotherhood in our Egyptian puppet state and to get Muslims to accept US aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Obama decries regime change, but continues to practice it, invoking women’s rights to gain support from secularized Arabs. He admits that Iraq was a war of choice but claims that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and 9/11 make Afghanistan a war of necessity.

Obama said that "the events of 9/11" and al-Qaeda’s responsibility, not America’s desire for military bases and hegemony, are the reasons America’s commitment to combating violent extremism in Afghanistan will not weaken. Will Muslims notice that Obama’s case for America’s violent extremism in Afghanistan and now Pakistan is hypocritical?

Al-Qaeda, Obama says, "chose to ruthlessly murder" nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 "and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale." These deaths are a mere drop in the buckets of blood that America’s invasions have brought to the Muslim world. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the Muslims America has slaughtered are civilians, just as are the unarmed Palestinians slaughtered by the American-equipped Israeli military.

Against al-Qaeda, whose "actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings," Obama invokes the Koran’s prohibition against killing an innocent. Does Obama not realize that the stricture applies to the US and its "coalition of forty-six countries" in spades?

America’s wars are all wars of choice. The more than one million dead Iraqis are not al-Qaeda. Neither are Iraq’s four million refugees. Yet, Obama says Iraqis are better off now, with their country in ruins and a fifth of their population lost, because they are rid of Saddam Hussein, a secular ruler.

No one has a good tally of the dead and refugees America has produced in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, declared Obama, "The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals and our need to work together."

In his first 100 days, Obama managed to create two million Pakistani refugees. It took Israel 60 years to create 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.

What Obama has really done is his speech is to accept responsibility for the neoconservative agenda of extending Western hegemony by eliminating "Muslim extremists," that is, Muslims who want to rule themselves in keeping with Islam, not in keeping with some secularized, Westernized faux Islam.

Muslim extremists are the creation of decades of Western colonization and secularization that has created an elite, which is Muslim in name only, to rule over religious people and to suppress Islamic mores. All experts know this, and most of them hail it as bringing progress and development to the Muslim world.

Obama said that "human progress cannot be denied," but "there need not be contradiction between development and tradition." However, the West defines development and education. These terms mean what they mean in the West. Muslim extremists understand that these terms mean the extermination of Islam.

In typical American fashion, Obama offered Muslims money, "technological development," and "centers of scientific excellence."

All the Muslims have to do is to cooperate with America and be peaceful, and America will "respect the dignity of all human beings." Zie:

http://jnoubiyeh.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-to-muslims-put-up-and-shut-up.html

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin:

    Remember, that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his labor, and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends but sixpence during his diversion or idleness, ought not to reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, or rather thrown away, five shillings besides. ... Remember, that money is the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. Five shillings turned is six, turned again is seven and threepence, and so on, till it becomes a hundred pounds. The more there is of it, the more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and quicker. He that kills a breeding sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousandth generation. He that murders a crown, destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds.

Het Neoliberale Geloof 454

A woman stands among her possessions after being evicted from her foreclosed house in Adams County, Colorado. (Photo: John Moore / Getty Images)

Econocide: Body Count
Thursday 04 June 2009 by: Nick Turse | Visit article original @ TomDispatch.com 

After David B. Kellermann, the chief financial officer of beleaguered mortgage giant Freddie Mac, tied a noose and hanged himself in the basement of his Vienna, Virginia, home, The New York Times made it a front-page story. The stresses of the job in economic tough times, its reporters implied, had driven him to this extreme act. "Binghamton Shooter" Jiverly Wong also garnered front-page headlines nationwide and set off a cable news frenzy when, "bitter over job loss," he massacred 13 people at an immigration center in upstate New York. Similarly, coverage was brisk after Pittsburgh resident Richard Poplawski, "upset about recently losing a job," shot four local police officers, killing three of them. But where was the front-page treatment when, in January, Betty Lipply, a 72-year-old resident of East Palestine, Ohio, "who feared she'd lose her home to foreclosure hanged herself to death" shortly after "receiving her second summons and foreclosure complaint from her mortgage lender"? And where was the up-to-the-minute cable news reporting on the two California dairy farmers who "killed themselves ... out of despair over finances, according to associates"? Mass Murder, Mass Media, and Missing Stories

Last summer, in the pages of the Nation magazine, Barbara Ehrenreich called attention to people turning to "the suicide solution" in response to the burgeoning financial crisis. Months later, major news outlets started to examine the same phenomenon. Last fall, a TomDispatch report on suicides and a range of other extreme acts - including self-inflicted injury, murder, arson, and armed self-defense - in response to foreclosures, evictions, bankruptcies, and layoffs, was followed, months later, by mainstream media attention to the notion of "econo-cide" - prompted, in large part, by a spate of familicides (murder/suicides in which both parents and their children die).
Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/060409R

donderdag 4 juni 2009

Europa


A fine European farce
by Serge Halimi

“Imagine an election where the results are largely preordained and a number of candidates are widely recognised as unqualified. Any supposedly democratic ballot conducted in this way would be considered a farce” (1). Former Czech president Vaclav Havel had the UN Human Rights Council, not the European parliament, in mind when he made these scathing comments.

And yet, abstentions have risen from 37% to 54% since 1979, the first time members of the European parliament (MEP) were elected by universal suffrage. But the parliament’s powers have increased and its decisions now affect 495 million people (compared with 184 million 30 years ago). Europe holds the stage but it isn’t getting across to the audience.

Why is this? Probably because there is no continent-wide political community. Anyone who hopes that 27 simultaneous national elections, almost all fought on domestic issues, will produce a European identity is living in cloud cuckoo land.

How many Slovenes have the faintest idea of electoral issues in Sweden or how many Germans are interested in Bulgarian politics? Well, after the European elections they will both discover that the results in Stockholm or Sofia may contradict the outcome of the only election in which they really were interested, and that they themselves have elected only 1% of the MEPs (in the case of Slovenia) or 13.5% (in the case of Germany) (2). This sort of discovery is likely to make voters feel they are more or less redundant. And the powers that be in Europe have done nothing to dispel that impression by ignoring three successive national votes on the constitutional treaty, following a campaign that aroused considerable interest and strong feelings.

In France, seven of the eight constituencies were defined purely in the interests of the main parties: they have no historical, political or territorial basis. The leading candidate in the southeast constituency is a socialist, formerly elected in the northwest, who let it be known he was “heartbroken” over the forced move. But he is sure to be elected, and so is the French minister of justice, even though she has very little interest in the election (she thought the Court of Justice of the European Communities was located in The Hague, rather than Luxembourg). Meanwhile in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi simply decided to put up eight models and soap stars as candidates.

And that isn’t all. The combined political forces that have turned Europe into a great market over the past 30 years, constantly enlarged to bring in more countries, are suddenly proposing a Europe “that protects”, a “humanist”, “social” Europe. Although socialists, liberals and conservatives may disagree during national campaigns, they present a united front in most of the votes in the European parliament. And they share the posts in the Commission (six are allocated to the social democrats who are responsible for taxation, industry, economic and monetary affairs, employment and trade). Fear of confrontation and depoliticisation of the issues encourage endless endorsement of the ruling bloc, which extends “from a mushy centre-right to a squishy centre-left, with a woolly liberal coalition in the middle” (3).

In this unchanging scenario, will José Manuel Barroso continue to lead this motley band with its exceptionally poor record? Britain’s Labour prime minister Gordon Brown considers that “he has done an excellent job… I want to make it absolutely clear that we will support him”. Spain’s socialist José Luis Zapatero agrees: “I support President Barroso.” It is true that Brown and Zapatero both have the same agenda, that of the European Socialist Party (ESP). However, French socialist leader Martine Aubry, also a member of the ESP, says: “The Europe I want is not a Europe run by Mr Barroso with the help of his friends, Sarkozy and Berlusconi.” Perhaps the electors can make sense of this.

De Israelische Terreur 876

Obama: we need two states

 

Jonathan Cook

The National

May 30. 2009

 

NAZARETH // Barack Obama signalled his readiness to step deeper into the quagmire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this week following a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, at the White House.

 

At a press conference afterwards, Mr Obama stressed the importance of getting the peace process “back on track” by pushing ahead with the creation of a Palestinian state and calling on Israel to halt settlement building.

 

These were the same demands he made of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at their talks in Washington 10 days earlier.

 

But a few hours after Mr Obama’s statement, Israel said it would not adhere to those demands, underlining what commentators have said is the biggest rift in the two countries’ “special relationship” in nearly two decades.

 

Both Mr Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have underscored the need for Israel to end the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – now home to half a million Jews – as a prelude to negotiations on creating a Palestinian state.

 

Asked what he would do if Israel continued to obstruct the process, Mr Obama issued what sounded like a diplomatically worded threat: “If Israel keeps declining to accept the two-state solution and to freeze the settlements … Well, I think it’s important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best.”

 

The terms of the White House’s proposed peace plan are still unclear, but indications are that it is being rapidly formulated.

 

At a meeting with Mr Abbas on Wednesday, Mrs Clinton referred to “very specific proposals” that the administration was pursuing.

 

Mr Obama suggested they would start to be outlined during his trip to the Middle East next week, when he will make his chief stop in Egypt while noticeably avoiding a visit to Israel.

 

In an interview published by The Washington Post yesterday, a confident-sounding Mr Abbas said he was in no hurry to resume talks with either Israel or his Palestinian political rival, Hamas.

 

“I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,” he told the paper.

 

The Palestinian president has won praise in Washington for putting his security forces under US training and co-ordinating security policy with Israel. Mr Obama’s main injunction to Mr Abbas at their meeting was to reduce incitement against Israel in schools and mosques.

 

To make his peace plan stick, Mr Obama will almost certainly need to draw in Arab states, probably reviving a 2002 Saudi proposal for the Arab world to normalise relations with Tel Aviv in return for Israel withdrawing from most of the Palestinian territories it occupied in the 1967 war.

 

Mr Abbas, however, warned in the Post interview that he could not be relied on to help Washington if Israel did not fulfil its commitments. “We can’t talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognises the two-state solution.”

 

One of Mr Abbas’s officials was quoted as saying that the Palestinian leader did not believe Mr Netanyahu’s coalition was capable of freezing settlement growth and he was therefore expecting to wait “a couple of years” for it to fall.

 

The apparent lack of urgency on Mr Abbas’s part contrasted with Mr Obama’s position. He told reporters: “I think that we don’t have a moment to lose.” He said he did not want to impose an “artificial timetable” but hoped his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would “jump start” the process.

 

Mr Obama did note that Mr Netanyahu would need time to “work through these issues in his own government” – possibly a reference to hopes in Washington that Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima party, could be brought into the coalition and the far right parties jettisoned.

 

A Jerusalem Post editorial suggested, however, that, while being ostensibly closer to White House thinking, Ms Livni would in practice pursue a policy similar to Mr Netanyahu’s. “She would wait until after an agreement on final borders before dismantling any settlements. Livni, no less than Netanyahu, opposes unfettered Palestinian sovereignty.”

 

Yossi Alpher, an Israeli analyst, argued that Mr Obama was concentrating on concessions from Mr Netanyahu partly because the Palestinian leadership – split between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza – was too weak for demands to be made of it.

 

“Abbas cannot ‘deliver’ Gaza and has no realistic plan for reintegrating Hamas into a unity government that could support a new peace process with Israel,” he wrote on the Bitterlemons website.

 

Haidar Eid, a professor at al-Aqsa University in Gaza, criticised Mr Abbas for “complacency”. “We have 16 years of negotiations and in that time Israel has expanded the settlements, built an apartheid wall and turned Gaza into the largest concentration camp in the world. A two-state solution has become redundant.”

"Supporting Ukraine is a very cheap way to make sure that Russia is not a threat to the NATO alliance."

  In 2023 schreef ik het volgende " Nu wij ruim driekwart eeuw na de Tweede Wereldoorlog in een nieuw fascisme zijn beland -- waarin de...