Det ville være katastrofalt hvis Trump tabte valget i 2020 – ikke alene for USA, men faktisk for hele den vestlige civilisation

I Aarskriftets Critique skriver Flemming Steen Nielsen at vi må håbe, at Trump opnår genvalg.

Hvis man ikke kunne se bort fra amerikanske eller danske mainstream-mediers daglige latterliggørelse og misinformation angående Donald Trump (og hvis man ikke på alternative medier kunne glæde sig over mere voksne og velorienterede indlæg fra f.eks. Tucker Carlson, Victor Davis Hanson, Lars Hedegaard, Bent Jensen eller Asger Aamund), så ville man have svært ved holde humøret oppe i disse år. Men når en lærd, original, skarpsindig og modig tænker som Raymond Tallis i et værk om et helt andet emne [Seeing Ourselves: Reclaiming Humanity from God and Science] påstår, at den amerikanske præsident er destruktiv, løgnagtig og barnligt stupid, føler jeg trang til at ordne og formulere grundene til min uenighed.

Efterhånden som jeg bemærkede, at et stor flertal af akademikere, politikere, venstreaktivister, Wall Street bankfolk, tænketanke, medier og underholdnings-industriens folk var rørende enige om at frakende denne Donald Trump enhver menneskelig og politisk værdi, så vaktes min mistro og interesse. Derfor har jeg i nogle år studeret fænomenet Trump ret grundigt – med henblik på hans meninger og beslutninger snarere end hans frisure og accent. Min konklusion er at han, så langt fra at være destruktiv, ubegavet og løgnagtig, allerede har vist sig at være en af de største amerikanske præsidenter.

Er Trump en løgner?

Det eneste, de fleste mennesker ved om Trump, er at ”han er løgner”. For mig at se lyves der mere om ham, end han selv lyver; og i en meget vigtig henseende lyver han ikke – nemlig i den forstand i hvilken de fleste andre politikere lyver.

 … Som Churchill, Kennedy og Reagan, og i klar modsætning til Barack Obama og Hillary Clinton, er Trump af den overbevisning, at militær svaghed lettere fører til krig end militær styrke. Han havde lovet et stærkere forsvar og påbegyndte straks genopbygningen af USA’s skrantende militær. Besynderligt nok havde USA i årevis fundet sig i, at de fleste NATO-lande ikke havde betalt deres del af militærudgifterne. Jeg kan ikke se noget galt i Trumps krav om, at de lever op til deres oprindelige aftaler. De er nu så småt begyndt på dette.

Trump tilsidesatte som lovet den grotesk ensidige Iran-aftale og afskaffede myriader af andre skadelige aftaler, love og regler fra Obamas tid og tidligere (se Matt Margolis: Trumping Obama). Forresten kan det undre, at både danske og amerikanske liberalister og libertarianere ikke yder Trump den retfærdighed at anerkende, at han som måske den første moderne politiker i stor stil rydder op i sin nations love og regulativer.

Muren

Han lovede The Great Wall på grænsen til Mexico. Det Demokratiske Parti, som ellers historisk set har arbejdet for kontrolleret indvandring, modarbejder nu stædigt Trumps mur i Kongressen – hvilket er den eneste grund til, at den ikke helt er blevet en realitet. Nu har de pludselig intet imod en strøm af demokratisk stemmekvæg, selv om dette vil reducere lønningerne og føre til arbejdsløshed for de lovlige indbyggere. For Trump er en præsidents vigtigste opgave at beskytte landets borgere, og han mener, at kun en vel bevogtet mur kan holde islamiske terrorister og ulovlige stoffer ude. Som europæer i skyggen af den islamiske invasion (eller skulle jeg sige ”invitation”?) forstår jeg udmærket hans synspunkt. Det bør nævnes, at Trump ikke er imod immigration som sådan; blot ønsker han at sikre sit land imod ulovlig immigration (jf. Michelle Malkin: Open Borders Inc.: Who’s Funding America’s Destruction?).

Han lovede at håndtere problemet med Nordkorea – og gjorde det faktisk. … Han lovede at stoppe Obama-periodens fjendtlige behandling af Israel.

 … Dette skulle være tilstrækkeligt til at vise, at Donald Trump hverken er ubegavet eller specielt barnlig. Desuden kan man pege på en række ”karaktervidner” til forsvar for det synspunkt, at han – selv om han konstant udskældes som ”uvidende”, ”uligevægtig”, ”sær” eller ”grov” – besidder gode politiske instinkter og et ikke ringe skarpsind. Victor Davis Hanson, Phyllis Schlafly, David Horowitz, Roger Kimball, Peggy Noonan, Lars Hedegaard, Newt Gingrich, Lou Dobbs, Nikky Haley, Denzel Washington, Dinesh D’Souza eller Arthur Laffer kunne nævnes. Her er aldeles ikke tale om tåber eller ignoranter.

Reality-stjernen Trump

Kan Trump virkelig, som antydet af Tallis, alene takke sin store succes inden for reality-tv for, at han blev valgt til præsident? Faktisk var han gennem en del år kendt for sine stærke common sense-synspunkter på både inden- og udenrigspolitik (jf. Donald Simms: Donald Trump – The Making of a World View; Bill O’Reilly: The United States of Trump). Journalister og politikere over hele verden har fundet det dybt mystisk, at han overhovedet kunne vælges.

Der er dog intet mærkværdigt i dette, hvis man er opmærksom på den stedse kraftigere opsplitning, der har præget USA i de senere årtier. Befolkningen synes i stigende grad opdelt i to klasser; lad os kalde dem ”De Magtfulde” og ”De Forsvarsløse”. De Forsvarsløse (Obama’s ”bitter clingers” eller Hillary Clintons ”basket of deplorables”) stod uden en forsvarer; de indså at Trump kunne udfylde rollen; og nu har de deres oprigtige og effektive talsmand (se K.T. McFarland: Revolution: Trump, Washington and We the People). Lidt om denne Great Divide, som den af og til kaldes:

De Magtfulde og De Forsvarsløse

For et par generationer siden kunne enhver borger i Amerika få en god uddannelse. I dag er skolevæsenet, som alle ved, en katastrofe. De Magtfulde er ubekymrede; de har råd til at sende deres børn i gode privatskoler og på fine universiteter. De Forsvarsløse kan være tilfredse med, at Trump udnævnte Betsy de Vos – en stor tilhænger af voucher-systemet (pengene bliver ved barnet og der er frit skolevalg og dermed konkurrence skolerne imellem) – til at bekæmpe lærernes almægtige fagforeninger; beskytte de yderst succesfulde, men mærkværdigt foragtede charter schools (jf. Thomas Sowell: Charter Schools and Their Enemies); samt genoprette professionshøjskolerne.

De Magtfulde bliver rigere fra en administration til den næste; de Forsvarsløse bliver fattigere og mere magtesløse, og middelklassen skrumper ind. Udlicitering (outsourcing) til den Tredje Verden er en fordel for rige virksomhedsejere, men betyder færre jobs for middelklassen og arbejderne. Banker og hedge funders bliver rigere og rigere, som regel med liden risiko for dem selv. Kongressen tager sig ikke af De Forsvarsløse, men både republikanske og demokratiske politikere kan købes af de rige via lobbyisme. Den voksende mængde regler og regulativer gør livet til et helvede for mindre virksomheder, som ikke har råd til at hyre kostbar juridisk assistance. Trump har afskaffet flere love og regler end nogen anden nyere præsident og arbejder på en lovgivning, der forbyder afgåede politikere og bureaukrater at slå sig ned som lobbyister de første fem år.

De Magtfulde starter krige for at bringe demokrati til Mellemøsten. De Forsvarsløse udkæmper disse krige og bliver dræbt i dem. Trump er den første amerikanske præsident i lang tid, der ikke har startet en krig. Han knuste ISIS ved snusfornuftigt at lade de militære ledere på stedet bestemme taktikken i stedet for Pentagon.

Som bl.a. Victor Davis Hanson og Kurt Schlichter har påpeget, har den store opsplitning også et geografisk aspekt, idet modsætningsforholdet i vid udstrækning består mellem kystbyerne og det mellemliggende flyover-country. Centralregeringen, de store lærdomscentre, finanscentrene og magtfulde Hollywood befinder sig på Øst- og Vestkysten. Kystbyernes rigdom og indflydelse vokser og vokser, og de trives med globaliseringen. Flyover-området mister jobs til udviklingslandene. Dets borgere prøver forgæves at udleve den amerikanske drøm – Hollywood parodierer og nedgør dem. Slagordet Make America Great Again lyder nærmest komisk i New York og Los Angeles (og i Vesteuropa), men giver god mening i Kansas (se Victor Davis Hanson: The Case for Trump; Kurt Schlichter: Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Democracy).

Trumps løsning på problemet om The Great Divide og De Ubeskyttedes krise er at styrke den amerikanske fællesskabsfølelse og forbedre mellem- og underklassens livsbetingelser uden at svække overklassen – alt sammen gennem et gigantisk økonomisk opsving. Hans løsning er naturligvis i bund og grund en kapitalistisk løsning i klar modsætning til demokraternes bevægelse henimod en slags radikal socialisme eller kommunisme – den ideologi som har ført til totalstat og umådelige menneskelige lidelser når og hvor den er forsøgt realiseret (jf. Dinesh D’Souza: United States of Socialism).

Trumps plan til genoplivelse af de Forenede Stater opsummeres glimrende af Victor Davis Hanson, når han taler om

den helbredende idé om en hurtig økonomisk vækst og … millioner af nye, velbetalte jobs. At tro på, at økonomisk fremskridt stadig var muligt, var samtidigt at indrømme at amerikanerne tidligere havde været bundet på hænder og fødder, nedslåede uden grund eller pinligt vildledte. Derfor: Sæt dem fri. Lad dem føle glæden ved at arbejde, ved at blive velhavende, og lad dem nyde deres overflod. Så vil de måske chokere verden med deres produktivitet og videbegær. (Victor Davis Hanson: The Case for Trump, s. 83-84; min overs.)

Er Trump destruktiv[?]

Er Trump specielt destruktiv? Det mener jeg ikke – undtagen i den forstand at hans valgsejr, hans energi og hans hurtige resultater må være oplevet som yderst ødelæggende for hans modstandere. Det må have føltes yderst generende for f.eks. en Washington-politiker, en tidligere præsident eller en beundret politisk kommentator at se Trump på præsidentposten mod alle odds og straks præstere løsninger på mange økonomiske og politiske problemer, som betragtedes som uløselige i umindelige tider. Yderst misundelsesvækkende at se amatøren være en bedre politiker end politikerne!

 … Mainstream-medierne pegede aldrig på denne og lignende modsigelser. Det var, som om de havde indgået en tavs overenskomst om i stedet at kritisere og forvrænge enhver af Trumps ytringer og forbigå alle hans succeser. De fremturer også – på en måde, jeg ikke mener at have observeret i et moderne demokrati i fredstid – ved systematisk at fortælle direkte usandheder om hans og hans families privatliv (se Kurt Schlichter: The 21 Biggest Lies about Donald Trump).

Det Demokratiske Parti valgte at ophøre med næsten al almindelig politisk debat og alt arbejde for deres egen agenda for i stedet at forsøge at afsætte en lovligt valgt præsident. Hvis jeg har lært noget af Mueller-undersøgelsen og de mislykkede forsøg på impeachment, så er det, at Trumps modstandere har forsøgt (på profylaktisk vis kunne man sige) at få ham dømt for handlinger, de selv er rædselsslagne for at blive anklaget for, såsom Hillarys relationer til Rusland eller Hunter Bidens til Ukraine. Dog, hvis de håbede på at ødelægge hans fokus på jobbet, tog de ganske fejl. Hans mentale robusthed og hans personlige energi er enestående (Doug Wead: Inside Trump’s White House); og jeg frygter ikke, at deres systematiske terror vil gøre ham ukampdygtig. Jeg er mere nervøs for, at han vil blive myrdet ved et attentat.

Twitter-diplomatiet

Jeg mente en overgang, at Trumps brug af Twitter var irriterende og måske hans største svaghed; men så sagde en meningsfælle til mig: ”Hvad pokker skal manden ellers gøre? 90% af pressen ønsker ham afsat og forvrænger alt, hvad han siger, i de mest vanvittige retninger!” Jeg måtte give ham ret og tænker nu, at det egentlig er en fremragende (om end naturligvis risikabel) måde at meddele sig direkte til det amerikanske folk, han her har valgt. Formentlig ville Trump slet ikke være blevet præsident uden de sociale medier. Hans holdninger og løfter ville være forblevet ukendte for den brede befolkning. De sociale medier indebærer ganske vist mange farer; men de giver dog adgang både til den brede befolknings meninger og til enspænderes indsigter.

Jeg ser det af og til fremført i den danske debat, at Trump er en forfærdelig præsident, fordi han ikke tager afstand fra amerikanske borgeres ret til at eje våben, hvad der skulle være årsagen til de udbredte skoleskyderier og lign. Selv har jeg altid ment, at dette spørgsmål er mere kompliceret end som så. …

Trump og globaliseringen

Er Trumps politik ødelæggende for globaliseringen? Hvis man ved ”globalisering” forstår en bevægelse i retning af en multikulturel utopi, dvs. afskaffelse af nationale grænser og traditionelle kulturer og koncentrationen af politisk magt i overnationale organisationer evt. kombineret med en verdensregering, så deler jeg Trumps afvisning af denne. Mener man derimod med dette udtryk den frie udveksling af ideer og varer mellem individer og lande i en global markedsøkonomi, så deler jeg hans begejstring for den. Den har jo løftet milliarder af mennesker ud af ekstrem fattigdom på bare et par decennier.

Men forudsætningen er selvfølgelig ”a level playing field”, som det ofte udtrykkes. Liberalistiske økonomers og EU-politikeres klager over, at Trump skader verdensøkonomien ved at indføre told på visse varer fra visse lande, er efter min mening unfair og hyklerisk. De må dog f.eks. vide, at EU har pålagt amerikanske biler en told på 10% imod 2,5% den anden vej. …

Pandemien og truslen fra Kina

Frem til det tidlige forår 2020 havde Trumps økonomiske politik været yderst vellykket. Lav arbejdsløshed, millioner af nye jobs, høj forbrugeroptimisme, aktiemarkedet i nye højder osv. (Andrew F. Puzder: The Trump Boom: America’s Soaring Economy and the Left’s Plot to Stop It – Afterword). Der var derfor al grund til at formode, at Trump ville vinde fire år mere i Det Hvide Hus. Men så tabte en kinesisk laboratorietekniker et reagensglas med virus (eller hvad det nu var, der skete), og COVID 19-pandemien ramte os og skabte en kæde af økonomiske problemer i hele verden – og ikke mindst i USA. Så nu kan ingen rigtig vide, om Trump eller den tilsyneladende senile Joe Biden vil blive den næste præsident. Selvfølgelig bekymrer det mig, om Trump ville tabe. Det ville være katastrofalt – ikke alene for USA, men faktisk for hele den vestlige civilisation, og bl.a. af følgende grund:

Uden at de fleste vestlige politikere og intellektuelle har en anelse om det, arbejder Kinas Kommunistiske Parti målbevidst på at underkaste resten af verden det kinesiske totalitære styre (se Peter Navarro & Greg Autry: Death by China; Bill Gertz: Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China’s Drive for Global Supremacy; Robert Spalding: Stealth War: How China Took Over while America’s Elite Slept; Michael Pillsbury: The Hundred-Year Marathon). I min levetid har USA spillet en afgørende rolle i sejren over to dødsensfarlige totalitære bevægelser: Nazismen og Sovjetkommunismen. Desværre tror jeg, at en tredje lignende fjende af det åbne samfund er ved at vokse sig stor – en situation, der minder mig om 30erne i Europa, da Winston Churchill var næsten alene om at indse den nazistiske trussels alvor.

Mens Vestens regeringer ser til med Chamberlain-agtig naivitet, vokser Kinas militær hurtigere end nogen anden nations. Vigtigere er det imidlertid, at Kinas Kommunistiske Parti har opfundet en ny slags krigsførelse: Det betjener sig af merkantilistiske metoder plus dumping, misinformation, cyberangreb, teknologisk tyveri, bestikkelse og spionage som vejen til verdensherredømmet. I disse bestræbelser har Kina – som et helt igennem totalitært styre – den fordel at kunne agere som én enkelt økonomisk aktør, hvor f.eks. den frie verdens nationer har mange spillere, intern konkurrence og begrænset regeringsmagt.

Det er velkendt, at Kina kynisk bruger tariffer og kvoteringer til at kontrollere verdens sjældne metaller; tvinger fremmede firmaer, der ønske at placere sig i landet, til at udlevere intellektuel ejendom; blæser på international patentlovgivning; opererer med et sindrigt væv af illegale eksportsubsidier; reducerer sine  produktionsomkostninger ved at udbytte sin arbejdsstyrke under slavelignende kår; ved rovdrift ødelægger landets miljø – for store områders vedkommende for bestandigt; og betjener sig af både militær og industriel spionage ved hjælp af hundredtusinder studerende og turister. …

Er et rigt Kina et civiliseret Kina?

Det synes at være den almindelige antagelse blandt amerikanske politikere, at et rigere Kina automatisk ville begynde at opføre sig mere civiliseret. De indså aldrig, at kinesisk tænkemådde adskiller sig afgørende fra vestlig. t kinesisk tænkemanske politikere, at et rigere Kina automatisk ville begynde at opføre e adskiller sig afgørende fra vestlig. Medens det f.eks. i Vesten er grundlovens rolle at sætte grænser for statens magt over borgeren, så er dens rolle i Kina ”at sikre statens magt og rettigheder over for individets friheder og rettigheder samtidig med at den udstikker borgerens pligter” (Jonathan D.T. Ward: China’s Vision of Victory, min overs.).

Tilsvarende er den kinesiske vision for verdens fremtid en tilstand hvor resten af verdens nationer får rollen som Kinas vasaller, og ikke, som vi ser det i Vesten, som nationernes sameksistens under loven. Grunden til, at kinesiske politikere står så uforstående over for enhver tale om demokrati og individets rettigheder, er den helt anderledes kinesiske vision. Det er derfor ikke så mærkeligt, at de opfatter verden af i dag som totalt domineret af USA – en tilstand, der ret snart skal afløses af et jævnbyrdigt Kina og senere af kinesisk verdensherredømme.

Donald Trump er den eneste magtfulde vestlige politiker, som er opmærksom på Kinas store plan (se Newt Gingrich: Trump vs. China: Facing America’s Greatest Threat; Nick Adams: Trump and Churchill: Defenders of Western Civilization). …

 … Der er mange gode grunde til at håbe på, at Donald Trump vinder en klar sejr den 3. november.

Tag hen til Aarskriftets Critique for at læse Flemming Steen Nielsens fulde artikel…

Debat: Ignorer massehysteriet, Moder Mette, og frigiv folket

A shortened version of No Pasarán's post on the Coronavirus pandemic appeared in the Danish newspaper Villabyerne.

DEBAT: Ignorer massehysteriet, Moder Mette, og frigiv folket

Villabyerne - 27. april 2020

Af Erik Svane

Lider Danmark igen af massehysteri? Regelmæssigt får vi nye panikfremkaldende oplysninger om, at f.eks. dødstallet i Spanien nu er vokset til 18.000! Det giver indtryk af en tsunami.

Men hvorfor får vi aldrig besked om procentdelen vedrørende de adskillige aldersgrupper, hvilket ellers er normen for alle andre sygdomme (f.eks. kræft)?

Så vidt jeg ved, er der kun et eneste land, der har offentliggjort procenttal for aldersgrupperne, og disse bekræfter rygterne: "De fleste af Israels dødsfald fra coronavirus har været ældre mænd med andre medicinske tilstande ... kun 6 % er under 60 år, [og] gennemsnitsalderen for Israels døde var 79,8 år gammel."

Det giver et helt andet billede, hvis det viser sig, at gennemsnitsalderen af de døde skulle også i andre lande være omkring 80. De fleste inficerede overlever og bliver raske igen. I så fald, hvorfor skal hele samfundet så lukkes ned? Hvorfor skal alle sidde i husarrest? Hvorfor skal hele økonomien ødelægges?

Hvis det er muligt at stå i kø i et supermarked eller i et apotek og være ansvarlig, så skulle det være muligt at gøre det samme i en skov, på en strand, i en tøjforretning, eller på Københavns gader.

Jeg siger ikke, at alle regeringernes beslutninger er forgæves, men en borger er er voksent menneske, Moder Mette, og ikke et barn, som mangler sund fornuft.

Jamen, det er vigtigt, at vi alle skal være solidariske, protesterer man.

Men økonomien har også en humanistisk side: Kan isolationisme, husarrest og arbejdsløshed ikke føre til nød, depression, hjerteanfald, alkoholisme eller endog selvmord?

Det hverken hjælper, eller er solidarisk med de inficerede, at de raske skal deltage i at ødelægge et lands økonomi.

Tilbyd de ældre og dem med svage immunsystemer karantæne, Moder Mette, og sæt resten af befolkningen fri til at komme tilbage til initiativ og arbejde.

Anne Flora de Negroni: When I Paint, I Am No More than the Paintbrush on the Canvas

Besides being a big dog lover, Anne Flora de Negroni is a Parisian artist in the 17ème arrondissement who has been painting since the age of 13:

la peinture a toujours été un refuge pour moi, j’aime ce moment où je peins, où je ne suis que le pinceau sur la toile, les yeux qui regardent avec attention.

Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights

On the same day that Venezuela’s “democratically” elected socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, whose once-wealthy nation now has citizens foraging for food, announced he was lopping five zeros off the country’s currency to create a “stable financial and monetary system,” Meghan McCain of “The View” was the target of internet-wide condemnation for having stated some obvious truths about collectivism.

Thus writes David Harsanyi in the Daily Signal in a piece entitled Sorry If You’re Offended, but Socialism Leads to Misery and Destitution.

During the same week we learned that the democratic socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is accused of massacring hundreds of protesters whose economic futures have been decimated by his economic policies, Soledad O’Brien and writers at outlets ranging from GQ, to BuzzFeed, to the Daily Beast were telling McCain to cool her jets.

In truth, McCain was being far too calm. After all, socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence. Whether implemented by a mob or a single strongman, collectivism is a poverty generator, an attack on human dignity, and a destroyer of individual rights.

It’s true that not all socialism ends in the tyranny of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism or Ba’athism or Chavezism or the Khmer Rouge—only most of it does. And no, New York primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t intend to set up gulags in Alaska. Most so-called democratic socialists—the qualifier affixed to denote that they live in a democratic system and have no choice but to ask for votes—aren’t consciously or explicitly endorsing violence or tyranny.

But when they adopt the term “socialism” and the ideas associated with it, they deserve to be treated with the kind of contempt and derision that all those adopting authoritarian philosophies deserve.

But look: Norway!

Socialism is perhaps the only ideology that Americans are asked to judge solely based on its piddling “successes.” Don’t you dare mention Albania or Algeria or Angola or Burma or Congo or Cuba or Ethiopia or Laos or Somalia or Vietnam or Yemen or, well, any other of the dozens of other inconvenient places socialism has been tried. Not when there are a handful of Scandinavian countries operating generous welfare state programs propped up by underlying vibrant capitalism and natural resources.

Of course, socialism exists on a spectrum, and even if we accept that the Nordic social program experiments are the most benign iteration of collectivism, they are certainly not the only version. Pretending otherwise would be like saying, “The police state of Singapore is more successful than Denmark. Let’s give it a spin.”

It turns out, though, that the “Denmark is awesome!” talking point is only the second-most preposterous one used by socialists. It goes something like this: If you’re a fan of “roads, schools, libraries, and such,” although you may not even be aware of it, you are also a supporter of socialism.

This might come as a surprise to some, but every penny of the $21,206 spent in Ocasio-Cortez’s district each year on each student, rich or poor, is provided with the profits derived from capitalism.

There is no welfare system, no library that subsists on your good intentions. Having the state take over the entire health care system could rightly be called a socialistic endeavor, but pooling local tax dollars to put books in a building is called local government.

It should also be noted that today’s socialists get their yucks by pretending collectivist policies only lead to innocuous outcomes like local libraries. But for many years they were also praising the dictators of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the nation’s most successful socialist, isn’t merely impressed with the goings-on in Denmark. Not very long ago, he lauded Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela as an embodiment of the “American dream,” even more so than the United States.

Socialists like to blame every inequity, the actions of every greedy criminal, every downturn, and every social ill on the injustice of capitalism. But none of them admit that capitalism has been the most effective way to eliminate poverty in history.

Today, in former socialist states like India, there have been big reductions in poverty thanks to increased capitalism. In China, where communism sadly still deprives more than a billion people of their basic rights, hundreds of millions benefit from a system that is slowly shedding socialism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty rate in the world has been cut in half. And it didn’t happen because Southeast Asians were raising the minimum wage.

In the United States, only 5 percent of people are even aware that poverty has fallen in the world, according to the Gapminder Foundation, which is almost certainly in part due to the left’s obsession with “inequality” and normalization of “socialism.”

Nearly half of American millennials would rather live in a socialist society than in a capitalist one, according to a YouGov poll. That said, only 71 percent of those asked were able to properly identify either. We can now see the manifestation of this ignorance in our elections and “The View” co-host Joy Behar.

But if all you really champion are some higher taxes and more generous social welfare, stop associating yourself with a philosophy that usually brings destitution and death. Call it something else. If not, McCain has every right to associate you with the ideology you embrace.

Efter at Maos Lyst blev rost i Villabyerne for kollektivets 50-års fødselsdag, fik lokalavisen følgende brev som udkom i en lidt kortere version den 25. september 2018 (årgang 113 nr 39) side 11 og fik topposition på avisens hjemmeside:

DEBAT: Maos Lyst og Venezuelas mareridt

    Inger Glerup beklager sig over at, man under hendes besøg til Maos Lyst i anledning af det "åbne hus" for at fejre kollektivets 50-års-dag ingen adgang havde til huset selv – idet hele festivitesen foregik i "et par små åbne telte [i haven], man kunne søge ly [fra regnvejret] under, hvis man var heldig og der var plads."  I stedet for at være skuffet over "at opholde sig i haven i regnvejr", skulle hun ikke være henrykt?  Over at have fået en (enorm) god lektie om socialismens/kommunismens løfter?  og om hvad man faktisk oplever når "drømmen" (sic) bliver virkelighed?

    Seneste eksempel er Venezuela, hvor, efter næsten 20 år af den Bolivariske Revolution, borgerne i hvad var engang Sydamerikas rigeste land nu kan 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.

    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 den 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 vide mere om verdenen?  (Samt selvfølgelig den stedsegrønne drøm om at USA burde efterligne Skandinavien og – endelig – få et socialistisk samfund.)

    Sig mig:  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, der har svar på det?

Maos Lyst og Venezuelas mareridt

Interessen for Maos Lyst lever stadig

skriver Kathrine Albrechtsen og Mette Henriksen og Mikael Østergaard i lokalavisen Villabyerne.

Med markante personligheder på postkassen som Troels Kløvedal og Ebbe Kløvedal Reich blev Maos Lyst et kendt kollektiv i offentligheden, og er i dag et af Danmarks ældst eksisterende, som i år kan fejre sit 50 års jubilæum.

 … Interessen for Maos Lyst lever stadig. Derfor har kollektivets beboere i anledning af jubilæet valgt at invitere lokalområdet ind fredag den 17. august for at afmystificere huset ved at vise, hvordan et moderne kollektiv kan se ud i dag.

Alle blev dog ikke begejstret, deriblandt Inger Glerup:

Jeg blev rigtig glad for denne oplysning. Jeg går ofte forbi Maos Lyst, da jeg bor på Tuborgvej tæt derpå og har tit tænkt, det kunne være spændende at komme indenfor og besøge kollektivet. Så nu var chancen der, virkelig et godt initiativ.

Så jeg meldte mig til, som man skulle og vandrede forventningsfuld derhen kl. 15.30 med min paraply, da det desværre var blevet regnvejr. Stor var min skuffelse, da jeg så opdagede, at det åbne hus betød, at man kunne være ude i haven fra kl. 15- til kl. 23-, hvor der var et par små åbne telte, man kunne søge ly under, hvis man var heldig og der var plads. Huset kunne man ikke få at se, for ”så kunne de jo ikke bestille andet end at vise frem”, som en beboer forklarede.

Kære beboere i Maos Lyst, jeg syntes, det var en fremragende ide at invitere indenfor til åbent hus, men når invitere indenfor og åbent hus bestod i at opholde sig i haven i regnvejr, følte jeg mig helt ærligt lokket til af forkerte oplysninger.

På den 25. september 2018 kom en forkortet version af følgende brev i Villabyerne årgang 113 nr 39, side 11:

    Inger Glerup beklager sig over at, man under hendes besøg til Maos Lyst i anledning af det "åbne hus" for at fejre kollektivets 50-års-dag ingen adgang havde til huset selv – idet hele festivitesen foregik i "et par små åbne telte [i haven], man kunne søge ly [fra regnvejret] under, hvis man var heldig og der var plads."  I stedet for at være skuffet over "at opholde sig i haven i regnvejr", skulle hun ikke være henrykt?  Over at have fået en (enorm) god lektie om socialismens/kommunismens løfter?  og om hvad man faktisk oplever når "drømmen" (sic) bliver virkelighed?

    Seneste eksempel er Venezuela, hvor, efter næsten 20 år af den Bolivariske Revolution, borgerne i hvad var engang Sydamerikas rigeste land nu kan 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.

    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 den 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 vide mere om verdenen?  (Samt selvfølgelig den stedsegrønne drøm om at USA burde efterligne Skandinavien og – endelig – få et socialistisk samfund.)

    Sig mig:  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, der har svar på det?

Denmark may have free universities and a national health system, but what is its free education and health care actually worth?

[With] a reputation for being peaceful, egalitarian, progressive, liberal and educated, [besides] having excellent furniture and crime novels, too … Scandinavia countries just seem to do it better — an idea that supporters and critics label "Nordic exceptionalism."

The Independent's Ana Swanson explores the idea of the utopian fantasy that Denmark and its sister nations are made out to be:

But how much truth is there in the popular idea of Nordic exceptionalism? Michael Booth, a British journalist, examines this question in detail in a recent book, "The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia." Booth, a U.K. native who has lived in Scandinavia for over a decade, plays the part of a cultural interpreter, examining, poking and prodding the reality of life in Nordic countries from every angle. Booth finds plenty to question in the rest of the world's assumptions about the Nordic miracle, but also lots that we can learn from them.

Why is it that the Nordic model has attracted so many fans, but relatively few visitors?

Denmark is a pretty good place to live but it is by no stretch of the imagination the utopia many in politics and the media in the U.S. claim it to be.

We all like to have a "happy place" — somewhere over the rainbow where we imagine life to be perfect — don’t we? For many, that place used to be the Mediterranean: we all dreamed of a stone house among the vines. After the economic crash, I think a lot of people started to look towards Scandinavia for what they believed to be a less rampantly capitalistic form of society.

The difference is, few actually actively seek to move to Scandinavia, for obvious reasons: the weather is appalling, the taxes are the highest in the world, the cost of living is similarly ridiculous, the languages are impenetrable, the food is (still) awful for the most part and, increasingly, these countries are making it very clear they would prefer foreigners to stay away.

What are some of the biggest misconceptions that you find in how the rest of the world understands the Nordic countries?

Again, I think we've all been guilty of projecting some kind of utopian fantasy on them. … Denmark … promotes itself as a "green pioneer" and finger wags at the world about CO2 emissions, and yet it regularly beats the U.S. and virtually every other country on earth in terms of its per capita ecological footprint. For all their wind turbines, the Danes still burn a lot of coal and drive a lot of cars, their country is home to the world’s largest shipping company (Mærsk), and the region’s largest air hub.
 
Sweden is supposedly "neutral" (it’s not, and has not been for decades), yet since the days when it sold iron ore to Hitler, its economy has always benefited from its arms industry, which is one of the world’s largest.

The Norwegians have fallen prey to precisely the same kind of problems as other oil-rich states: their economy depends far too much on one industry (oil), they’ve taken their foot off the gas in terms of their work ethic, and now all young Norwegians want to do is be "something in the media" or open a cupcake place.

Politicians in the U.S. like Bernie Sanders praise Denmark for its relative income equality, its free universities, parental leave, subsidized childcare, and national health system. That all sounds pretty good, right?

It is fantastic in theory, except that, in Denmark, the quality of the free education and health care is substandard: They are way down on the PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] educational rankings, have the lowest life expectancy in the region, and the highest rates of death from cancer. And there is broad consensus that the economic model of a public sector and welfare state on this scale is unsustainable. The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by — now dwindling — oil revenues. In Norway’s case, of course, it’s no secret.

You describe the Danes as having a strong sense of work-life balance – specifically, being much more focused on life than work. What are the positives and negatives of that attitude?

Positives: Danes spend more time with their families. Negatives: Danes spend more times with their families. Plus, they have run up huge private debt levels, and no one answers the phone on a Friday afternoon.

 … One thing that’s often glossed over among outsiders is the extraordinarily high tax level, which is high for the middle class as well as the wealthy. Do Danes think that they get their money’s worth in social services? Do you?

Denmark has the highest direct and indirect taxes in the world, and you don’t need to be a high earner to make it into the top tax bracket of 56% (to which you must add 25% value-added tax, the highest energy taxes in the world, car import duty of 180%, and so on). How the money is spent is kept deliberately opaque by the authorities. Danes do tend to feel that they get value for money, but we should not overlook the fact that the majority of Danes either work for, or receive benefits from, the welfare state.


Greater numbers of immigrants have been leading to rising xenophobia in some Nordic countries, as well as higher income inequality. Do you think these trends say anything about the strength of the Nordic model?

All of Europe is dealing with this issue, but of course smaller populations feel more threatened, and cynical right wing politicians (if you’ll forgive the tautology) take advantage of that fear. Also, there is no "Nordic model" when it comes to immigration and integration: there is the Swedish model (open door) and the Danish model (close the door and put up a "Go Away" sign), which the Norwegians and Finns are copying.

Denmark has won almost every happiness survey since 1973, but you describe them in the book as a “frosty, solemn bunch” who take a lot of anti-depressants. Do they really deserve to be consistently ranked as the world’s happiest country?

No, it’s a nonsense and, in fact, they have dropped from the top spot in recent surveys, mostly because they are not as rich as they once were. The sad take-away from that is, money does, in fact, make you happy. I don’t think they ever were the "happiest" people in the world, but you could argue they have been the most "satisfied." They are good at appreciating the small things in life and making the most of what they have — a legacy, I think, of experiencing the rough hand of geopolitics in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The silent oppression of the consensus: The one time my country could side with the U.S. was when America was on its knees, but when it refused to stay down Sweden quickly went back to smug relativism

On September 11, 2001, I was sitting on the floor of my sister’s living room [in Gothenburg, Sweden], babysitting her one-year-old daughter

recalls Annika Hernroth-Rothstein in National Review (tack så mycket till Instapundit).

I had just gotten back from a year in France. A few months earlier, I’d been standing in a crowded bar on Place de Clichy, celebrating my 20th birthday. I remember that night, although several bottles of bad white wine say I shouldn’t. I was surrounded by my peers, other upper-middle-class liberals who had fled to Paris to fulfill their fantasy. We had come to this historical city to live the life of songs and books and Technicolor movies. We were radicals. We were heroes. We were going to change the world.

The people with me in that bar were a random sample of the political atmosphere of Europe at the time. Militant feminists, pro-Palestinians, members of the autonomic environmentalist movement, and your run-of the-mill anti-government thugs. Having a friend who had been jailed for rioting was as necessary as a Malcolm X T-shirt and a back-pocket paperback of Catcher in the Rye. I gladly picked up that uniform, just as I picked up rocks and banners knowing that this was the ticket to ride.

Raised in a family of academics, this was a natural evolution on my part and a result of a serious political interest. I identified as an intellectual and as a political thinker with a critical mind. What I failed to acknowledge at the time was that my country was a controlled environment and that the spectrum on which political analysis took place was limited. Not unlike The Truman Show, where the choices you think you are making were already made for you long ago, and any dreams of a different fate are swiftly corrected.
 
I left my one-bedroom apartment in the chic slum of the 19th Arrondissement in June 2001. I was headed back to Gothenburg, Sweden, and the mass protest against the EU summit and George W. Bush. I planned to be back in time to see the first leaves fall on the Champs Elysées. Turns out, that didn’t happen.

Night fell and morning broke before I managed to get off that floor to answer my phone. On the other end I heard my boyfriend’s voice, chanting frantically:

Two more towers! Two more towers! Two more towers!

He and his friends were having a party, celebrating the attack on America. He called to invite me, and to this day I have never felt such intense shame.

During his speech on September 14, 2001, President Bush said that adversity introduces us to ourselves. Well, on that day I was introduced to who I had been and who I truly was. I saw my own place in the context of history, and how the ideas that I helped promote, the accusations I had met with silence, all had a part in shaping the world I now saw burning before me.

It wasn’t a game. I had played it, but it was never a game.

In the weeks that followed, I watched the American news with one eye, and its European counterpart with the other. It was like seeing the slow shifting of the tectonic plates, dividing the world through op-eds and analysis. On September 12, 2001, the headline of the largest Swedish newspaper read, “We Are All Americans.” A few weeks later, that beautiful creed had already been forgotten. The one time my country could side with the U.S. was when America was on its knees, but when it refused to stay down it quickly went back to the smug relativism of World War II, the icy efficiency of a country never having to fight for either ethics or its existence.
 
Soon enough, the narrative was clear. The end of the story had already been written: The U.S. was unjustly acting as the world police, once again. Bush was a moron and a puppet. America was killing innocent people for oil. It went on and on, and all I could think was that if I know that these things are not true, then what other lies have I accepted as truth throughout my life?

So I pulled at the thread of my ideology, and it all unraveled before me.

On September 20, I watched Bush’s address to Congress. I had heard him speak before, but on this night, I listened — and one sentence jumped out and grabbed me:

“Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”

So I asked myself if I was free. Not free in movement or by law, but free in thought and intellect. I was not, nor had I ever been. The politics I had held and protected so violently were a version of the norm, and for all my intellect and breeding I had done nothing more than tout the company line.

I left everything that year; it was like walking away from the scene of a crime. I remember thinking that it would have been easier leaving a cult — at least then there would be a welcoming, sane majority on the other side. Or if there had been a physical wall to climb and a dictator to topple, instead of the silent oppression of the consensus.

My country did not change that day, but I had to; the tectonic plates where shifting, and I decided to jump.

When I stood in that bar toasting myself, I thought I was a radical. Today, as a neocon in Sweden, I know I was wrong.

I was raised in a country where that neutrality — that indifference before right and wrong — is a badge of honor. I was taught that morality is weakness, faith is ignorance, and the concept of good and evil is cause for ridicule.

On September 11, 2001, I saw, for the first time, the difference between fear and freedom, and I vowed not to be neutral between them, ever again.

We’ve all been guilty of projecting some kind of utopian fantasy on the Nordic countries

Americans are not just a few policy changes away from becoming happy Norwegians or Finns

writes Jim Geraghty in National Review.

Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig links to, but does not mention by name, my morning newsletter item responding to her original column declaring, “It’s time to give Socialism a try.” In her response, she writes, “I hadn’t named the Nordic countries in my piece, but my opponents were quick to discard them from the conversation.” Perhaps a longer discussion about why America shouldn’t try to become like the Nordic countries — and would fail if it tried — is in order.

1) The Nordic system kills innovation, and the United States’ adopting it would have dire consequences for the world economy.

As Daron Acemoglu, an eminent economist at MIT, wrote in 2013:

In our model (which is just that, a model), U.S. citizens would actually be worse off if they switched to a cuddly capitalism. Why? Because this would reduce the world’s growth rate, given the U.S.’s oversized contribution to the world technology frontier. In contrast, when Sweden switches from cutthroat to cuddly capitalism (or vice versa), this does not have an impact on the long-run growth rate of the world economy, because the important work is being done by U.S. innovation.

2) Most of what American progressives envy about the Scandinavian countries existed before they expanded their welfare state, and America’s voices on the left are mixing up correlation with causation.

As Nima Sanandaji, a Swedish author of Kurdish origin who holds a Ph.D. from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, wrote in 2015:

Many of the desirable features of Scandinavian societies, such as low income inequality, low levels of poverty and high levels of economic growth predated the development of the welfare state. These and other indicators began to deteriorate after the expansion of the welfare state and the increase in taxes to fund it.

3) At its biggest, most far-reaching, and invasive form in the late 20th century, the Nordic model crushed startups and the growth of new companies. “As of 2000,” Johan Norberg writes, “just one of the 50 biggest Swedish companies had been founded after 1970.”

4) It’s easier to get people to buy into a collectivist idea when everyone has a lot in common. As Robert Kaiser, an associate editor of the Washington Post, wrote after a three-week trip to Finland in 2005:

Finland is as big as two Missouris, but with just 5.2 million residents, it’s ethnically and religiously homogeneous. A strong Lutheran work ethic, combined with a powerful sense of probity, dominates the society. Homogeneity has led to consensus: Every significant Finnish political party supports the welfare state and, broadly speaking, the high taxation that makes it possible. And Finns have extraordinary confidence in their political class and public officials. Corruption is extremely rare.

5) That collectivism is driven, in part, by taking away choices from people. In Finland there are no private schools or universities. As Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility, said in 2011: “In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same.”

6) Having all of your needs handled by the state does not cultivate a sense of responsibility, independence, motivation, or gratitude. Here’s Kaiser again:

I was bothered by a sense of entitlement among many Finns, especially younger people. Sirpa Jalkanen, a microbiologist and biotech entrepreneur affiliated with Turku University in that ancient Finnish port city, told me she was discouraged by “this new generation we have now who love entertainment, the easy life.” She said she wished the government would require every university student to pay a “significant but affordable” part of the cost of their education, “just so they’d appreciate it.”

7) Some might argue that the quasi-socialist system of Nordic countries eliminates one group of problems but introduces new ones. But in some cases, these countries have the same problems as the United States, only worse — the problems are simply not discussed as openly. As British journalist Michael Booth argues:

We’ve all been guilty of projecting some kind of utopian fantasy on them. The Nordic countries are, for example, depicted as paragons of political correctness, yet you still see racial stereotypes in the media here — the kind of thing which would be unthinkable in the U.S. Meanwhile, though it is true that these are the most gender-equal societies in the world, they also record the highest rates of violence towards women — only part of which can be explained by high levels of reporting of crime.

8) If the government is paying for everything, why is Denmark’s average household debt as a share of disposable income three times that of the United States? Meanwhile, the household-debt share in both Sweden and Norway is close to double that of the United States. The cost of living is particularly high in these countries, and the high taxation means take-home pay is much less than it is under our system.

9) Nordic-system evangelists would have you believe that citizens of freer-market countries are stressed while those living under generous social-welfare systems are happier and more relaxed. If American-style capitalism is depressing and dehumanizing, why are Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway not that far behind us, ranking in the top twelve countries for antidepressant use? Is it just the long winters? Why are their drug-related deaths booming? Isn’t it possible that a generous, far-reaching welfare state depletes people’s sense of drive, purpose, and self-respect, and enables them to explore chemical forms of happiness?

10) I saved the most important reason for last: If the government is to take on a bigger and more powerful role in redistributing wealth, citizens first must be willing to put their faith in the government. But in the United States, public trust is historically low — which goes well beyond President Trump’s implausible “I alone can fix it” boast or Obama’s broken “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” pledge.

If the government is to take on a bigger role, citizens first must be willing to put their faith in the government. But in the United States, public trust is historically low.

A lot of progressives seem to think that conservatives distrust the government because of some esoteric philosophical theory, or because we had some weird dream involving Ayn Rand. In reality, it’s because we’ve been told to trust the government before — and we’ve gotten burned, time and time again.

Comments

Government doesn’t louse up everything, but it sure louses up a lot of what it promises to deliver: from the Big Dig to Healthcare.gov; from letting veterans die waiting for health care to failing to prioritize the levees around New Orleans and funding other projects instead; from 9/11 to the failure to see the housing bubble that precipitated the Great Recession; from misconduct in the Secret Service to the IRS targeting conservative groups; from lavish conferences at the General Services Administration to the Solyndra grants; from the runaway costs of California’s high-speed-rail project to Operation Fast and Furious; from the OPM breach to giving Hezbollah a pass on trafficking cocaine.

The federal government has an abysmal record of abusing the public’s trust, finances, and its own authority. Now some people want it to take on a bigger role? If you want to enact a massive overhaul of America’s economy and government to redistribute wealth, you first have to demonstrate that you can accomplish something smaller, like ensuring every veteran gets adequate care. Until then, if you want to live like a Norwegian, buy a plane ticket.

Adds Ben Shapiro:

The Washington Post columnist [Elizabeth Bruenig] memorably wrote last week that she wished for an upsurge in support for socialism. I critiqued that column. Now she’s written a response to that critique, claiming that I (among others) interpreted her in bad faith for mentioning several countries that have tried socialism and failed, from Venezuela to the Soviet Union, and for pointing out that many of the supposedly socialist countries that socialists so often proclaim as their examples aren’t actually socialist (see, for example, Denmark and moSweden).

 … Finally, she decides on her favorite new socialist paradise: Norway.

 … First off, a huge portion of Norway’s wealth ownership is thanks to their nationalization of their oil industry; like the United Arab Emirates or Venezuela, this gives them an enormous amount of cash to play with (their social wealth fund, worth $1 trillion, was seeded with oil money). The oil industry represents approximately 22% of Norway’s GDP two-thirds of their exports. (It also pays for 36% of the national government’s revenue.) That’s not the extent of their government holdings — Norway also nationalized all German-owned stocks after World War II, which partially explains the state’s high level of ownership of the stock market. Stockholding in companies does not mean the state runs the companies — in fact, the board runs the companies separately, not for the benefit of the state specifically or for the benefit of the workers, as Marx would prefer; Norwegian law requires that all shareholders be treated equally, with no preference for state shareholders. In fact, companies in which the state owns majority stock have even gone into bankruptcy before. The state essentially operates along the lines of so-called “state capitalism.”

Furthermore, Norway is a relatively friendly business climate; Heritage Foundation ranks it 23^rd in the world, with the United States ranking 18^th.

More than that, it’s important to recognize that the total population of Norway is 5.6 million; the total population of the United States is 323 million. It’s also rather important to recognize the cultural homogeneity of Norway: just 15.6% of the population are immigrants or children of immigrants, and 32% of the population has a higher education degree. Why does that matter? Because if we’re to compare Norway and the United States, we should probably compare Norwegian Americans with Norwegians in Norway. Here’s National Review’s Nima Sanandaji:

It was mainly the impoverished people in the Nordic countries who sailed across the Atlantic to found new lives. And yet, as I write in my book, Danish Americans today have fully 55 percent higher living standard than Danes. Similarly, Swedish Americans have a 53 percent higher living standard than Swedes. The gap is even greater, 59 percent, between Finnish Americans and Finns. Even though Norwegian Americans lack the oil wealth of Norway, they have a 3 percent higher living standard than their cousins overseas.

So, how’s state capitalism working out? Norway has a significantly higher per capita GDP than that of the United States — about $70,600 per year, as opposed to $59,500 in the United States. But a large portion of that per capita GDP is due to oil wealth.

 … Norway is an incredibly expensive country to live: it’s the second-most expensive country to buy food in Europe, and the most expensive to buy alcohol and tobacco. A haircut can cost $50. Vehicles can cost nearly twice as much as in the United States, and food costs vastly more than in the United States. There’s a reason that in 2013, Norway elected a far more conservative government — and they re-elected that government in 2017.

"Out With Jesus": During His 12 Years in Power, Hitler Tried to Ban the Tradition of Christmas

Jesus being a Jew, Adolf Hitler did not want his master race to continue celebrating his birthday, and consequently, the Führer spent his 12 years in the chancellery trying to transform the Christmas holiday into a Nazi-themed celebration devoted to the Aryan race and old Germanic traditions.  Thus writes Emrah Sütcü in the Danish monthly, Historie, putting the lie to the fact that Hitler and the Nazis had in any way a connection to the Christian religion.

Related: • Worshipping Little Else But the Aryan Race, Hitler Abhorred the Christian Faith and Wanted to Replace Christmas with the Pagans' Yuletide

 • 卐mas Caroling: The Extremes Hitler Wanted to Go To in Order to Replace Christianity with the "Religion" of National Socialism

• How Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine tried to take Christ out of Christmas

• Adolf Hitler in Religious Surroundings: Is There Really Evidence That the Führer Was a Christian? — an in-depth, dispassionate look at the evidence brought by a couple of commentators claiming that Christianity was an integral part of Nazism…

Hitler ville stjæle julen fra Jesus

Nazisterne hadede julen. Derfor forsøgte de med alle midler at forvandle den kristne højtid til en fejring af den ariske race.

Julen skulle fejre arierne

Jesus var jøde. Og en fejring af hans fødselsdag var ikke noget for det tyske herrefolk, mente Adolf Hitler.

I perioden fra 1933, hvor han kom til magten i Tyskland, til 2. verdenskrigs afslutning i 1945 kæmpede Hitlers topfolk indædt for at forvandle den populære kristne helligdag til en nazistisk højtid, som fejrede den ariske race og de oldgermanske traditioner.

Julefred er kun for tyskerne

Først og fremmeset havde nazisterne det svært med julens forsonende budskab om fred på Jorden. Den stemte dårligt overens med ambitionerne om at erobre resten af Europa.
I en artikel fra 1937 understreger Hannes Kremer, et ledende medlem af Hitlers propagandaministerium, at tyskerne bør afvise julen som "en højtid for en teoretisk fred for hele menneskeheden".

I stedet bør være en "højtid for reel hjemmelig og national fred" og altså kun handle om at sikre fred for tyskerne.

En fred, som tilsyneladende kun kunne sikres ved at udrydde nationens fjender i form af bl.a. jøder, kommunister og homoseksuelle.

"Ud med Jesus"

Næste skridt var at køre den jødiske Jesus ud på et sidespor. Til alt held for nazisterne havde tyskerne, længe inden de blev kristne, fejret vintersolhverv omkring juletid.
 …

Himmler omskrev julesalmer

Julesange og salmer, der nævnte Jesus, blev omskrevet, så de i stedet hyldede nationalsocialismen. Blandt sangskribenterne var ingen ringere end SS-chefen Heinrich Himmler.

 …

Hagekorset skulle op på juletræet

Juletræet havde nazisterne ikke noget problem med, for det har faktisk rødder i hedenske, germanske traditioner. Til gengæld var Hitler ikke glad for den stjerne, som blev placeret på toppen af træet.

I stedet for stjernen - som enten kunne symbolisere den jødiske Davidsstjerne eller kommunismens røde stjerne - skulle tyskerne sætte enten et hagekors, et germansk solhjul eller en oldnordisk rune øverst på juletræet, mente nazisterne.

Julepynt fra Nazityskland, som er blevet bevaret for eftertiden, inkluderer bl.a. kugler med slagord som fx "Sieg Heil" og symboler som bl.a. hagekors, jernkors og ørne.

Hvis ikke englænderne i krigens allersidste dage havde sat sig for, at Danmark skulle sikres en plads i den frie verden, havde vi risikeret en ny besættelse

Uffe Ellemann Jensen er 4. maj hovedtaler ved den årlige højtidlighed i Mindelunden i anledning af Danmarks befrielse. Berlingske bringer talen i sin fulde længde.

»Nu er det forår, og Danmark frit…«

Sådan skal vi synge sammen om lidt – her i Mindelunden, hvor vi mindes de faldne i den danske modstandsbevægelse. Det er over 70 år siden, men stadig er dét forår noget ganske særligt.

Det er det for de få, som oplevede det, og som endnu lever. Det er det for os, der lige var gamle nok til at fornemme det. Og det er det for det store flertal, der alene har hørt om det – men hvis liv har fået lov til at forme sig i forårets tegn: Friheden. Det livsbekræftende. Det gærende og brusende…

De følelser, der fylder os denne aften, er ærbødighed – og taknemmelighed.

De mennesker, som ligger begravet her i Mindelunden valgte at trodse det officielle Danmarks påbud om »passiv tilpasning« overfor besættelsesmagten. Sammen med vore krigssejlere og dem, der var i allieret tjeneste, kæmpede de den frihedskamp, der gav os det Danmark, vi har i dag. De bragte store ofre i den kamp. Nogen mistede livet, andre gennemgik fængsel og tortur. De fleste tålte et psykisk pres, som tærede på krop og sjæl.

De kom fra alle dele af det danske samfund. De var ikke mange. Og efter besættelsen valgte mange at søge tilbage i ubemærketheden. Andre har sikkert som jeg haft den oplevelse, at man først sent og tilfældigt opdagede, at en kær gammel ven i familien havde været aktiv i modstandsbevægelsen. Det talte de ikke om. De havde bare gjort det. I trods og på trods. Og tak for det.

For det kunne være gået helt anderledes, dengang.

Det er der nok ikke mange, der tænker på i dag. Det større perspektiv i det, der skete. Men hvis ikke englænderne i krigens allersidste dage havde sat sig for, at Danmark skulle sikres en plads i den frie verden – og derfor rykkede lynhurtigt frem i Slesvig-Holsten – havde vi risikeret en ny besættelse.

Læs også

Rekonstruktion: Følg Danmarks befrielse live

Men vi blev befriet af englænderne, og ikke af den røde hær. Bornholm oplevede en kort tid, hvordan det var lige ved at gå i resten af Danmark. Det varede kun et års tid. Men det kunne have varet meget længere, hvis det var hele landet, som havde lidt den skæbne.
Det var der andre i vores nabolag, der oplevede. De baltiske lande blev efter den tyske besættelse besat af Sovjetunionen, og de måtte vente endnu næsten et halvt århundrede på at få friheden.

Den skæbne kunne så let også være blevet vores hvis ikke modige danskere under besættelsen havde gjort en indsats, både i Danmark og ude i verden, som gav englænderne lyst til at redde os – fordi de havde vist, at vi trods alt var værd at redde…

Og hvis ikke vi havde venner og allierede, som gjorde det muligt for os at holde fast i vores frihed, da vi først havde fået den – og da ufriheden sænkede sig over det halve Europa. For lad os huske på dét: Alene kunne vi ikke have vundet friheden tilbage.

Hvis og hvis… Ja, der er mange hvis’er. Og dem skal vi trække frem på denne af alle aftener, og på dette sted af alle steder.

Jeg har ofte tænkt på, hvor meget anderledes mit liv kunne have formet sig, hvis der ikke havde været danskere, som dengang gjorde modstand mod ufriheden og ondskaben. Så var jeg selv og min generation måske være vokset op i ufrihed. Berøvet mulighederne for at rejse ud i verden. Berøvet mulighederne for at arbejde med det, der interesserede os. Berøvet mulighederne for at bearbejde de livsværdier og holdninger, vi hver især ønsker at forme vores liv efter.

Sådan gik det andre, der bor ikke ret langt fra os – og her er de nye generationer nu i fuld gang med at indhente det forsømte.

Det var en gave vi fik, dengang. En gave som er givet videre til de efterfølgende generationer. En gave vi skal skønne på.

Vi viser vores taknemmelighed ved stadig at samles her i Mindelunden – så mange år efter – og nogen af os sætter stadig lys i vinduerne.

Men vores tak skal også være, at vi er rede til at forsvare de værdier – og de muligheder – de gav os dengang.

Det er der mange danskere, som har gjort – og stadig gør – når de tager til fjerne lande for at beskytte freden og friheden i vores meget farlige verden.

Eksemplet fra dengang for over 70 år siden viser os, at det ikke er ligegyldigt at demonstrere viljen til at tage et medansvar. For det er forudsætningen for, at andre vil lade os være en del af det fællesskab, der beskytter vore frihedsværdier. Også i dag ydes der ofre – også store ofre – i denne indsats. Og de mange, som yder denne indsats, er vi alle en stor tak skyldig.

Men som nation må vi bestandig spørge os selv: Gør vi nok?

Gør vi nok – i forhold til de trusler, der eksisterer mod vores frihed og fred?

Gør vi nok – til at vore venner og allierede synes, vi er værd at beskytte. For venner og allierede har vi brug for. Vi kan ikke stå alene, så meget har historien lært os.

Jeg mener, at vi bør gøre mere. Vi har indrettet vores forsvar efter, at der ikke i en overskuelig fremtid opstår trusler i vort nærområde. Sådan skrev man i den redegørelse for Danmarks sikkerhedssituation, som lå til grund for det seneste forsvarsforlig. Og derfor er vores forsvar især indrettet på at løse opgaver langt væk hjemmefra.

Men der er – desværre – igen trusler i vores nærområde. Der er krig ikke ret langt væk, i Ukraine, hvor der næsten hver dag dræbes soldater i, hvad der skal ligne en borgerkrig, men som er noget langt større.

Andre lande rundt omkring os er i fuld gang med at styrke deres forsvar. Det gælder vore NATO-partnere, Norge, Tyskland, Polen og de baltiske lande. Og det gælder Sverige og Finland, som ikke er med i NATO, men som gør hvad de kan, for at samarbejde med NATO, og som maser på for at få så meget ud af fællesskabet i EU som muligt.

Danmark er det eneste land i Østersøregionen, som ikke er i fuld gang med at styrke forsvaret – og som gemmer sig bag undtagelser og forbehold, når det gælder deltagelse i et bredere europæisk samarbejde.

Det kan vi ikke være bekendt.

Og det skal siges netop i aften – og netop her. For det er at tage for let på den gave, vi fik den forårsaften for mange år siden. Vi skylder dem, der ligger her, og alle de andre, der på forskellig vis ofrede sig i modstandsbevægelse og frihedskamp, at gøre noget mere. At gøre vort bedste.

A Danish girl who volunteered to fight against Isis terrorists in Syria and Iraq faces prison for violating a travel ban meant to hamstring supporters of Isis terrorists

A Danish woman who volunteered in Syria and Iraq to fight against Isis faces six months in prison for violating a travel ban 

reports the Independent's Lizzie Dearden.

Joanna Palani has been taken into custody while Copenhagen City Court hears her case, which has divided Denmark.

The 23-year-old insists she poses no security risk and had been fighting with Kurdish groups aligned with the US-led coalition, which includes Denmark.

But she has fallen foul of laws allowing the imposition of travel bans and seizing of passports for Danes planning to join foreign conflicts – on whatever side.

Palani’s lawyer, Erbil Kaya, told the Berlingske newspaper his client admitted violating a one-year travel ban imposed by Danish authorities.

 … Palani, whose father and grandfather were Peshmerga fighters, is of Iranian Kurdish ancestry and moved to Copenhagen as a toddler after being born in an UN refugee camp in Ramadi, Iraq, during the Gulf War.

She told Vice she left university in autumn 2014 to join the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, wanting to defeat Isis, President Bashar al-Assad and “fight for human rights for all people”.

Palani fought for the YPG for six months before moving to Iraq to fight for the Kurdish Peshmerga. Both groups have been supported by the US and allies in the battle against Isis, being given military and air support as the ground arm of the international coalition’s bombing campaign.

As well as fighting on the front line against Isis militants, she claimed to have been part of a battalion that freed women and children held as sex slaves by the so-called Islamic State near its stronghold of Mosul.

Palani was active on social media and news of her role spread in Denmark. When she was given a fortnight off by the Peshmerga to visit her family in 2015, the Danish authorities cracked down.

A police notice warned Palani her passport had was not valid and would be revoked if she left the country, an offence punishable with a jail sentence.

The former student has criticised the Danish authorities for pursuing her under laws targeting Isis militants and other extremists.

Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service (PET) said at least 115 Danes have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq in the past five years, with most believed to have joined Isis.

“How can I pose a threat to Denmark and other countries by being a soldier in an official army that Denmark trains and supports directly in the fight against the Islamic State?” she wrote on Facebook when she lost her passport, according to a translation by The Local.

Misleading Statistics: Would the EU Really Dominate the Olympics in Medals Won If It Were "United"?

There is a meme online, as there has been four (and more) years before (I first heard it years ago by the presenter of a French TV news program), claiming that — imagine! — if the European Union were truly united, they would dominate the amount of medals won at the Olympic Games.

This is for my US friends who think they are ahead in the 2016 Olympics. Only because Europe has no sense of unity!

It is nonsense, of course, utter nonsense.

It is also evidence of the misleading nature of statistics, not to mention common folks' tendency to trust simple catchphrases.

Sure, if you add up the medals from France, and Germany, and Denmark, and the UK (for how much longer?), you arrive at a greater total number of medals.

But listen: you can't have it both ways; either you compete as one entity or you compete as 28 (soon 27).

If the EU truly had a "sense of unity", you wouldn't have up to 28 different entities (nations) competing in each sports branch at the Olympics, you would only have one. The EU "representative" might turn out to be a Swede in one area (curling?), a Spaniard in another (bull-fighting?), a German or a Pole in a third (sausage-making?). Maybe, in one given year, a plurality, or a majority, of contenders might all come from one single country. (Presumably there would have been an EU competition, a mini-Olympics if you will, beforehand — although it is a safe bet that the pétanque contender would hail from France.)

Otherwise, you have to admit the "solution" isn't a simple as the would-be statisticians would make you believe.

Indeed, why stop there?

If a certain multitude of medals ought to be counted as one, why shouldn't the logical conclusion go in the other direction, and have unitary competitors "divided" into their respective constituencies?

Why shouldn't Canada ought to have one third to half as many candidates (or teams) as the EU for each sports branch, not 1 as now but 9 extra for the Canucks' 10 provinces (Ontario, Québec, British Columbia, etc…)?

Shouldn't the United States, meanwhile, have nearly double (!) the number of candidates (or teams) as the EU, an extra 49 for a total of 50 states, with contenders from Texas, Massachusetts, North Dakota, etc, etc, etc?

Similarly, in the Soviet era, the USSR had one candidate (or one team) per sports branch at the Olympics, not 15 for the number of its constituent (Soviet Socialist) republics.

On the other hand, the USSR itself had representation in the far more important area of the United Nations (as did/as do Canada and the United States — albeit not the EU), but so did Soviet member republics Ukraine and Belorussia — which was nothing but a sham, of course. (Again, Florida, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island had/have, needless to say, no membership at the UN.)

How sure can you be so sure that the EU would dominate the Olympics if its' 28 contenders had to compete against the Canadians' 10 as well as against the Americans' 50?

Related: Tyrannies demand immense efforts of their populations to bring forth trifles, and there can be no trifle more trifling than an Olympic record, or even a victory without a record

Documentary on the Great Cinematic Epic That Never Came to Be: Jodorowsky's Dune

Being released in France right now is Frank Pavich's celebrated documentary on the filming of Jodorowsky's Dune, the genesis of one of cinema's greatest epics that never was.

The Chilean writer, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing 15 years ago (besides my many interviews with his frequent co-worker Jean Giraud (Moebius)) drips with passion as he talks of all the artists he will bring together to make a film of Frank Herbert's science fiction bestseller.

Wikipedia:

director Alejandro Jodorowsky … proceeded to approach … Pink Floyd and Magma for some of the music; artists H. R. Giger, Chris Foss, and Jean Giraud for set and character design; Dan O'Bannon for special effects; and Salvador Dalí, Orson Welles, Gloria Swanson, David Carradine, Mick Jagger, Amanda Lear, and others for the cast.

Various trailers exist for Jodorowsky's Dune, which did not come to pass, when the producers lost faith in the Paris-based film director, theater director, screenwriter, playwright, actor, author, poet, producer, composer, musician, and, last but not least, comic book writer, not to mention spiritual guru.

(Jodo's attitude probably did little to help, when the man came back with the screenplay for a 14-hour movie and when he was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to make industrial films to earn money, to make a living. I want to make films to lose money, films that oblige me to search employment in other creations.”)

Wikipedia, again:

The film notes that Jodorowsky's script, extensive storyboards, and concept art were sent to all major film studios, and argues that these were inspirational to later film productions, including the Alien, Star Wars, and Terminator series. In particular, the Jodorowsky-assembled team of O'Bannon, Foss, Giger and Giraud went on to collaborate on the 1979 film Alien.
 
"It was a great undertaking to do the script," Jodowrosky says in the film. Speaking of Herbert's novel, he says: "It's very, it's like Proust, I compare it to great literature."