Biuro Spraw Beznadziejnych

“Rule, Britannia! rule the waves. Britons never will be slaves.” The uprising has started. I hope it will spread throughout whole Europe.

Obviously it was a rasist far right demonstration, as you can see below.

And it all started with Elon buying Twitter. Before that my friends did not know about Pakistani gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere.

Main stream media in Sweden devoted same amount of time to interviews with antidemonstrations (5000 people at most) as to the main demonstration of hundreds of thousands, perhaps million?

Płyty Laurie Anderson Strange Angels słuchałam z pasją na początku lat 90. Byłam wtedy bardzo postępowa, więc nie pojmowałam, że może niekoniecznie ten postęp postępuje do przodu.

Izraelski minister obrony Israel Kac ogłosił w piątek nad ranem, że Izrael rozpoczął “prewencyjny” atak na Iran. Zarządził też alarm na terenie całego kraju i ostrzegł, że w najbliższym czasie oczekiwany jest odwet ze strony Iranu. Netanyahu: “Moments ago Israel launched Operation Rising Lion … to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival. This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.” Elon Musk “The diplomats want war and the warriors want peace.”

Thomas Sowell is a genius. He has courage, wisdom, experience. Despite age (95), he actively comments current events on his youtube-channel. In his posts on the LA riots he points to those who should be blamed for them. You would not guess: Obama and his support for activists who broke the law during his presidency. Below a larger excerpt in Google translation to Polish, then original. https://www.youtube.com/@thomassowellreacts

Niedawne protesty anty-ICE w Los Angele … są symptomami głębszego kryzysu, kryzysu zasady rozsądku i samej praworządności. Kiedy prawo staje się opcjonalne wtedy cywilizacja staje się negocjowalna. I nie mylcie się, to, czego jesteśmy świadkami w Los Angeles, nie jest negocjacją o sprawiedliwość, ale żądaniem poddania się.
Zacznijmy od faktów nieupiększanych emocjonalną mgłą, która tak często przesłania te dyskusje.
W ciągu dwóch dni protesty w Los Angeles przerodziły się w chaos, demonstranci podpalali pojazdy, przeszkadzali agentom federalnym i niszczyli mienie, niektórzy machali obcymi flagami, skandując jednocześnie hasła o zniesieniu ICE i uwolnieniu zatrzymanych imigrantów. To nie są działania uzasadnionego żalu, ale cechy charakterystyczne dla rządu tłumu. Istnieje wyraźna granica między legalnym protestem, który jest prawem każdego obywatela, a bezprawiem, które jest wrogiem każdego społeczeństwa. Jednak dla wygody politycznej wielu zaciera tę granicę, udając, że zniszczenie jest dialogiem, a przemoc cnotą. … Prawda tutaj jest prosta. Niektóre osoby niemające prawnego prawa do przebywania w tym kraju są przetrzymywane na mocy praw uchwalonych przez tych, którzy zostali wybrani, aby nas reprezentować. Te protesty nie dotyczą obrony ludzkości, dotyczą sprzeciwiania się samej idei egzekwowania prawa, gdy koliduje ona z ideologią. Jaki naród przetrwa, gdy jego prawa są traktowane jako opcjonalne? … Kiedy protestujący blokują drogi lub otaczają budynki federalne, jak to miało miejsce w Paramount i centrum Los Angeles, nie korzystają z wolności słowa tylko próbują narzucić swoją wolę poprzez zastraszanie. Jaki jest cel końcowy? Jeśli każde prawo może zostać zawetowane przez tłum, co pozostaje z rządów prawa? Jeśli każdy funkcjonariusz egzekwujący prawo zostanie nazwany złoczyńcą, kto będzie prawa pilnował? Aby zrozumieć ten kryzys, musimy rozróżnić legalną i nielegalną imigrację, rozróżnienie często zaciemniane przez tych, którzy wolą apel emocjonalny od empirycznej jasności. Legalna imigracja to proces regulowany przez zasady mające na celu zrównoważenie hojności narodu z jego możliwościami. Nielegalna imigracja jest natomiast naruszeniem tych zasad, aktem, który podważa sam system, który umożliwia legalną imigrację.

One of the most dangerous illusions of our time i the notion that law can be treated as a suggestion, that borders can be erased by sentiment, and the nation can survive when its sovereignty is reduced to a slogan.
The recent anti ICE protests in Los Angeles marked by burning cars, assaults on federal officers and demands to abolish the very agency tasked with enforcing our immigration laws, are not merely a local disturbance. They are symptoms of a deeper crisis, a crisis of principle of reason and of the rule of law itself. When law becomes optional, civilization becomes negotiable. And make no mistake, what we are witnessing in LA is not a negotiation for justice but a demand for surrender.
Let us begin with the facts unadorned by the emotional haze that so often clouds these discussions.
Over two days protests in Los Angeles escalated into chaos, demonstrators set vehicles ablaze, obstructed federal agents and defaced property, some waved foreign flags, while chanting for the abolition of ICE, and the release of the detained immigrants. These are not the actions of a reasoned grievance but a hallmarks of mob rule. There is a clear line between lawful protest which is the right of every citizen and lawlessness which is the enemy of every society. Yet for political convenience many blur this line pretending that destruction is dialogue and violence is virtue. Symbols can obscure the plain truth. The truth here is straightforward. Some individuals with no legal right to be in this country are detained under laws passed by those elected to represent us. These protests are not about defending humanity, they are about defying the very idea of law enforcement when it clashes with ideology. What kind of nation survives when its laws are treated as optional? Burning cars in not an expression of compassion, it is an act of destruction that endangers lives and livelihoods. Obstructing federal officers is not a defense of human rights it is an assault on the mechanisms that keep a society funtional. When protesters block roads or surround federal buildings, as they did in Paramount and downtown Los Angeles, they are not merely excercising free speech they are attempting to impose their will through intimidation. What is the endgame here? If every law can be vetoed by a mob what remains of governance? If every officer enforcing the law is branded a villain, who will uphold it? To understand this crisis we must distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, a distinction often obscured by those who prefer emotional appeal to empirical clarity. Legal immigration is a process governed by rules designed to balance a nation’s generosity with its capacity. Illegal immigration by contrast is a violation of those rules, an act that undermines the very system that makes legal immigration possible.

With the unexpected growth of the polar ice caps ruining his climate campaign, a frustrated Al Gore was seen blowing a hair dryer at the ice caps in a desperate bid to get them melting again.

A glossary translating political rhetoric into plain English
“crisis”: any situation you want to change
“bilingual”: unable to speak English
“equal opportunity”: preferential treatment
“non-judgmental”: blaming society
“compassion”: the use of tax money to buy votes
“insensitivity”: objections to the use of tax money to buy votes
“simplistic”: an argument you disagree with but can’t answer
“rehabilitation”: magic word said before releasing criminals
“demonstration”: a riot by people you agree with
“mob violence”: a riot by people you disagree with
“a matter of principle”: a political controversy involving the convictions of liberals
“an emotional issue”: a political controversy involving the convictions of conservatives
“funding”: money from the government
“commitment”: more money from the government
“docu-drama”: a work of fiction about famous people
“autobiography”: a work of fiction about yourself
“federal budget”: a work of fiction about government spending
“people’s republic”: a place where you do what you are told or get shot
“national liberation movements”: organizations trying to create people’s republics
“policy research”: looking for statistics to support the position you have already taken
“stereotypes”: behavior patterns you don’t want to think about
“Reaganomics”: media explanation of downturns in the economy
“robust economy”: media explanation of upturns in the economy
“constitutional interpretation”: judges reading their own political views into the Constitution
“politicizing the courts”: criticizing judges for reading their own political views into the Constitution
“a proud people”: chauvinists you like
“bigots”: chauvinists you don’t like
“anti-war movement”: disarmament advocates who know the idea won’t fly under its own name
“private greed”: making money selling people what they want
“public service”: gaining power to make people do what you want them to
“innovation”: something new
“new innovation”: something new by someone who doesn’t understand English
“competency”: competence, as described by the incompetent
“moderate Arabs”: mythical beings to whom State Department officials make sacrificial offerings
“special interest lobby”: politically organized conservatives
“public interest group”: politically organized liberals
“accountability”: holding teachers, public officials, and private businesses responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds
“chilling effect”: holding journalists responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds

Lionel Shriver expresses exactly how I feel about the present extremist society – manias. I love to take risks, but individually. I hate to do it collectively.

Covid mania, gender mania, climate mania, racism mania, …

“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.” — Thomas Sowell

“It was a grave mistake to let in so many people of totally different cultures and religions and concepts. It creates a pressure group inside each country that does it.”

I love Unherd for giving platform to fringe ideas. It is the first time that I heard somebody frame present mass immigration as colonisation. Freddy evades the key issue by mixing up immigrants who integrate (like Rishie Sunak) with those who do not even intend to do so (like Pakistani grooming gangs).

I asked Grok for a definition of colonisation. An external group establishes dominance over a territory and its native population, fundamentally altering its demographic, cultural, economic, and/or political fabric, often without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants. This dominance is achieved through a combination of settlement, resource extraction, cultural imposition, and institutional control, typically prioritizing the colonizers’ identity and power over the continuity of the pre-existing society.

These characteristics of colonisation define perfectly well immigrants who have no intent of integrating and wish instead that their culture should dominate over the indigenous culture. The key issue here is “dominance over a territory”. If the territory is Angered, Biskopsgården, then the dominance is there. If it is Sweden, then fortunately not (yet).

Whenever we need to say something it means that it no longer is obviously true. This is the main rule of pragmatism, and efficiency in language. Whenever some word becomes very popular, it may mean that the idea behind it, no longer is obvious. My parents never told me they loved me, it was so obvious. Nowadays the word “tolerance” is in fashion.

W dodatku wszędzie tylko ten Trump i Trump.

Oksana Markarova reacts to the uncouth behaviour of the president of Ukraine and the quarrel in front of cameras. I felt exactly the same way as this Ukrainian envoy. 

If I was a leader of a small country and saw what happened yesterday in the oval room in Washington, I would try to get nuclear weapons by all means possible. The President of the USA said to the President of Ukraine: you have no cards to play. Exactly. They had cards back in 1994. Ukraine had third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. If they did not believe the assurances they got from the USA in the Budapest Memorandum, they would not have given them up. They would have strong cards to play with now.

4 years earlier U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990 that if Germany remained part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after reunification
and if the United States “maintained a presence” in that country, “there would be no extension” of NATO’s jurisdiction “one inch to the east.” The Americans, as Gorbachev himself put the point in 2008, had “promised that NATO wouldn’t move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and Eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted.”

Pacta sunt servanda? Not really. How did the world loose the opportunity to make friends not foes?

I did not know who coined the theory of “great replacement” so obviously I asked Grok

The term “The Great Replacement” was coined by the French writer Renaud Camus. He introduced this concept in his 2011 book titled “Le Grand Remplacement,” where he argues that there is an ongoing demographic and cultural shift in Western countries due to immigration, leading to what he perceives as the replacement of native populations by non-European peoples. A quote elucidating the perspective of this ex liberal homosexual, now a so called “far right” activist:

“we are talking about the fight against terrorism: in my opinion there are no terrorists, not a single one. There are occupants who … kill a few hostages from time to time to better remind us who the master is.”