UDKANTSOMRAADER OG AFFOLKNING

I og med at boligen ved at prioritere ejerboligen – også som boligen i byerne, er blevet et investeringsobjekt, hvor næsten enhver køber forventer en fortjeneste ved salget, som han/hun også skal have for at få sig en anden bolig, og bankerne låner penge ud til boligkøberne på den betingelse at de køber boliger som har de bedste økonomiske fremtidsudsigter dvs. sandsynligvis vil stige mest (eller i hvert fald ikke falde i værdi) er der sat en (døds)spiral i gang, hvorved det frie finansmarkedet afliver Udkantsdammark og globalt set Udkantshvorsomhelst.
Ironisk nok har vi på denne måde i vores (relative) velstillethed indført samme udviklingstendens som gør sig gældende i ulandene: sammenklumpning af befolkningen i storbyerne, med næsten alle sociale og miljømæssige problemer som følger med.
Men hvem vil politisk være med til at regulere/dreje boligmarkedet i en anden retning??  

WORKING CLASS NEVER GOT ANY GIFT!

Subsistence allowance was not a gift
from a rich uncle in America!
Wage adjustments were not introduced

due to the labour buyers generosity!
The right to vacation was not a sponsor gift
from a Copenhagen brewery!
The working class never got any gift,
and no one will give us something
in times to come.
All those achievements have been paid
with laborious work, struggles, sacrifices,
disappointments, perseverance and defeat,
and only because some of us
never gave up, we moved foreward!
 

Carl Scharnberg.

politik uden figenblad

Menneskeartens (selv)legitimering falder med bundlinjetænkningen

Humaniora er er kommet under stærk pres fra regeringen og ledende økonomer da afkastet per kandidat slet ikke modsvarer investeringen i uddannelsen.

http://www.information.dk/488159

http://politiken.dk/indland/uddannelse/ECE2404800/regeringen-giver-humaniora-kniven/

Jeg vil her slet ikke gå ind i et regnestykke for at modbevise dette – så som radioavisen var inde på d. 28-10-2014, hvor man fortalte, at mange humanister faktisk har samarbejde med erhvervslivet og andre aftagere...

Hvis vi som mennesker kun kan/vil gå efter den viden, som muliggør mere konsum eller profit i sidste ende – og agerer som om at erkendelse i sig selv intet er værd, når den ikke kan udmøntes i økonomisk gevinst, har vi mistet den trøst (eller det figenblad om man så vil) der lå i, at vi som art adskiller os fra alle andre skabninger, ved at kunne reflektere og tage hensyn ud over eller ligefrem imod den snævre selv- eller artsopretholdelse....

Hvis, samfundet (staten, kommunerne) ikke er til sinds at bakke op om uddannelse og forskning i kunst, filosofi, religion, sprog som ikke bruges i verdens økonomisk førende lande og andre humanistiske forskningsaktiviteter som er ”værdiløse” så er vi virkelig fattige – uanset under- eller overskud på budgetterne.

Uddannelsespolitik er i denne ånd blevet til en grådighedens logik.

Consideration to undermine the ethic of labour

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GERMAN SCROLL DOWN TO THE ENGLISH VERSION

Überlegung zur Untergrabung der Arbeitsmoral

Die Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral von Heinrich Böll ist wohl vielen bekannt (http://www.aloj.us.es/webdeutsch/s_3/transkriptionen/l_26_str10_trans.pdf)

Da geht es ja hauptsächlich ums ganz individuelle Wohlsein – die größeren Perspektiven muss man sich dazudenken.

Aber auch wenn viele diese Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral wohl gelesen haben erscheint es dennoch fast allen großartig, wenn man sich individuell hocharbeiten kann: zu höherem Status, zu mehr Geld oder vielleicht sogar aus dem Elend heraus.

Diese Möglichkeit - illusorisch oder realistisch - hielt und hält die Menschen dazu an, mehr zu geben als sie unbedingt hier und jetzt nötig haben.

WEITERKOMMEN ist anscheinend wunderbar! Aber weiter als wer, und weiter womit? Wenn wir mit der Erforschung unserer Welt und des Universums weiterkommen, ist das ja unmittelbar zumindest eine Chance, mit dem neuen Wissen viel Gutes oder Vernünftiges zu bewirken.

Aber eben nur die Chance.

Unsere Tragödie als Spezies ist nun im 21 Jahrhundert die, dass wir bisher so erfolgreich waren.

”Besser” und länger leben zu wollen erscheint für jeden von uns legitim, aber WIE wollen wir leben? Und was bedeuten unsere Ansprüche für die Mitmenschen und die biologischen Mitbewohner der Erde?

Mehr zu arbeiten, mehr Umsatz zu machen kann in diesem Licht direkt asozial sein – aber wer will sich das selber eingestehen oder sogar eine dementsprechende Politik machen?

Consideration to undermine the ethic of labour 

“Die Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral“ of Heinrich Böll is well known to many (read an English translation at the end of page)
This short story was mainly reflecting the very individual well-being – it's wider perspectives you have to think of yourself.
But even though many have red this “Anecdote to reduce the ethic of labour” probably it still appears almost great to most of us, if you can work your way through to to a higher status, more money, or maybe even out of misery.
This possibility - illusory or realistic - inspires people to work more than they absolutely necessary have to here and now.
GETTING FURTHER is apparently wonderful! But further than who, and on what? If we continue the exploration of our world and the universe, that's a chance to use the new knowledge good or sensible.
But only the CHANCE!
Our tragedy as a species is now now in the 21st century that we have been so successful.
To live "better" and to live longer appears legitimate for every one of us but HOW do we want to live? And how influence our claims other human beings and our biological roommates on this Earth?
To work more, to make more sales can in this light be directly anti-social - but who wants to admit that just for himself or even dares to make a corresponding policy?

Anecdote to lower work ethics

In a harbor on the west coast of Europe, a shabbily dressed man lies dozing in his fishing boat. A smartly dressed tourist is just putting a new roll of color film into his camera to photograph the idyllic picture: blue sky, green sea with peaceful, snowy whitecaps, black boat, red woolen fisherman's cap. Click. Once more: click and, since all good things come in threes and it's better to be safe than sorry, a third time: click. The snapping, almost hostile sound awakens the dozing fisherman, who sleepily sits up, sleepily gropes for his cigarettes, but before he has found what he is looking for the eager tourist is already holding a pack under his nose, not exactly sticking a cigarette between his lips but putting one into his hand, and a fourth click, that of the lighter, completes the overeager courtesy. As a result of that excess of nimble courtesy — scarcely measurable, never verifiable — a certain awkwardness has arisen that the tourist, who speaks the language of the country, tries to bridge by striking up a conversation.
"You'll have a good catch today."
The fisherman shakes his head.
"But I've been told the weather's favorable!"
The fisherman nods.
"So you won't put to sea?"
The fisherman shaeks his head, the tourist grows more and more uncomfortable. It is clear that he has the welfare of the shabbily dressed man at heart and that disappointment over the lost opportunity is gnawing at him.
"Oh, I'm sorry — aren't you feeling well?"
At last the fisherman switches from a sign language to the spoken word.
"I feel fine," he says. "I've never felt better." He stands up, stretches as if to demonstrate his athletic build. "I feel terrific."
The tourist's expression grows steadily more unhappy, and he can no longer suppress the question which, as it were, threatens to burst his heart: "But why, then, do you not put to sea?"
The answer comes promptly and briefly: "Because I already put to sea this morning."
"Did you make a good catch?"
"My catch was so good that I need not put to sea for a second time. I had for lobsters in my baskets, caught nearly two dozen mackerel..."
The fisherman, finally awake, is now thawing, and slaps the tourist soothingly on the shoulder. The worried countenance of the latter seems to him an expression of inappropriate, yet touching, anxiety.
"I have enough even for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow," he says to relive the stranger's soul. "Do you want a cigarette?"
"Yes, please."
Cigarettes are being put into mouths, a fifth click; the stranger, shaking his head, sits down on the rim of the boar, and puts down the camera, for now he needs both hands to give his speech emphasis.
"I do not want to meddle in your personal affairs," he says, "but just imagine if you put to sea today for a second, a third, or perhaps even a fourth time, and you catch three, four, five, maybe even ten dozen mackerel. Just imagine that!"
The fisherman nods.
"You put to sea," continues the tourist, "not only today but tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, indeed, on every favorable day two, three, of perhaps four times — do you know what would happen?"
The fisherman shakes his his.
"In one year at the latest you would be able to buy a motor, in two years a second boat, in three or four years you may, perhaps, have a small trawler; with two boats or the trawler you would, of course, catch a lot more — one day, you would have two trawlers, you would...," for a few moments his enthusiasm leaves him speechless, "you would build a small cold store, perhaps a smoke-house, soon afterwards a marinating factory, fly around with your own helicopter, making out the shoals of fish and giving orders to your trawlers by radio. You could buy the fishing right for salmon, open a fish restaurant, export lobster directly to Paris without a middleman — and then...," once again his enthusiasm leaves him speechless. Shaking his head, saddened in the depth of his heart, and almost bereft of this holiday delights, he looks on the waters rolling peacefully into the harbor, where the uncaught fish jump merrily.
"And then," he says, but again his excitement leaves him speechless. The fisherman slaps him on the back, as one would slap a child choking over his food. "What then?" he asks in a low voice.
"Then," says the stranger with restrained enthusiasm, "then, without a care in the world, you could sit here in the harbor, doze in the sun — and look at the glorious sea."
"But I'm already doing that," says the fisherman. "I sit here in the harbor without a care in the world and doze — it was only your clicking that disturbed me."
And so the thus enlightened tourist walked pensively away, for at one time he had believed that he was working so as to someday not have to work any more; and there remained in him not a trace of pity for the fisherman in shabby clothes, only a little envy.

besides to read Bölls short story I recommend to read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/work-more-less-quality-of-life

 

Weirdo

Weirdo
Everyday work might often lead ones mind to the next obvious task .... but. ...
Mowing the lawn under the impression of a thriller on TV last night I saw the end of the humanist era comming towards us.
I have never been convinced that humanism ruled us - but it's mindset was, on the ideological level, for many of us - even or especially in politics - a mandatory bid or a kind of compulsory confession.
But since September 11, 2001 this gets shaken vigorously by more and more opinion leaders in politics, religion and even science, who almost proudly profess views that directly contradict a basic humanistic ideal  ... but that had actually allready taken its beginning  with fascism / Nazism 
...  what a consolation ...

VELKOMMEN TILBAGE TIL FEUDALISMEN - WELCOME BACK TO FEUDALISM

VELKOMMEN TILBAGE TIL FEUDALISMEN - WELCOME BACK TO FEUDALISM

Der går et par hundrede år uden at man lægger mærke til at også de mest grundlæggende værdier mister deres værdi.

FRIHED – LIGHED - BRODERSKAB

– og så sker det alligevel, at det man stræbte efter er det man løber væk fra, betragtes som uinteressant eller direkte skadelig.

En gang i 1800-talles blev det nationernes hovedmål – ikke mindst under indtryk af socialistiske og socialliberale ideer - at sørge for ”folkets” interesse, hvor alle med den rigtige hudfarve og det rigtige sprog gerne skulle fremmes for at styrke nationen – ofte koblet med nationalistiske, racistiske og mere eller mindre præfascistiske holdninger.

Først da anden verdenskrig havde sat det nationalistisk-racistiske tankesæt alvorligt i skammekrogen og den kapitalistiske del af verden var bange for at den ”socialistiske” Østblok kunne få politisk medvind vest for jerntæppet ved alt for stor ulighed, da social uretfærdighed, nu hvor fascismen tilsyneladende var overvundet, ville bidrage til at styrke folks hang til socialisme eller kommunisme. Altså blev lighedstanken noget som var tilladt og for nogen endda tilstræbt: datidens socialdemokratiske og US-venlige partier og dele af det demokratiske parti i USA som stod fagbevægelsen nær.

At arbejde for mere lighed var ikke systemskadelig men en god måde at styrke stabilitet og fortsat vækst. Det var endda muligt og legitimt at dele af grundforsyningen med energi, visse varer og transportsystemer fortsat blev varetaget af statslige, kommunale eller på anden vis socialiserede virksomheder for at etablere/opretholde forsyningssikkerhed for hele befolkningen.

Meget af dette er ukendt eller ”overvundet” tankegods for dagens politiske eliter og størstedelen af befolkningen. Det handler om at fremme uligheden. Dem som virkelig sidder ved magten fremmer kun ideer om en omfordeling fra fattig til rig: Konkurrencestaten er den ny velfærdsstat (Corydon)

Langsigtet perspektiv? INGEN! Verden kan ikke holde til denne paradigme – lige så lidt som den kunne holde til en idé om lighed for alle på amerikansk niveau – med umådeholdent overforbrug af ressourcer og drømmen om konstant, yderligere vækst som systemets motor.

Ved siden af denne bevidsthedsskred væk fra lighed har der etableret sig en bevidsthed om ressourcernes begrænsning – begreber som ”sustainability – ressourcebesparende – miljørigtig m.m.” er blevet en del af bevidstheden, dog uden at rykke ved det grundlæggende vækstparadigme.

Ganske vist vil Goldman&Sachs være med til at tjene penge på DONGS vindmølleparker – men de vil/”skal” droppe disse installationer i det øjeblik de ikke er gode investeringer mere.

Vi har vi altså nu et økonomisk system som i nogle nicher forholder sig ”ufornuftigt” i forhold til sit eget ideologiske grundlag ved at satse på ressourcebesparelser og vedvarende energi (til trods for at kul og olie stadig ef ”billigst”) samtidigt med at der fortsat satses på væksten af forbrug – også af materielle varer som skal produceres og smides væk – og langt de fleste IKKE ved hjælp af genbrug.

Såvel nationalstaten som supranationale organisationer og magtstrukturer er hjælpeløse i et ægte forsvar for miljøet, når de overordnede målsætninger er styret af erhvervsøkonomiske overvejelser. Når politikken er en forlænget arm af mere eller mindre private kapitalinteresser som for det meste styrer den demokratiske process og ”folkestemningerne” i en retning som gavner dem, kan lighed og nulvækst (på globalt plan) ikke blive målsætninger.

”Jeg vil ikke af med noget, du vil ikke af med noget, ingen vil give afkald...”...

Det ”nye” i vores unge millennium er, at magteliten ikke alene vil have mere og mere – men nu gerne vedkender sig målet at fravriste undersåtterne mere og mere – VELKOMMEN TILBAGE TIL FEUDALISMEN.

Lidt ufornøjelig ekstra læsning

http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/ECE2056921/corydon-konkurrencestat-er-ny-velfaerdsstat/

http://politiken.dk/debat/debatindlaeg/ECE2035351/universiteterne-boer-laere-af-sportsverdenens-elitepleje/

http://www.hrforum.dk/2014/07/30/chefernes-lon-er-steget-mest/

WELCOME BACK TO FEUDALISM
There might pass a couple of hundred years without noticing that even the most basic values lose their value.
LIBERTY - EQUALITY - BROTHERHOOD
- And then it happens anyway, that what one once sought is now to run away from, considered uninteresting or downright harmful.
Once in the 19^th century the nation's overall aim - particularly in light of socialist and social-liberal ideas – became to serve the whole nations interest, where anyone with the right color of skin and the right language should be encouraged to strengthen the fatherland - often coupled with nationalist, racist and more or less pre-fascist attitudes.
Finally World War II put the nationalist-racist thinking seriously in the doghouse and the capitalist part of the world was then afraid of, that the "socialist" Eastern bloc could get political tailwind west of the Iron Curtain by excessive inequality. Social injustice might, now that fascism seemed overcome, help to strengthen people's inclination towards socialism or communism. So the promotion of equality became something which was allowed and some places even sought: the contemporary social democrat and US-friendly parties and parts of the Democratic Party in the United States who stood near the trade union or/and the civil rights movement.
Working for more equality was no longer malicious but a good way to strengthen stability and continued growth. It was even possible and legitimate to support that the basic supply of energy, certain goods and transport continuously should be handled by the state, municipal or otherwise socialized enterprises to establish / maintain the security of supply for the entire population.

Much of this is unknown or "overcome" intellectual baggage for today's political elites and the majority of the population. It's about promoting inequality. Those who really are in charge only promote ideas about a redistribution from poor to rich: “The Competitive State is the new welfare state” (Bjarne Corydon, Danish Minister of Finance)
The long-term perspective? ABSENT! The world can not stand this paradigm - as little as it could survive the realisation  of ​ equality for all at an American level - with excessive overuse of resources and the dream of constant further growth as the system's engine.

Beside this shift of consciousness away from equality we have established an awareness of resources limitation. Terms such as "sustainability - resource saving - environmentally friendly, etc." have become part of common consciousness, but without pulling the fundamental growth paradigm.
Certainly, Goldman & Sachs help to monetize DONGS wind farms - but they will / 'must' drop these installations at the moment they are not good investments any longer.

We have today an economic system that in some fields operates "unreasonable" in relation to its own ideological foundations by focusing on resource efficiency and renewable energy (despite the fact that coal and oil are still "cheapest"). Simultaneously that very system continues to focus on the growth of consumption - also of tangible goods to be produced and thrown away - and the vast majority made of NOT recycled materials.
Both the nation-state as supranational organizations and power structures are helpless in a real defense of the environment when the overall objectives are guided by business economic considerations. When policy is an extended arm of more or less private capital interests which mostly control the democratic process and public sentiment in a direction that benefits them, equality and zero growth (globally) will NOT become serious political goals.

"I do not want to lose something, you don't want to lose anything, no one will give up  ..."

The "new" paradigm for our young millennium is that our power elite not only wants more and more - but now with pleasure acknowledges the goal to rob the subjects more and more - welcome back to feudalism.

from evil to madness in the name of freedom

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria .....

Already in 1988, when the still existing Soviet Union gave up the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, there was great enthusiasm in the United States and amongst NATO member states to have replaced a brutal dictatorship (with Soviet backrest) by a completely unmanageable chaos of more or less fanatical, criminal and internal warring fractions - everything from local tribal leaders to drug-funded Islamist fighters (who later came to represent the seeds of Al-Qaeda)
But except from the Afghan dictatorship which had bet on the wrong horse, most brutal dictators in the Islamic part of the world were allowed to continue - even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

First, Bush II (George Walker Bush) took freedom as his main agenda for foreign politics and started a new crusade against unfriendly minded dictatorships - after (probably) Al-Qaeda had attacked the United States using hijacked airliners.

As the Taliban directly brayed about giving shelter to Al-Qaeda, driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan was quite reasonable.Worse it was however, as Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, who already had been seriously punished by Bush I (George Herbert Walker Bush) after the attack on Kuwait, now not only was to be thrown from power but also to be killed, in the shelter of the excitement over the apparently swift victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although Saddam Hussein nothing had to do with the attack on the World Trade Center or Al Qaeda, this horrid dictator was the first in a series of men who were removed from power – after the US partly had supported them in the past, like Saddam Hussein himself. (Among others TheWashington Post believes that son George was to avenge father George,as Saddam Hussein had tried to get Bush I assassinated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm)

After Saddam was hanged, the powerful longtime dictators in the Islamic world began to falter under the pressure of a chaotic mix of popular rebellion caused by dissatisfaction with economic conditions, increased religious fanaticism and ethnic conflicts - accompanied by strong support for the insurgency from the West. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was bombed from power by NATO warplanes (the Danish F16 taking part had the assignment to hit Gaddafi himself, but did not succeed)

 - since Syria's Bashar Al-Assad has come under severe pressure from also Western-backed rebel groups.Egypt had its revolution which at the moment is rolled back by a new dictator.

Meanwhile Iraq is currently transformed into a Afghan-style political, religious and ethnic chaos of - with oil wells beneath it all ... 

The fact that Denmark under Bush II's good friend Anders Fogh Rasmussen was involved in many of these chaos-promoting measures, has apparently not resulted in deeper reflection by Western leaders (Denmark included).

In a sad look back at the aforementioned disasters that Denmark has contributed actively to, with some cynical calculation one might hope to that Russias / Putin's aggressive foreign policy will guide NATO and thus Denmark back to a more locally oriented "Home Guard project" which will hopefully understand its limitations better than the global "freedom agenda" which did not bring lasting freedom - only lasting chaos for millions of people who can not escape neither their dictators, nor local warlords, crazed mullahs or local criminal gang leaders ...