If these reforms are, I Vote NO!

After more than twenty years I decided to get back in the queue to the polls to use the immense power that the state has granted me through my expensive Italian citizenship: December 4'm going to vote for the constitutional referendum. I have to inform you as well because in all honesty I have no idea, but I decided to go and vote and will vote NO.
However, before explaining the humble reasons that lead an anarchist like myself to use their precious time to participate in this "democratic" ritual, should plan a full-bodied and substantial
PREMISE
I want to first start by saying that I had to plug my nose and still withstand hard to retch at the thought of being on the same side of the fence of horrifying subjects such as Massimo D'Alema, Zagrebelsky Gustavo, Beppe Grillo and Motion 5 stables all, Matteo Salvini, Renato Brunetta, Silvio Berlusconi and companionship singer (at least sing ...) for whom i have a deep, persistent and constant scorn. But you want, even if a broken clock is right twice a day, when the choice is one of the three can also happen to be on the same side of people that makes you sick.
also state that I do not give absolutely nothing "to topple" the government of the equally despised Matteo Renzi. First, because I do not see a rational reason for a defeat of the government should resign and then yes because even if that happens I do not see on the horizon any Messiah who can save the geographical expression called Italy, militarily occupied by the organization (criminal ) that bears the name of the Italian Republic. I believe that it would take to save themselves:
- Less taxes (possibly zero);
- Less state spending (possibly zero);
- Fewer laws (few, clear and concise);
- Less state employees (possibly zero);
- Less State holdings in companies (possibly zero)
in short, to sum up in two words: LESS STATE.
But carries no political formation these instances, in Italy and I must say in virtually all the rest of the world (the exceptions are always interesting, but irrelevant to the outcome), trivially because who gets to make policy makes it to increase their own power on the other, not to reduce it.
So here it is at best to float or sink.
I think Renzi represents the floating, slow sinking or rather, not for what he does, but for external forces that support him and with him all the Italian State, reduced to an immense elephant in a china shop, already dead but it mummified and kept standing outside for fear of the consequences of his fall.
Probably unaware of the Marxist government (at least D'Alema concussion to read Marx did) Movement 5 stables mean the fast sinking for lack of external support and excess internal gullibility.
In both cases salvation is and remains an individual, then 'sti cocks of very great consequence of the referendum vote policies.
The latest and premise concerns the Italian Constitution: certainly will not vote NO to safeguard the Italian Constitution. The Italian Constitution is shit. Sucks. A jumble given birth Communists and Democrats self proclaimed winners of a lost war that does not respond to three key principles that a constitution should follow: synthesis, clarity and consistency.
Fortunately Antonino Trunfio on these pages regularly makes a meticulous work of criticism of this worthless crap: just read your post, I can only declare myself in agreement on all.
I'm going to vote and will vote NO to the constitutional referendum of December 4 because I made the huge splash of reading reform and believe pejorative than the current system. VERY pejorative. We see, then,
REASONS FOR MY NO
Analyze point by point the constitutional reform would be a long job, boring and completely useless to the bottom. As noted by our Guests the very fact that the reform is so long and complicated is reason enough for a dry and firm NO. But reading it to you if you want you can find it here .
Let us instead of the two pillars of the reform, which is more than enough: the abolition of perfect bicameralism and the Senate reform.
The perfect bicameralism is the process by which the two Houses of Parliament must approve both the exact same piece of legislation before it becomes effective. Any changes made to the text of a law by a Chamber shall be approved on the other. This process is realized in a coming and going of the text between the two chambers until final approval.
All this causes delays in the legislative process.
The reform aims to change this process by ensuring that the Senate votes, only some laws, while others just need the vote of one House of Representatives. In this way, the legislative process would be much faster. You could then do a lot more laws.
Now.
Have you by any chance you had even a moment in your life I do not say sure, but also just a vague feeling that there are too few laws in Italy?
Is there?
There seems to be so?
So you think, Miss Woods, Mr. Renzi?
And the souls of the dead were your worst, in this paesuccio fucking exist tens of thousands of laws and regulations, written with parts of the body intended to defecation by overpaid bureaucrats, in obvious, persistent and total contradiction with each other , so many and messy that the same government can not even tell you not to apply them, but even to explain, for fuck's sake, the so-called "citizen" - it's time to call it by its name, and that is a subject - and your fucking vital problem and priority is to change the Constitution because they can approve even more?
NO. I say NO. And I add, moderately, FUCK.
After this peaceful criticism of the first pillar of the reform, we move to the second, hilarious, pillar: Senate reform. For a while 'I have passed off as "abolition" of the Senate, then they realized that taking the piss was really too exaggerated for minds clouded by tivvù, they are passed to the word "reform."
As mentioned in case of victory of the yes, the Senate will not vote some more laws. But it will not disappear, ever, but simply no longer be elected, but composed of councilors elected by regional councils and a little more even by the President of the Republic, perhaps because otherwise the subjects could begin to suspect that it did not serve a fucking him either. The new Senate will vote only some laws, particularly those concerning the application of European regulations (which then, as known to the bureaucrats are in parks give birth more laws, will be very few, right?) And those of local interest, but also other , whose confusissima and absurd list found in Article 10 of the reform .
Basically we try to merely copy the dysfunctional German parliamentary system, but it is at least consistent because Germany is a Federal State. Instead the Italian Republic is not only federal, but in this same constitutional reform is going to limit the autonomy of the regions, rimodificando Title V, then on the one hand you a more federal parliament, on the other hand is limited federalism. What does it mean? Sarcazzo.
Throughout this whole ordeal it is justified with the mythological "cutting the cost of politics", that when I hear the phrase I put my hand to the gun because I already know that at porn is coming soon: the new senators, in fact, will have regional advisers and perceive already the salary for that role, so they will not receive the salary of senators (but daily allowances and reimbursement miscellaneous expenses, make no mistake, yes).
Now.
Already talking about the cost reduction of parliament when the parliament itself has not only the barbers as employees, but also pays them as an executive of a multinational company, is a jack ass, but if we cut 'sti fucking costs - and them we want to cut, oh if you want to cut - it is no longer easy to start drastically reducing the number of parliamentarians? Let's use, say, twenty, ten senators and ten deputies. So maybe we know them well and know with whom blame for the filth they do. We still want to cut? Let's say these 20 do not take no salary, and live entirely on donations and finished the film. Are the "representatives of the people"? The "people" will be happy to donate a few cents to their representatives, no? NO? And if NO, fuck's sake, it is right to die of hunger!
But once we have with this clever move reduced to zero "costs of" stop policy for the benefit of talking about it and we go to see the hundreds of billions that are thrown in the toilet, because in this paesuccio the state spends billions eight hundred and tell OTTOCENTO the year of public spending, which is a number that you spell that 800 million € 000.00 and I like some suspicion that it is a tantinino exaggerated. Maybe we can do better. A limaturina. What do you say, huh? Un'accorciatina, a trim. We ask barbers House how to do, with all the money that will surely take the world's best in the field.
So even at this, let's face it, crazy shit Senate reform I say, moderately as always, NO.
And that is enough.
The rest of the reform is secondary. It also has something positive, but they are irrelevant details compared to the pillars. They could have let us vote article by article, but I wanted to go all-in, and now, as far as I'm concerned, their seven red with two black can stick it straight in the ass.
I wish to close this post here already too long, but I feel the buzz in the ears of the average piddino, who says the recurring phrase from radical chic in champagnino and hogan "yeah, but if ragionassero all so we would not do anything." Phrase that infuriates me like a Tasmanian devil in speed overdose.
Noting the average piddino that the state does less and better off you are, because you really want to do, I will make
SOME PROPOSALS FOR THE REFORM OF THE CONSTITUTION
First the good, healthy and effective constitutional reform should start with the repeal of the current Constitution: we take it, we print on a roll of toilet paper (probably serve one maxi) and use it to wipe our asses.
Then we start to put some 'of limits: we put a limit on the size of the same Constitution (for example a publishing folder), a limit to the size of the Civil Code, a limit to the size of the Penal Code, a limit to taxation and a limit to spending.
We then add perhaps that the popular initiative laws by parliament - place that should exist -nemmeno we pass and in any case the new laws, as well as international treaties, must be adopted by all and only by a referendum, with a very high quorum ( 75%) and a very high consensus (75%). Maybe we also say that instead the referendums quorum do not have just a simple majority. And we could also say that if by chance the parliamentarians - given that there must be - dare to propose a law that has already been repealed by a referendum, these are hanged or impaled in front of the parliament and their corpses left there for a few months as an incentive for colleagues to do better. Type: you have proposed a proportional electoral law after we have beaten us for years to repeal it and in the end we succeeded? ZAC! Impaled and remains there with a face like a idiot to greet your former colleagues in the morning.
Finally Condiamo all with the possibility of each community to become free and independent, and we ready our new cool fresh constitution to serve the citizens.
Happen? No, not going to happen. But do not say that we have no proposals. I do not like, I know, but we have.
Meanwhile your proposal really makes me shit, so this time I will vote and will vote NO!

Frankreichs neue Scharia-Polizei

• Opfern französische Institutionen eine Freiheit zugunsten einer anderen? Wird das Prinzip der Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau der freien Religionsausübung (des Islam) geopfert, um der französischen Gesellschaft dessen Diktate aufzuzwingen?
• Wenn jemand immer noch nicht erkennt, dass die islamische Kleiderordnung das Trojanische Pferd des islamistischen Jihad ist, dann wird er das schnell lernen.
• Seit Jahren zwingen "große Brüder" ihre Mütter und Schwestern einen Schleier zu tragen, wenn sie aus dem Haus gehen. Und da diese Arbeit jetzt getan ist, haben sie angefangen nichtmuslimische Frauen zu bekämpfen, die Shorts und Röcke tragen - nicht länger nur in sensiblen muslimischen Enklaven, den "No-Go-Areas" der Vororte, wo Frauen es nicht länger wagen Röcke zu tragen - sondern jetzt auch im Herzen großer Städte.
• "Das Gesetz garantiert Frauen in allen Bereichen dieselben Rechte wie Männern."
• Was die Menschen nicht zu wissen scheinen: Im Herzen von Paris kann ein muslimischer Mann Frauen beleidigen, weil sie auf der Straße eine Cola trinken; und in Geschäften wird er zuerst bedient, vor den Frauen.
• Viele Menschen wissen offenkundig immer noch nicht, dass der Islam eine Religion und eine politische Bewegung ist, die sich mit dem Westen im Krieg befindet - und offen beabsichtigt den Westen zu unterwerfen. Ihm muss als solchem begegnet werden. Das Problem besteht darin, dass muslimische Extremisten jedes Mal, wenn entsprechend reagiert wird, Deckung unter der beanspruchten freien Religionsausübung suchen.
• Es ist für westliche Gesellschaften entscheidend damit anzufangen zwischen freier Meinungsäußerung und der Aufstachelung zu Gewalt zu unterscheiden und beginnen Angriffe auf Unschuldige ebenso wie Aufrufe zu Angriffen auf Unschuldige ernsthaft zu bestrafen.

Der Staatsrat, das höchste Verwaltungsgericht Frankreichs, urteilte: Weil es Religionsfreiheit gibt, darf der Burkini nicht verboten werden. Zuerst wirkte das Urteil solide: Warum sollten Menschen nicht in der Lage sein zu tragen, was sie möchten und wann sie das möchten? Was aber nicht sichtbar ist, ist der Schaden, der später kommt.
Wenn jemand immer noch nicht erkennt, dass die islamische Kleiderordnung das Trojanische Pferd des islamistischen Jihad ist, dann wird er das schnell lernen.
Zu ein paar aktuellen Vorfällen gehören:
7. September: In Guingamp (Bretagne) wurde ein 17-jähriges Mädchen in Shorts von einem Mann geschlagen, der ihr Outfit für "zu provokativ" befand. Obwohl der Angreifer entkam, so dass die Polizei keine Ahnung hat, wer er ist oder was sein Hintergrund sein könnte, ist es Vorgeschmack auf das, was kommen wird.
7. September: In Toulon in Südfrankreich befanden sich zwei Familien auf einem Fahrradweg, als sie von einer Bande von 10 "Jugendlichen" (die französische Presse benutzt "jeunes" [Jugendliche] um nicht Araber oder Muslime zu sagen) beleidigt wurde Nach Angaben des örtlichen Staatsanwalts brüllten die "Jugendlichen" die Frauen an: "Huren!" und "Zieht euch aus!" Als die Ehemänner der Frauen protestierten, gingen die "Jugendlichen" auf sie zu und es begann ein Kampf. Einer der Ehemänner wurde mit zahlreichen Brüchen im Gesicht bewusstlos aufgefunden.
Zuerst wurde berichtet, dass das Motiv des Angriffs damit verbunden war, dass die Frauen Shorts trugen, aber tatsächlich trugen sie keine, sondern Leggings.
19. Juli: In einem Resort in Garde-Colombe (Alpen) stach ein Marokkaner auf eine Frau und ihre drei Töchter ein, offenbar weil sie leicht bekleidet waren. Eines der Mädchen wurde schwer verletzt. Der Angreifer, Mohamed, sagte, er sei das "Opfer", weil er behauptete der Ehemann der Frau, auf die er einstach, habe sich vor Mohameds Frau im Schritt gekratzt. Nach Angaben des Staatsanwalts "erinnert sich der Mann des Opfers nicht eine solche Geste getätigt zu haben".
7. Juli: In einem Tageslager in Reims in Ostfrankreich wurde eine Notiz rundgereicht, die die Eltern aufforderte ihre Töchter keine Röcke tragen zu lassen, weil Jungen im Alter von 10 bis 12 Jahren sich anstößig verhielten. Eine Mutter veröffentlichte das Dokument auf Twitter und kommentierte auf Facebook: "Offensichtlich kam niemand auf die Idee, dass nicht kleine Mädchen sich mit ihrer Kleidung großen Widerlingen anzupassen haben, sondern dass große Widerlinge Erziehung brauchen."
Anfang Juni wurde die 18-jährige Maude Vallet von einer Gruppe Mädchen in einem Bus in Toulon bedroht und bespuckt, weil sie Shorts trug. Sie postete ein Foto von sich auf Facebook; darunter schrieb sie: "Hallo, ich bin eine Schlampe." Der Post wurde von mehr als 80.000 Personen geteilt. Die Angreifer waren muslimische Mädchen, aber Maude wollte nach Angaben der "politisch Korrekten", die an "DHNMDIZT" (das hat nichts mit dem Islam zu tun) glauben, ihre ethnische Herkunft nicht offenlegen.

Schnappschüsse von Frankreichs neuer Scharia-Polizei. Links: In Toulon wurde die 18-jährige Maude Vallet in einem Bus von einer Gruppe muslimischer Mädchen bedroht und bespuckt, weil sie Shorts trug. Sie postete ein Foto von sich auf Facebook, das sie mit "Hallo, ich bin eine Schlampe" beschrieb. Rechts: In einem Resort in Garde-Colombe stach ein marokkanischer Mann am 19. Juli auf eine Frau und ihre drei Töchter ein, offenbar weil sie leicht bekleidet waren.

22.April: Nadia, eine 16-jährige, die einen Rock trug, wurde in Gennevilliers, einem Vorort von Paris, von drei Mädchen verprügelt, die offensichtlich muslimisch waren.
Diese Fälle wurden in allen - den offiziellen wie den sozialen - Medien auf dramatische Weise publiziert. Ironischerweise löste jedoch keiner dieser Vorfälle die internationale Aufmerksamkeit und Empörung aus, die einem Burkini-Vorfall in Nizza entgegenschlug: Eine Frau, offenbar Muslima, lag in der Nähe eines Polizeipostens alleine, ohne Handtuch, Buch, Sonnenschirm, Sonnenbrille, Ehemann (oder Bruder oder Vater) zu ihrem "Schutz" an einem Strand, im grellen Mittagssonnenlicht - und ein Fotograf stand in der Nähe bereit und wartete darauf Bilder davon zu schießen, wie sie von vier Polizisten umringt wurde. Wer alarmierte sie? Die Frau erhielt ein Bußgeld und wurde möglicherweise angewiesen auf dem Strand einen Teil ihrer Kleidung abzulegen. Bilder des Vorfalls wurden zuerst am 23. August von der Daily Mail veröffentlicht und verbreiteten sich rasend schnell, lösten internationale Entrüstung über diese scheinbar rassistischen Franzosen aus, die unschuldige arabische Frauen diskriminieren. Eine Woche später deutete die Daily Mail allerdings an, dass dieser Vorfall durchaus "inszeniert" worden und die "Bilder GESTELLT" sein könnten.
Die wahre Frage lautet also: Nutzen Islamisten in Frankreich heute Fotos und Videos auf die Art, wie die Palästinenser es gegen Israel tun? Filmen und verbreiten sie gefälschte und inszenierte Situationen, um globale Empörung über angeblich arme muslimische "Opfer" zu verbreiten - besonders Frauen, die in Frankreich angeblich "diskriminiert" werden?
Wenn fingierter Propaganda erlaubt wird fortzubestehen, werden die Betrüger einen großen Krieg gewinnen.
"Im Krieg, den der Islamismus mit Entschlossenheit gegen Zivilisationen führt, werden Frauen ein richtiges Thema", sagte Berenice Levet, Schriftstellerin und Philosophie-Professorin an der École Polytechnique gegenüber der Tageszeitung Le Figaro.
Sie fügte hinzu:

"Statt Zahlen vorzulegen, die alles und nichts sagen, fordere ich ein für die Anerkennung der Tatsache, dass heute die Geschlechterrollen in Frankreich gezwungen sind sich zurückzuentwickeln. Wenn Domination und Patriarchat sich in unserem Land verbreiten, ausschließlich damit zusammenhängt, dann hat diese Tatsache ausschließlich damit zu tun, dass wir muslimische Werte importiert haben."

Ironischerweise beschloss im selben Moment Frankreichs Ministerin für Familie, Kinder und Frauenrechte, Laurence Rossignol, öffentliche Gelder in eine Werbekampagne gegen "alltäglichen Sexismus" zu stecken - den vermeintlichen Sexismus aller französischen Männer gegen angeblich auf ewig zum Opfer gemachte Frauen. Doch es gab in dieser Kampagne nicht ein einziges Wort über die mögliche Opferrolle oder den möglichen Ausgang aus der zunehmenden Verbreitung der Burqa, des Schleiers oder des Burkinis bei muslimischen Frauen.
Als Kommentar zur Werbekampagne fügte Berenice Levet hinzu:

"Laurence Rossignol sollte Géraldine Smiths Buch Rue Jean-Pierre Timbau. Une vie de famille entre barbus et bobos[1] lesen. Sie würde - unter anderem - erfahren, dass in einigen Geschäften und Bäckereien Männer zuerst bedient werden, vor den Frauen."

In diesem Buch erfahren wir auch, dass im Herzen von Paris ein Muslim eine Frau beleidigen kann, weil sie auf der Straße eine Cola trinkt. Aber für viele, einschließlich Rossignol, scheint der einzige Feind der weiße Franzose zu sein.
Es gibt zwei ernste Frage zu stellen:

• Entsteht in Frankreich eine Scharia-Polizei?
• Opfern französische Institutionen eine Freiheit zugunsten einer anderen? Wird das Prinzip der Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau der freien Religionsausübung (des Islam) geopfert, um der französischen Gesellschaft dessen Diktate aufzuzwingen?

Scharia-Polizei

In Frankreich patrouillieren keine organisierten islamistischen Brigaden auf den Straßen (wie in Deutschland oder Großbritannien), um Alkoholkonsum zu bekämpfen oder Frauen wegen ihrer Art sich zu kleiden zu verprügeln. Doch in der Praxis tun Banden "Jugendlicher", wieder sowohl Männer als auch Frauen, zunehmend genau das. Inzwischen zwingen "große Brüder" ihre Mütter und Schwestern einen Schleier zu tragen, wenn sie aus dem Haus gehen. Und da diese Arbeit jetzt getan ist, haben sie angefangen nichtmuslimische Frauen zu bekämpfen, die Shorts und Röcke tragen - nicht länger nur in sensiblen muslimischen Enklaven, den "No-Go-Areas" der Vororte, wo Frauen es nicht länger wagen Röcke zu tragen - sondern jetzt auch im Herzen großer Städte.
Mehr und mehr versucht das Äquivalent der "islamistischen Tugend-Polizei" diese Standards mit Hilfe von Gewalt durchzusetzen. So sagte Celine Pina, ehemalige Regionalrätin der Île-de-France im Le Figaro:

"Im letzten verzeichneten Angriff [auf die Familien in Toulon], bei dem sie "Huren" und "zieht euch aus" brüllten, verhielten sich die jungen Männer wie eine "Tugendpolizei", von der wir glaubten, dass sie hier bei uns unmöglich wäre...
Man kann es nicht deutlicher ausdrücken: Es ist ein Gebot der Sittsamkeit als sozialer Norm und der Selbstzensur als Verhaltensnorm... es illustriert die Ablehnung des weiblichen Körpers, der als inhärent unrein und schmutzig betrachtet wird...
Die Burkini-Frage, die Verbreitung der Vollverschleierung, Angriffe auf Frauen in Shorts und ihre Begleiter zu verprügeln haben dieselbe Logik: den Körper der Frau zu einer sozialen und politischen Frage zu machen, zum Anzeiger des Fortschritts einer Ideologie innerhalb der Gesellschaft."

Laurent Bouvet, Professor für Politikwissenschaften, vermerkte auf seiner Facebook-Seite, dass sogenannte Menschenrechtsorganisationen - angebliche "Professionelle" zu "Antirassismus" - in der Debatte schwiegen, nachdem die Männer in Toulon geschlagen wurden.

Der Staatsanwalt von #Toulon sagte: "Der Kampf wurde durch eine Kleiderordnung ausgelöst. Diese Frauen trugen keine Shorts... Sexismus ist unbestreitbar. Wo sind die Profis der öffentlichen Empörung?"

Laurence Rossignol, Ministerin für Frauenrechte, schwieg ebenfalls. In Frankreich ist also eine neue Regel entstanden: Je weniger Politiker und Institutionen islamistische Normen kritisieren wollen, desto gewalttätiger ist die Debatte in den sozialen Netzwerken.

Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau oder (islamische) Religionsfreiheit

Im Gegensatz zur donnernden Empörung über die Polizei, weil sie gegen eine Muslima in einem Burkini eine Geldbuße verhängte, schweigen die Politiker und Menschenrechtsorganisationen, wenn nichtmuslimische Frauen gewalttätig angegriffen werden, weil sie Shorts tragen; das signalisiert einen immens wichtigen politischen und institutionellen Schritt: Ein fundamentales und verfassungsmäßiges Recht, die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau, wird im Namen der freien Religionsausübung geopfert, womit man einer Religion (den Islam) ermöglicht dem Rest der Gesellschaft seine Diktate aufzuzwingen.
Blandine Kriegel, Philosophin und ehemalige Präsidentin des Haut Conseil à l'intégration (Hoher Integrationsrat) untersuchte den Burkini-Fall von Nizza und veröffentlichte eine Analyse, in der sie nachwies, dass im Burkini-Fall Säkularismus und individuelle Freiheit überhaupt nicht in Gefahr waren. Aber "prinzipiell und offen wurde die Gleichberechtigung von Männern und Frauen" aufgegeben:

Mit seiner bemerkenswerten Verordnung verweist der Staatsrat auf das Gesetz von 1909 bezüglich des Tragens eines Talars und beachtet die jüngeren Gesetze nicht, über die ein souveränes Volk abgestimmt hat und die den Schleier in Schulen (2004) sowie die Burqa in der Öffentlichkeit (2010) verbieten.
Der Staatsrat fühlte sich auch nicht von der verfassungsmäßigen Verpflichtung gegenüber Frauen angespornt: "Das Gesetz garantiert Frauen in allen Bereichen dieselben Rechte wie Männern."
In der Burkini-Affäre sind weder der Säkularismus noch die individuelle Freiheit in Gefahr; aber grundsätzlich und offen das Prinzip der Gleichberechtigung von Männern und Frauen ... Dieser Begriff, "Burkini", bezieht bewusst das Wort "Burka" ein; dieses Wort drückt nicht den Wunsch aus am Strand schwimmen zu gehen (hier gibt es nichts zu verbieten); auch nicht die Bestätigung einer Religionsfreiheit (kein Bürgermeister hat jemals die Ausübung der muslimischen Religion verboten); das Wort Burkini drückt lediglich die maßgebliche Ungleichheit von Frauen aus.
Im Gegensatz zu ihren Ehemännern, die sich frei fühlen ihre Nacktheit zu zeigen, müssen manche Frauen von Kopf bis Fuß bedeckt sein. Nicht nur, weil sie unrein sind, sondern hauptsächlich wegen des ihnen erteilten Status: Sie unterliegen dem Privatrecht des Ehemannes, des Vaters oder der Gemeinschaft.
Die Republik darf nichts akzeptieren, dass ihren Gesetzen und Werten entgegensteht. Ungleichheit von Frauen kann nicht mit der freien Religionsausübung ... der Gewissensfreiheit verteidigt werden. Diese Frage wurde vor drei Jahrhunderten von unseren europäischen Philosophen thematisiert, die die Gründungsväter der Republik sind. Für diejenigen, die Unterdrückung legitimierten, waren Sklaverei und Ungleichheit nur der Ausdruck des freien Willens, erklärte der französische Philosoph Jean-Jacques Rousseau, der unsere Erklärung [der Rechte des Mannes und Bürgers] von 1789 ebenso anregte wie Freiheit und Gleichheit als unveräußerlichen Besitz.

Frankreichs sozialistische Regierung und Verwaltungsrichter haben es offenbar politisch nützlich gefunden den Islamisten gegenüber Zugeständnisse zu machen. Vielleicht stimmten sie Burkinis ursprünglich nicht nur deswegen zu, weil sie glaubten die Menschen sollten tragen, was sie wollen, sondern auch in der vergeblichen Hoffnung, dass der permanente Druck nachlässt, der zunehmend ein kultureller Jihad zu sein scheint. Es mag ihnen nicht einmal der Gedanke gekommen sei, dass sie möglicherweise das Prinzip der Gleichberechtigung der Frau opfern.
Viele Menschen wissen offenkundig immer noch nicht, dass der Islam eine Religion und eine politische Bewegung ist, die sich mit dem Westen im Krieg befindet - und offen beabsichtigt den Westen zu unterwerfen. Ihm muss als solchem begegnet werden. Das Problem besteht darin, dass muslimische Extremisten jedes Mal, wenn entsprechend reagiert wird, Deckung unter der beanspruchten freien Religionsausübung suchen.
Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die französischen und europäischen Politiker eine harte Linie zwischen dem ziehen, wo das persönlichen Recht auf Religion, wie man sie sieht, endet und wo das Recht der Gesellschaft auf Freiheit und Sicherheit beginnt. Und es ist an der Zeit nicht unbedingt den Burkini, sondern das sehr reale Problem des aggressiven Vorherrschaftsanspruchs zu verbieten.
Die Wurzel des Problems ist die Aufstachelung zu Gewalt. Es ist für westliche Gesellschaften entscheidend damit anzufangen zwischen freier Meinungsäußerung und der Aufstachelung zu Gewalt zu unterscheiden und beginnen Angriffe auf Unschuldige ebenso wie Aufrufe zu Angriffen auf Unschuldige ernsthaft zu bestrafen.

Yves Mamou, aus Frankreich, arbeitete 20 Jahre lang als Journalist für Le Monde.

Who Will Exit the EU Next?

By Adriano Bosoni
The European Union's future has been up for debate since the Continent's economic crisis began nearly a decade ago. But questions about the bloc's path have multiplied in recent years as Greece came close to quitting the eurozone and the United Kingdom voted to relinquish its EU membership for good. "The bloc's demise is not a matter of if, but when," Euroskeptics insisted, to which their Europhile peers replied, "The union is irreversible."
Yet like all political creations, the European Union is a momentary construction in the vast expanse of history. One day it will disappear, to be replaced by other entities, or it will continue in name only, looking and operating far differently from the European Union of today. It is impossible to know exactly when this transformation will happen or just how long the process will take. There are some clues, however, as to how the new Europe will come about and, perhaps even more important, what the agent of change will be. If anything, the Continent's current crisis is a stark reminder that despite decades of attempts to weaken it, the nation-state remains the most powerful political unit in the European Union. And as it emerges from the rubble of the Continent's latest experiment in integration, it will play a crucial role in charting Europe's course forward.

A Union That's Anything but Uniform 

Not all EU members are created equal. Losing a member that belongs to the eurozone, for example, poses a much bigger threat to the rest of the system than the departure of one that does not. The prospect of Greece quitting the currency area in 2015 was probably more frightening to France and Germany than Britain's decision to leave the bloc a year later. To be sure, both events would have serious consequences for the European Union, but a Grexit would have immediately shaken the financial foundation of the entire eurozone. The consequences of the Brexit, however, will be more gradual.
Support for EU institutions likewise varies from country to country. According to the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Poles see the European Union positively — a view only 38 percent of Frenchmen share. Meanwhile, the latest Eurobarometer poll has put support for the eurozone at a whopping 82 percent in Luxembourg, compared with a mere 54 percent in Italy. The Euroskepticism sweeping the Continent has assumed different forms wherever it has taken root: France's National Front advocates leaving the European Union, while Italy's Five Star Movement calls for abandoning only the eurozone. At the same time, moderate political parties are increasingly seeking to end the free movement of workers and to reintroduce border controls, even as they hold onto their EU membership.
Amid these varying demands and faced with the prospect of a Grexit and Brexit, the European Union is being forced to consider the process for leaving the union and whether countries should be allowed to remain members of some parts of the bloc and not others. During discussions on the Greek bailout last year, some countries argued that leaving the eurozone also meant leaving the European Union. Others proposed ways to suspend Athens' membership in the currency area while preserving its place in the Continental bloc. A year later, the same debates are being had about Britain. Several EU members have said that access to Europe's internal market comes at price — namely, accepting EU workers — while others have proved more open to finding a compromise. Regardless of how the talks between London and Brussels shake out over the next few years, they will eventually result in a roadmap for leaving the bloc that other members could use to guide their own departures.
Of course, this raises another question: Why would countries want to leave the European Union or its structures in the first place? Again, the answer depends on the member. Some governments, whether backed by a popular referendum or parliamentary approval, might voluntarily choose to leave. Studies like the latest Eurobarometer, which showed that the Continent's trust in the European Union dropped sharply from 57 percent in 2007 to 33 percent in 2016, suggest that the British referendum may not be the last of its kind. On the other hand, some governments might be forced out of the bloc, should they become politically or financially unable to accept the conditions attached to retaining their membership. (Athens, for instance, made a conscious decision to consent to creditors' demands in order to stay in the eurozone.) Still others could depart as the entities they belong to dissolve, either as the result of a consensual decision or because of an existential crisis.

Likelihood and Consequence 

Which countries choose to renounce their membership in the European Union or its institutions will determine the bloc's fate. The organization could probably weather Croatia's departure, but it would not survive France's. There is also something to be said for the strength in numbers: The flight of a single, small economy would not endanger the European Union, but a coordinated exit of several assuredly would.
Certain political and geographic factors will affect members' chances of someday withdrawing from the Continental bloc. A large Euroskeptic population could pressure its government to opt out of the European Union, or encourage politicians to do so in pursuit of higher approval ratings. Countries with strong economies or strategic locations on the Continent could use their advantages to wrangle a better exit deal — or to exact concessions from Brussels in exchange for staying in the bloc. Members with weaker economies, meanwhile, may have less choice in the matter, since they would likely be the first casualties of any new EU crisis to arise.
By and large, EU members can be divided into four categories of countries based on the likelihood and consequences of their departure from the union.

The Outsiders 

In recent years, some of the European Union's harshest critics have been Central and Eastern European members that do not belong to the eurozone. Many of these countries view the European Union as a pact among states that should remain sovereign, and they have guarded their national powers from Brussels' ever-expanding reach. Hungary and Poland lead the pack in their resistance to deeper European integration, but states like the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria have become similarly skeptical of the eurozone and proposals to increase Brussels' authority.
This is not to say that these countries are willing to desert the bloc. All are net receivers of EU aid and subsidies, and they see EU membership as a route to modernizing their economies and attracting foreign investment. Some even view the bloc as a guarantee of the West's protection against Russian aggression. The majority of voters in the region, moreover, still support the idea of staying in the European Union.
Nevertheless, Central and Eastern European states will not hesitate to assert their national rights and advocate weaker EU institutions. Their opposition to integration will lend momentum to Euroskeptic movements across the Continent seeking to renegotiate terms with Brussels. Over time, persistent anti-EU rhetoric could boost nationalist and populist forces in the region, cornering governments into making decisions that may run counter to their strategic goals.

The Fragile Periphery 

By comparison, countries in the eurozone's periphery tend to support deeper European integration, though they are also among the most vulnerable economies in the bloc. These states, which include Greece, Portugal and Spain, rely on EU subsidies and development funds to stay afloat. They will continue to back the concept of Continental integration as long as it means financial aid for their foundering economies.
The region has had its own complaints about the European Union, but most did not appear until the Continent's financial crisis — and the austerity measures that followed — began. Even then, instead of the right-wing nationalism that emerged elsewhere in the bloc, these countries largely supported left-wing parties that wanted to increase spending and restructure debt rather than close borders or restrict immigration. (Right-wing nationalism rose somewhat in Greece, but it did not rise nearly as dramatically as it did in Northern Europe.)
The states along the eurozone's southern edge may leave the currency zone at some point. But if they do, it is more likely to be in response to an unexpected crisis than a planned decision. Though these countries have similar visions of what they think the European Union looks like in the future, their political and economic weakness will make it difficult for them to form an effective alliance and to take charge of the bloc's decision-making process. And as weak growth, feeble banking sectors, large debts and high unemployment continue to take an economic toll, these countries' traditionally pro-Europe populations could slowly start to turn on the bloc.

The Coalition Builders 

The closer Euroskepticism creeps to the Continent's economic and political core, the more dangerous it will become for the bloc. Northern European countries such as Austria, Finland and the Netherlands are some of the eurozone's richest and most fiscally disciplined members. These states are largely preoccupied with protecting their national wealth from Southern Europe, and they have strong Euroskeptic parties that seek to defend their sovereignty against the interference of EU institutions. That said, they also have an incentive, given their economies' reliance on exports, to protect their markets abroad — most of which belong to the European Union.
Northern European countries tend to coordinate their moves with their neighbors and with larger powers. They are far more likely to collectively push for Continental reform or for the creation of regional blocs than they are to risk their own isolation by acting unilaterally. Though states like Denmark and Sweden are not part of the eurozone, they are culturally and ideologically similar to their counterparts in Northern Europe and could someday join them in a regional replacement for the European Union. Talk of forming a "northern eurozone" or "northern Schengen" has become common in this part of Europe.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are in some ways an exception, though. They joined the European Union and eurozone to discourage Russian aggression by linking themselves as closely to the West as possible. As the home of the European Union's most important institutions, Belgium is also set apart from its Northern European neighbors, and regional politics often take precedence over national efforts to chip away at the bloc's influence. Each of these countries is unlikely to leave the European Union or eurozone of its own volition, though they could become part of a northern alliance should the bloc dissolve.

The Big Three 

If the nation-state will be the primary agent of the European Union's coming transformation, it stands to reason that the bloc's largest members — Germany, France and Italy — will be at the forefront of it.
Italy has historically seen European integration as a means to tie itself to its prosperous northern neighbors and to preserve the unity of the country. But over the past decade, Italians have become some of the Continent's most Euroskeptic citizens, thanks to their country's skyrocketing debt and political instability. Italy is therefore one of the countries that is most likely to use the threat of its exit to squeeze concessions from Brussels. Rome has already leaned on the "too big to fail" argument in its negotiations with the European Union, and future Italian administrations are likely to do the same. But as Europe continues to fragment, each threat will become more dangerous to the bloc than the last.
France and Germany, meanwhile, hold the key to the European Union's future. Even the suggestion of a French or German exit from the bloc or its currency zone would risk triggering a massive structural overhaul. By the same token, the two countries' continued buy-in could be enough to keep the European Union — or some version of it — together. But France and Germany face a paradoxical problem: For strategic reasons they need to maintain a united front, but their national interests continue to pull them apart.
France, as both a Mediterranean and Northern European nation, has found itself torn between a desire to protect its economy and the need to preserve its alliance with Germany. Paris tends to support protectionist and risk-sharing measures, and it has a high tolerance for inflation. Berlin, however, prefers to avoid policies that threaten its wealth and share the risk created by Southern Europe's weak economies. Germany would only agree to France's approach if Berlin were given more control over the fiscal policies of its neighbors — something many countries would find unacceptable. Of the two, France is more likely to act first in demanding the European Union's reorganization because of its rising nationalism and sluggish economic growth. But Germany, hamstrung by its own national interests, would find it tough to compromise with its longtime partner.
At this point, reaching a consensus on a path forward has become all but impossible for the European Union's members. To knit themselves even closer together, EU states would have to compromise on issues that are too important to budge on. The alternative option — reversing European integration — is gaining ground, but it comes with the very real possibility of leading to the bloc's complete dismantling. Members could take a middle road of sorts by choosing to keep things as they are, but even inaction would come at a price, promising even greater problems for the troubled bloc down the line.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/who-will-exit-eu-next

WALL STREET JOURNAL: '' The UN AGENCY UNHCR REFUGEES ABANDON CHRISTIANS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND LIBYA. SAVE ONLY MUSLIMS ''

Friday, October 7, 2016

NEW YORK - From the pages of the "Wall Street Journal", the director of
the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, Nina Shea,
addresses a harsh indictment in Washington and Antonio Guterres, former
'UN agency's director for Refugees ( UNHCR), and the next appointment as
Secretary general of the United Nations.

Guterres said last December that Christian refugees who had escaped the
brutality 'Isis in Iraq and Syria, victims of conflicts in those two
countries and often the violence of their fellow Muslims, should not be
transferred to the West.

Yet, Shea points out, just six months ago, the US Secretary of State,
John Kerry, has formally charged the Isis of "genocide" against
Christians, Yazidis and other groups and religious minorities in the
areas under the control of the so-called Caliphate.

"Why - he asks Shea and with it the Wall Street Journal that gives great
prominence on the front page of this intervention - the Obama
administration has entrusted the survival of these people and the
precious US aid to a UN agency (l ' high Commissioner for refugees
UNHCR-ed), which like its parent organization has never acknowledged the
existence of this genocide? ".

The US State Department claims to be committed to supporting the
minorities who have fled Syria and Iraq, along with other refugees from
those countries, precisely through the United Nations. From 2012 to date
the United States has allocated to humanitarian support for the Syrians
$ 5.6 billion, all managed by the UN.

Yet, accusing the author of the editorial, "UNHCR marginalize Christians
and other objectives of the Isis extermination campaign in two critical
programs from which they are systematically excluded: housing for
refugees in the region and outplacement of Syrian refugees abroad ".

Even in the US, the extension of the introduction program of Syrian
refugees President Barack Obama "is serving a constant
underrepresentation of genocide survivors in Syria": the data of the
State Department show that "of the 12,587 Syrian refugees admitted to
the US as last fiscal year, just 68 were Christians, and only 24 members
of the community 'Yazidi ".

This' means that "only 0.5 percent of Syrian refugees welcomed in the US
are Christians, even though they have long constituted 10 percent of the
Syrian population."

And 'un'ccusa tough and documented that reveals a real horror: the
dell'amminisrazione disinterest Obama and the Democratic Party for the
Christian holocaust in the Middle East, disinterest widens the UN and
even the Catholic Church.

Just facing the issue last month, during a hearing in the Federal
Senate, the deputy assistant to the US Secretary of State, Simon
Henshaw, said that only 1 percent of registered Syrian refugees are
Christians, a figure that " and 'in any way compatible with the
statements of last August by the Syrian Catholic Patriarch Younan,
according to which half a million Syrian Christians - about half' of the
total - have fled the country. "

They were all massacred Or they are not considered "refugees" just
because they are Christians? And then abandoned to their fate of
suffering and death? Only these, are the possibilities.

"The Department of State speculates that Christians do not want to be
transferred abroad, and for that you do not register the lists for
ricollocamenti - The Wall Street Journal". According to Shea, pero ',
"all signs point to UNHCR: a report on the Christian refugees in Lebanon
cured last January by the Catholic News Service report in fact a real
discrimination on the part of the UN UNHCR against Christians, which
they are ignored by agency officials after the initial interviews. And
abandoned to their tragic fate. they are Muslims favorites, ever. "

Questioned personally by Shea last December, during a press conference
in Washington, Antonio Guterres replied with statements "shocking but
enlightening" the Syrian Christians, he said, should not be transferred
to the West 'cause I'm part of the "DNA of the Middle East ".
Statements, accusing the author of the editorial, "that sound like the
articulation of a discriminatory policy by purposes' policies." The
ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Middle East.

Google translator

October 1 the world economy will change

(Google translator)
Today the International Monetary Fund will insert the yuan, the Chinese currency, the club of coins authorized to be traded globally.

A currency in this international elite earns the right to be part of the "supermoneta" Official Monetary Fund, called SDR (Special Drawing Right), which until now was composed of the following currencies with the following percentages:

sdr-today

As from tomorrow, with the inclusion of the yuan, the SDR will have the following composition:

sdr-tomorrow

The most serious official media such as Bloomberg, could not help but point out this historical event (you will see that in a few weeks or months even the Sole 24 Ore will arrive there, be patient!). But in commenting on the news they are focusing on the finger, instead of talking of the moon.

The "finger" highlighted by the media is the fact that China was finally admitted into the "club" international economic.

But it is a detail after all limited. That's not the real reason why October 1, 2016 will go down in economic history of our grandchildren.

As I said in the article of 14 September, the real historical event is another.

This is the transition of power in the world economy by central banks to the IMF.

They 'a process not without conflict, as central bankers, especially the US Federal Reserve, will not yield the throne so easily.

But why is this happening?

Because central banks have failed their monetary policies and the IMF now proposes a recipe of his own to resolve the situation.

What central banks have failed?

To maintain a sufficient level of liquidity in the world, while governments are enriched by increasing their debt (ie issuing more government bonds to raise cash).

As we all know, the real cash economy never arrived; whereas in fact, this economic system based on debt is bringing recession and deflation in the world.

Unfortunately, the central banks have not been able to prevent this from happening. So, as the debt nears its unsustainability, they have more and more on the neck the breath of the IMF, which publishes more explicit economic analysis in which shows how it is now only a matter of time before everything collapses on him.

But what is the recipe that the IMF would like to apply as an alternative to the failed policies of central banks (and what enters into this the yuan and the SDR)?

Here we come to the heart of the problem.

As you know, the currency in which it is carried out most of the trade in the world is the dollar.

So, when we speak of the need to increase the liquidity in the real economy, we are referring mainly to the availability of dollars.

The US Federal Reserve (Fed) has sought to achieve this by lowering interest rates, so as to make it much less expensive for companies to borrow in US dollars, that is self-financing by issuing bonds (corporate bonds) with low interest rates pay the debtors.

In practice, in parallel with the growing state debt, the Fed has done nothing but create an equal, if not greater amount of private debt of companies for a total of 60 trillion (million million) dollars from 2009 to 2015.

This is for the Fed wanted to say "give cash" businesses, ie the real economy.

But the facts have shown that when the world economy goes into recession, companies, although they can easily be financed with debt, do not survive.

Indeed, the debts become a noose that quickly brings these companies to fail (as seen for example with the oil companies, choked by low oil prices).

Far indebt companies does not mean, therefore, prevent the downturn in the economy.

This is because the world economy is more complex than the Fed intends.

Increase the supply of dollars (in the form of the state and private companies USA) bonds, in addition to failing to ensure liquidity, has also led to a paradoxical reduction in dollars available and an excessive strengthening of the dollar against all other currencies .

The strong dollar has so literally destroyed the economy, making trade between America and its trading partners now difficult.

The experiment of the Fed seems to come to an end.

And it is at this point that the IMF (and the elites of American power who support it) would intervene with its solution.

What solution?

According to the IMF, to inject liquidity into the system, you should not use the dollar (or bonds denominated in dollars), but the supermoneta the IMF itself, ie the SDR that we saw at the beginning of this article.

To use the SDR, however, it requires the cooperation of all nations that "count" in world trade, and also of China.

The inclusion of the yuan nell'SDR (which is the case today) is therefore a necessary step for the use of this supermoneta.

If you think the use of the SDR is something improbable, almost science fiction or conspiracy blog, you should know that in fact the SDR has already been used:

    In 1979, after the outbreak of hyperinflation in the US and the loss of the dollar's dominance as a world trading currency, the IMF issued SDR of 12.1 billion dollars worth to enter new liquidity to the system
    In 2009, in a deflationary crisis this time, the IMF issued SDR amounting to 310 billion dollars.

This time, however, the IMF does not intend to issue SDR episodically, to buffer of emergencies.

In a document of July 2016, the IMF issued a policy program called "M-SDRs".

The title makes it clear what it's about. "M" in fact stands for "Market" and refers to the issue of SDR "of" distinct market since the "O-SDRs", where the "O" stands for "Officials" and refers to the issue of the official SDR only part of the IMF.

According to this document, the last times (1979 and 2009), the SDR were the "Official" type, issued directly by the IMF only for contingent reasons.

But now the IMF wants to turn the SDR SDR-M, that is, in a global currency traded in a permanent position in the market. And to do that, bonds in the SDR should be able to be placed on the market free of any institution, not necessarily by the IMF itself.

On 31 August, the Central Bank has now accepted the invitation, by issuing on its own 500 million SDR (700 million dollars) in the form of bonds.

And in what market they were issued these SDR?

In the Chinese currency market, by agreement signed by four Chinese banks.

In return, starting today, the inclusion of the yuan in the SDR basket will ensure that whenever an institution or an investment fund will buy SDR, will indirectly support the yuan.

We must not think that this was a "suicidal" move on the part of American elites.

Between China and the US there is a pact that binds the dollar and the yuan so that the two currencies are "peggate", as the jargon. That is, when a salt, salt also the other and vice versa.

The issuance of bonds in the SDR to be bought in China was therefore not in conflict with this "pact" since both China and America want to devalue their currencies in relation to all others. And the issuance of SDR will help accomplish this.

But the IMF project is more ambitious.

The SDR emission in China is only a first step for the success of this supervaluta on the dollar.

If international trade were used SDRs instead of dollars, the current currency wars going on between the countries whose currencies make up the SDR would cease.

It would create a small circle of countries that dominate the currency market, at the expense of other currencies excluded from the "club".

The commercial interests of the "club" countries would be governed not by currency wars, but by agreements made within the IMF and G20 on the percentage composition of the SDR basket.

This ultimate goal could be achieved in two main scenarios:

    the progressive scene
    the catastrophic scenario

Let's see them both:

    Progressive scenario:

bonds denominated in SDR will be used for a long time together with the dollar bonds.

The tendency on the part of many countries, to divest the dollar bonds has been going on for a couple of years and the SDR will only fit into this process, which will follow the stages gradually established by the various countries.

It will not be a linear process. Central banks will continue to create distortions. Some countries will be forced again to continue to use dollars, but then there will be other pressures to favor the use of SDR (and why not? Also yuan).

Not being a project managed by a single governing body, we do not know if it will ultimately prevail a mixed system of most global currencies, or a system based on the yuan or sull'SDR.

    catastrophic scenario:

the IMF could impose the use of the SDR in the course of a possible (and very likely) global systemic crisis.

As in 1978 and 2009, the IMF would issue the SDR during the crisis, but then try to get them to use permanently.

Some analysts have noted however that in the last G20 (held their own in China) veto power of the BRIC countries has been increased so as to equal that of the United States.

Their hypothesis therefore is that during the crisis, the IMF will issue the SDR as usual, but it will be just the BRIC countries to impose permanent use as a global currency instead of the dollar, threatening otherwise to veto their emission.

The truth is that after all we do not know how things will go really.

What at the moment we can say with some certainty is that the dollar will suffer a devaluation of at least 30%.

And this not because of currency wars, but for a project approved for a part of American elites and the Chinese government.

The devaluation of the dollar (and therefore the inflation trigger liquidity that central banks have not been able to cause) is the only way to unlock the global recession that now seems so inevitable.

The downside is that no inflationary policy in history has ever managed to remain under control. On the contrary, it is always out of hand to the states that have carried out.

If this devaluation will be accompanied affirmation SDR as global currency, will there be any hope of controlling it?

According to the IMF it is so, but in reality no one can say for sure, because it's never happened before an event and there are no historical data on which to make predictions.

All that we at the Stock Exchange Signals can do is to constantly monitor the situation and understand each time its evolution.

For now, keep in mind all that you read in this article, because it will be the basis to understand what will happen in the future.

Even seemingly distant events, such as the "case" Deutsche Bank, the American elections, and more, are always connected to this undercurrent scenario.

There is a tug of war going on between various elites in America, some linked to the central bank, the IMF and others from it depends the future of America, Dollar, Europe, emerging countries and the world economy.