Slut på et samlet EU?

Den hollandske forfatter David VAN REYBROUCK fremlægger en statsmodel, der giver tilfældigt udvalgte borgere ansvar for anbefalinger inden for EU på tværs af parti- og-alle-mulige-andre-skel

I et åbent brev til præsidenten for Europakommissionen, Jean-Clause Juncker, foreslår den hollandske forfatter David VAN REYBROUCK en anden vej til fælles Europa end den gamle model med at lade folk stemme hvert 4-5 år. han mener, at vi kun har indtil Brexit at vågne op, fordi vi risikerer at den europæiske venstredrejning – der giver stemme til en gammel, indestængt vrede forårsaget af flertalsdiktur [også kaldet demokratur] – forårsager en splittelse af Europa.

Artiklen er skrevet lige efter valget af Donald Trump til præsident for USA, og der er derfor måske kun 10 måneder tilbage til at handle i.

global parliament

the global parliament, or Earth Forum, is an idea I have entertained for a few years. In 2012 I called it World Council, (tumblr) (1000stemmer), which in brief was an idea to centralise a fact-gathering of global worries as topics for locals, professionals and other interested to comment on.

I realise I am not the only one speculating in the direction of a community driven council to the people of Earth, but with recent and sudden changes in global stressors I was inspired to finalise a framework comparable to community service.

Continue reading “global parliament”

Den Aflyste Kunstner. Danmark atter officielt et kunstnerisk Uland.

SKAT er nu det politiske svar på boghandlernes bestsellerliste.

BEMÆRK: Omtalte dom siger, at SKAT ikke vil tillade, at man alene lever og laver kunst på basis af sit livsvarige Kunstlegat, hvis man ikke har udsigt til salg. Hér er domsteksten: Continue reading “Den Aflyste Kunstner. Danmark atter officielt et kunstnerisk Uland.”

Don’t let them do the watching for you. [Fwd: They want to ██████ the Internet]

(those were the good ole’ days)

Since my ISP will not let me protect my email friends by sending this BBC, I will make it public here:

Kære gode menneske på nettet,

Dear good person on the net,

In two days international powers convene to try and put a central control mechanism on the Internet.

Limitations of both access and bandwidth today constitute punishment. “Three strikes and you’re out” and the Syrian national internet turned off are nasty examples of this kind of control. But exclusion tactics, isolation and repression of possible-media-shared are just the beginning of what Internet control is about.

Basically putting surveillance on everyone means mistrusting human communication – a belief that human communication is detrimental to human survival. Is that plain stupid, an expression of power hunger, or just a very, very fearful way of looking at the world?

Imagine the worst kind of surveillance you can, and you will have people out there negotiating to make it happen. The strive to control the Internet and your doings on the net is very real.

IF we want a world, where understanding of human differences and similarities is passed on to our children, we need a globally connected world, where openness and responsibility is the first order – and not fear of isolation, censorship or incarceration for speaking our mind.

Global communication DOES come with a price – the demand that each and every one of us stay critical of our joint communication. But if I or you do nothing about the plans to control global communication, in effect we prevent everyone prsent and future from learning about everyone. Learning how to become a global person will stop being an exploration and a thing of freedom and joy. And become a thing of fear.

Please sign this avaaz petition and pass on the email below or all of it. Doing so is part of assuming the responsibility of global communication that these power-brokers say we cannot handle ourselves.

kærlig hilsen,


Start på videresendt besked:

Fra: “Pascal V –” <>

Dato: 10. dec 2012 17.55.10 CET

Til: “krabat” <krabat>

Emne: They want to ██████ the Internet

Dear Avaazers,    Authoritarian regimes are pushing for governmental control over the internet in a binding global treaty. If they succeed, the internet could become less open, more costly and much slower. We’ve stopped threats like this before, and we can again — but only with a massive global outcry. Sign the petition and share with everyone you know:

Right now at a UN meeting in Dubai, authoritarian regimes are pushing for full governmental control of the Internet in a binding global treaty — if they succeed, the internet could become less open, more costly and much slower. We have only 2 days to stop them. The Internet has been an amazing example of people power — allowing us to connect, speak out and pressure leaders like never before. That’s largely because it’s been governed to date by users and non-profits and not governments. But now countries like Russia, China and United Arab Emirates are trying to rewrite a major telecom treaty called the ITR to bring the Internet under its control — the web would then be shaped by government interests and not by us, the users. Tim Berners Lee, one of the “fathers of the Internet,” has warned that this could increase censorship online and invade our privacy. But if we object with a massive people-powered petition, we can strengthen the hand of countries fighting this power grab. We have stopped attacks like this before and can do it again before the treaty text is locked this week. A wave of opposition to a new ITR is already building — sign the petition to tell governments hands off our Internet! and then forward this email to everyone you know — when we hit 1 million signers, it’ll be delivered straight to the delegates at this cozy meeting:  The meeting to update the ITR (International Telecommunication Regulations) is being convened by a UN body called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Normally, it wouldn’t merit much attention, but Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and others are trying to use the meeting to increase government control of the Internet through proposals that would allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and traffic-blocking, and introduce new fees to access content online. At the moment, our Internet has no central regulatory body, but various non-profit organisations work together to manage different technological, commercial and political interests to allow the Internet to run. The current model is certainly not without its flaws. US dominance and corporate influence highlight the need for reform, but changes should not be dictated from an opaque governments-only treaty body. They should emerge from an open and transparent, people-powered process — putting the interests of us users in the center. The ITU does extremely important work — expanding affordable access for poor countries and securing networks — but it’s not the right place to make changes to how the Internet operates. Let’s ensure that our Internet stays free and governed by the public and show the ITU and the world that we won’t stay silent in the face of this Internet attack. Click below to sign and then share this email widely:  Avaaz members have come together before to save the free web — and won. More than 3 million of us demanded the US kill a bill that would have given the government the right to shut down any website, helping push the White House to drop its support. In the EU, the European Parliament responded after 2.8 million of us called on them to drop ACTA, another threat to the free net. Together, now we can do it again.  With hope,  Pascal, Ian, Paul, Luca, Caroline, Ricken, Kya and the rest of the Avaaz team  SOURCES Cerf and Berners Lee Criticize ITU Conference (IT Pro Portal): ITU and Google face off at Dubai conference over future of the internet (Guardian): Keep the Internet Open (New York Times): Proposal for global regulation of web (Financial Times): Who controls the Internet? (Guardian): Support the Avaaz Community!We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way. is a 17-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 19 countries on 6 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter. To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US)

You are (becoming) owned!

what is yours, may not be yours!

Imagine not legally being able to sell your own stuff! Your grandmother’s designer rocker, your iPhone 6, your Stuff-a-bear at a garage sale, because the law grants the intellectual right’s holder the legal right to decide, how your used item is disposed of and at what price…!

WHICH ONE THING would you try to peddle in the street, if this law was passed – in a worldwide garage sale?

From an email received from Demand Progress:

Friends, I’m passing along this email from Demand Progress about an important upcoming Supreme Court case that affects all Americans.

A few months ago Demand Progress — joined by over 100,000 Internet users and a coalition of public interest groups — asked President Obama to take action and protect consumers’ rights to resell their own things.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case (Kirstaeng v. Wiley) that will decide whether you have the right to sell your iPod, books, and other goods on eBay and Craigslist — or even at your own yard sale.

But the entertainment industry lobbyists at the MPAA and RIAA have filed a brief in the Supreme Court mocking consumers’ concerns — just like they did during the SOPA Fight.

These special interests admit that they want the Supreme Court to decide against the interests of ordinary Americans and protect the music and film industries’ “ability to control entry into distinct markets.”

You heard that right — Hollywood admits that controlling their CD and DVD markets is more important than consumer rights.

Amazingly, the Obama administration agrees and has rejected the pleas of thousands of ordinary consumers.

The White House’s solicitor general filed a legal brief rejecting our arguments and allowing big businesses to sue people for reselling their things online.


-Demand Progress

The Supreme Court will hear this case in a couple of weeks, so please get your friends involved right away:

If you’re already on Facebookclick here to share with your friends.

If you’re already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet

WHICH ONE THING would you try to peddle in the street, if this law was passed – in a worldwide garage sale?

Before, there was an Internet; now it’s a “legitimate library”!

The book industry CAN win over the whole globe.


The English speaking Book industry centered in USA – “a coalition of the world’s largest book publishers including Cambridge University Press, Harper Collins, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons” – has managed to shut down possibly the largest private book repository in the world with public access, containing among its 400.000 downloadable books enough copyright violation works to have a court judge warrent an order of closure.

The Publishers cheered. “It is a victory”, said  Stephen M. Smith, President and CEO of John Wiley & Sons. “This action reflects our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”.

Legitimate use of the Internet! Are they crazy? Or plain stupid!?

Their BS-spin is cooking up pretense agendas – as if the internet was a road and it had been taken over by robbers stifling progress for all and the way forward was to rid the road of robbers.

It’s quite the reverse, actually! The Publishers acting on behalf of everyone become the robbers, wanting to hold back natural evolution, and the road connects everyone with everyone.

The Internet is the World, brothers and sisters. The Internet is the world speaking to itself, and the powers that be are doing their damndest to stop the World from developing.

The world is not just using the Internet,

the World is being shaped by the ability of people to communicate instantaneously, and it is happening fast.

Yes, you are afraid, and naturally so:

Everything is verging towards a massive change – what doom sayers need call “a collapse of the old ways”. The natural response of government and real power is to try and stall the progress, to give businesses time to adjust – have the economic structure invent itself to retain a high motivational factor in order to keep the wheels turning, even if there is not much hope. Then war will step in, or famine, or natural disasters, or TV, or plain threats of loss of more jobs, or food (food is not quite an issue yet in the western world), something will come about, which will be aided, orchestered in the desired direction by the Powers that be, towards a retention of stability – by shifting the world’s attention to easy, understandable, physical occurances, and away from abstract change in the freedom of expressing needs and opinions.

Yes, yes, yes, you are right. Lack of cohesion IS setting in. And the fault is in communication – in your blatant disregard for what communicative desire IS:

We all create with our minds. Creation in a human being is a communication process adjusting inner needs and talents to outer needs and limitations. Creation means acknowledging both needs and change. Creating more ways to hang on to power and earn more money IS creation in the sense of the word, you could say. All creatures resist death, in any way possible, by shedding all factors of existence that present themselves as burdens.

Same with big business. Big, old mono-businesses have no momentum to be inventive players like all small businesses rushing to accommodate change, and begin the process of dieing, which to some is a horrible thing, while to others just the balance ever so slowly shifting towards an inner collapse. And in that process  the old ones stand in the way of the creativity and devolopment of the rest.

Such refusal to roll over and die is very well, and even encouraging too. But when dinosaurs of the book industry refuse to change, refuse to invent technology and go first, refuse to accept other people doing it for them, and when they can have the power to turn the global network into a pet from their own fear, lazyness and lack of flexibility in a changing world, and when they present their refusal to neither die nor change by claiming moral superiority over the rest of the world, as in “our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”, its time to


There are many ways to affect change. People could be guided, but nobody powerful wishes to guide them. People could be consoled, but nobody powerful possess neither sufficient heart nor responsibility or means of consolation. The empowerment is coming from below instead. Call it “a revolution”, if you will, but just remember: A revolution is not always a succes. A revolution, a turning of the cards, can lose by succeding. It can die in the instant the troops (i.e. people) start poring in. And become mainstream, and nobody sees or notices it. And all the industries will rush to exploit its present potential of momentum.

The right word in this regard is evolution. And that just happens, no matter what. It counts the factors of every action, every opinion, every occurrence, every shift in the equilibrium. But what is inside this is freedom to shape the future from your own needs and regard for necessities, quality and essence. Except you are bound by law.

The book industry, along with all the other copyright moguls, have the law on their side. The law of ownership keeping the world economy and industry stable. They CAN win over the whole globe on the pretext of protecting stability.

IF that happens, they themselves will wish that they had been able to pull out of their abject refusal to step down and let flexible initiative take over. The consequences of the refusal to die of all the old World right-owership coalitions are that monitoring and privacy violations will see a marked increase in stress related deaths. Lowered life expectancy in the western world, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the arab world. A brief new flood of physical mail as a way of retaining privacy. Then illegal subnets. Then back to status quo. There is NO way of stifling communication and creation that has tasted the freedom of access to a bigger world.  Only misery will follow from trying to stop individuals’ need for expansion into the minds of everyone else.

Ahead lies only total monitoring, or letting go. Demand for security converging with rising desire of privacy. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg, and flocks of anti-restriction memes will soon inhabit the space of “Free Will”, if nothing is done about this habit of trying to control the masses.

We are the masses. The Earth. The 99%.

Un-controling the masses has never been done, I think. Letting go of the leash, after the fact of control. Not in any age. So, history serves as no indicator of un-controlled masses, other in a very limited fashion – in times of war and civil disturbances.

The future in that regard is a blank slate, and the economy and thus personal empowement springing from capitalism demand it stay relatively blank for the masses. And the only way to that goal is through control. Control on a global scale makes the future predictable, for the select few to benefit from, and everyone else to fall in line behind. On a moral high ground to protect the world from itself…

Is this better than the freedom to fail?

Inspirative source:

Du ska ha briller, Jante!!

INGEN er KUN bange. Hverken ét menneske eller en kultur.


Janteloven er ét menneskes blik på et helt samfund, ét syn – som 2013 bliver 80 år i Aksel Sandemoses opfindelse – men selvom det i dag har fået en betydning, der rækker videre end fællesskabets udjævning af alle forskelle, så er det stadig kun ÉT syn. Og abonnement herpå er helt frivilligt.

Aksel Sandemose i 1950'erne.


“Janteloven” var oprindelig undfanget som satire, men er i dag anvendt om et helt folks handlemåder, om Danskernes folkesjæl, af såvel udlændinge som af folk selv – skønt enhver med lige så god ret kunne lægge alle mulige andre vinkler på de frygtsomme træk ved danerne, som Sandemose satiriserede over.

Gennem Forfatteren projicerede Mennesket Sandemose sin eget sårethed og sin egen trang til at være modig, ærlig og a-konform ud på os alle sammen – og vi var sårbare, vi havde tabt alle krige, alle vore landområder, verden var i krise, og som folk var vi  bevidsthedsmæsigt i vækst og qva vores længere og bredere uddannelse på vej et sted hen, vi ikke kunne overskue!

Mon ikke mange ville have reageret ved sådant angreb på det mindre flatterende i sin karakter? Og bliver man ved med at stirre på den samme sårbarhed, vil den helt af sig selv komme til at optage en meget fremtrædende plads i vores selvbillede – en psykologisk indsigt, man muligvis ikke var enig om i 30’ernes Danmark, men mon ikke det har været meget tilfredsstillende for Sandemose at komme af med sin vrede og se folket reagere? Kunne man tillægge ham forudsigelsesevne, kunne det ligne, at han hævnede sig på et helt folk, fordi han selv havde haft det svært – men… selvfølgelig ér der noget om dét, han selv kaldte “en universel Jante”.

Frygten for at blive overset og uelsket, fordi andre tager opmærksomheden fra én, ligger i alle mennesker. Det er især svært, hvis man har været centrum for al opmærksomhed. Det er bare ikke det fremmeste element i noget menneske, eller for den sags skyld en hel nation. En nation består af individuelle mennesker, og individer kan støtte og bære selv helt fremmede mennesker, hvis de mindes om, at mere er vundet ved at give end ved at forvente at få.

SÅ mange andre træk end Sandemoses udgaver tegner os som folk og som individer. Præcis som de tegner enhver anden, i enhver anden nation, i enhver anden kultur. Vi er ikke gode, ikke onde, ikke frygtsomme, ikke driftige, men multifacetterede, komplekse, omskiftelige – og præcis af dén grund sårbare over for kritik.

Formår vi som mennesker ikke at tilgive os selv og hinanden for vore svagheder og frygt, fortsætter vi lidelsen og fastholder fortidens problematikker. Sandemose havde ikke haft nogen mulighed for at tilgive (hvis han havde villet eller kunnet), før han havde skrevet sin bog og den var gået ind i kulturen.

VI, derimod, som måler os og bliver målt på “Janteloven”, kan tilgive hver dag. Vi kan tilgive os selv, vore nærmeste, uvenner og fjender, alle i fortid og alle i nutid. Det virker:

Vi stifter fred, når vi tilgiver. Det er hvert enkelt menneskes opgave for sig selv og i sit samfund. At KUNNE stifte fred. At VILLE stifte fred…


– Et folk bestående af mennesker, der vokser op i relativ ufrygt og derfor ikke som tidligere behøver at abonnere på andres kunnen og behov

– Et folk, hvor individerne har stor selvfølelse og ønsker det samme af alle andre som af sig selv

– Et folk bestående af mennesker, der beskytter personlig frihed mod et skabt fællesskabs knugende udfoldelsesbegrænsninger

– Et folk af mennesker, der beskytter et uvurderligt fællesskab mod trusler fra enkeltindivider

– Et folk af selvforherligende og vedvarende nationsbyggere

– Et folk af selvforherligende nationsopløsere

– Et folk af grundlæggende optimister, der ser alle andre som pessimister

– Et folk af grundlæggende pessimister, der ser alle andre som fantaster

– Et folk af rettroende moralskyldige

– Et folk af anarkosyndikalister, som vil forhindre autoriteter af enhver slags i at komme til magt

– Et folk af fantasiløse mennesker uden stjerner i øjnene og højt til loftet

– Et folk delt i eksistentielt fabulerende mennesker og deres støtter

– Et folk delt i fængselsvogtende frygtsomme og deres plejere

– Et folk i sorg over så langsom udviklingen går.

– Et folk i sorg over så hurtig udviklingen går.

– Et sprog, der ikke har andet end dét til fælles.

– En kultur, ingen kan slippe for, men alle forsøger at gøre til sin helt egen.

– DANMARK er ikke én kultur; Danmark er et blik og en holdning. Og hverken blik eller holdninger er ved Guderne hverken statiske eller sande.

– Folkesjælen er ikke en sum af alle disse blikke, alle disse syn, men i sig selv alle individers jonglering med de mange forskellige opfattelser samtidig. Det er IKKE nemt. Det nemmeste er bare at holde sig til sit eget og måske sin partners syn. Og så abonnere på en politisk fraktion. Men der er meget mere. Danmark og danerne ER SÅ meget mere.

– [Fortsæt selv]

Sandemose så ikke så godt. Og Jante, du skal have briller. Det har man ofte skulle længe i din alder!


“Sandemose skrev om arbejderklassen i byen Jante og om en kreds af mennesker med samme sociale position. Senere har janteloven fået udvidet betydning: til dem der vil bryde ud af deres sociale lag og nå en højere position i samfundet generelt.” Wikipedia februar 2012

What’s wrång with ACTA-week

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral international agreement, which wants to set a “gold standard” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.


LINK to folder

Single content of folder

ACTA and its Impact on Fundamental Rights

ACTA – Criminal Sanctions

ACTA – Innovation and Competition

ACTA and its Impact on the EU’s International Relations

ACTA and its Safeguards

EDRI – European Digital Rights