Wat Sarrazin over de euro zegt

Ex-bankier van de Deutsche Bundesbank Thilo Sarrazin meldt zich na zijn sensationele succes met “Deutschland schafft sich ab” nu terug met opnieuw een sensationeel boek: “Europa braucht den euro nicht” (“Europa heeft de euro niet nodig”).

Op 22 maart had de DVA-uitgeverij in een droge persmededeling een einde gemaakt aan de geruchten rondom het nieuwe boek van Thilo Sarrazin. Het onderwerp van het boek is niet, zoals door velen werd vermoed, een mediakritiek. Sarrazin rekent in het boek af met de kunstmatige valuta euro. Veel meer kon er niet uit de persmededeling worden gehaald.

Alleen dit al volstond echter om in de mainstreammedia de inquisiteurs van de politieke correctheid te laten opdraven. De Pavlov-reactie functioneert nog perfect. Hier slechts een voorbeeld. Al op de dag van de persmededeling publiceerde “Zeit Online” een “boekbespreking” onder de titel “Ontwaak! Eindelijk komt het naar buiten: De euro is een gevaarlijke migrant.”

Sinds twee dagen informeert de DVA-uitgeverij de boekhandels met een reclameprospectus over het boek. De eerste oplage zal uit 400.000 exemplaren bestaan. Over de inhoud van het boek is geen verdere informatie bekend. Als reclame voor het boek dienen simpelweg zeven vetgedrukte citaten van onze politici over het thema euro:

“De euro en de Europese monetaire unie vormen op geen enkele wijze een niet te calculeren risico”

Helmut Kohl

“De euro is een enorm succes”

Theo Waigel

“Als de euro mislukt, mislukt Europa”

Angela Merkel

“Er bestaat überhaupt geen reden om te spreken van een crisis van de euro”

Helmut Schmidt

De euro is niet duur. Hij is net zo hard als de D-Mark”

Hans Eichel

“De euro is gebaseerd op dezelfde soort stabiliteit als de Mark. Daarvoor hebben we gezorgd met het stabiliteitspact.”

Romano Prodi

“Jullie kunnen erop vertrouwen, dat de euro een stabiele valuta zal zijn. Het functioneert.”

Wolfgang Schäuble

Dat Sarrazin de moed heeft om taboes te doorbreken en dingen uit te spreken, die anderen niet durven zeggen, mag intussen als bekend verondersteld worden. Het boek zal op 22 mei verschijnen en belooft een frontale aanval op de Duitse en Europese monetaire politiek te worden. U kunt het boek hier reserveren.

Bron:

http://tinyurl.com/7tpfagk

Auteur: Heribert Müller

Vertaald uit het Duits door:

E.J. Bron (www.ejbron.wordpress.com)

Over E.J. Bron

www.ejbron.wordpress.com
Dit bericht werd geplaatst in Duitsland, EU, Eurocrisis. Bookmark de permalink .

9 reacties op Wat Sarrazin over de euro zegt

  1. louis-portugal zegt:

    Geweldig die Sarrazin, wat zullen enkele duitsers weer “BLIJ” met hem zijn.
    Hij wordt door vooral links al als racist weggezet.
    Ik ben het volkomen eens met wat op de kaft staat.
    De € duwt Merkel ook uit het spoor, ze geeft telkens dingen toe waaevan ze eerst stelde dat ze het niet zou toestaan..
    Ze was tegen Eurobonds en nu door het ESM wordt het nog veel erger.
    Ik ben er dan ook van overtuigd dat de EURO op termijn gaat omvallen.
    Het is me nog niet duidelijk wat ze met die Fiskalunion willen maar het kan niets goeds zijn.
    Er wordt met de € geen enkele rekening gehouden met de mentaliteitsverschillen tussen zuidelijke en noordelijke landen gehouden.
    Syp Wynia schreef daar in elsevier nr 8 “Breuklijnen” een heel mooi commentaar over.

    Like

  2. Tom Hendrix zegt:

    @Louis-portugal, en dat is helemaal de waarheid wat Sarazzin stelt. Maar niemand van de policor politici durft zich hierbij aan te sluiten, neen men zal de boodschapper Sarazzin verketteren.

    Like

  3. Philippine zegt:

    Geweldige informatie!

    Like

  4. Karel Tichmann zegt:

    Barack Obama is geestelijk gestoord!!

    So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

    Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”

    The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.

    Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.

    For one, Obama’s teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.

    But it’s more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn’t fit easily into any diagnostic category.

    Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama’s strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.

    Take also Obama’s declaring on the “Today Show” that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.

    Obama is flat when passion is needed; he’s aggressive when savvy is required. What’s most worrisome is that Obama doesn’t even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.

    So if it’s not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I’ve never evaluated him, I can’t say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.

    If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I’d consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.

    –Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.

    It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?

    – Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states — and didn’t correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.

    Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?

    –Asperger’s Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger’s causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger’s can’t read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.

    Could Obama have Asperger’s? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger’s get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.

    –Mental Illness: Obama’s family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama’s biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.

    Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.

    While Obama doesn’t appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.

    Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama’s oddness.

    People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.

    Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn’t fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.

    –Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

    But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

    With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

    Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.
    Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

    Let’s return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.

    Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There’s even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.

    If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?

    It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid…and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.

    Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.

    Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

    Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:

    He is not capable of it.

    Like

  5. Linsky zegt:

    Karel Tichmann, uitstekende analyse! 🙂
    Daar is weinig of niks aan toe te voegen.
    Bedankt voor het delen van uw inzicht.

    Like

  6. Karel Tichmann zegt:

    Het grote Obama probleem.
    Niet alleen voor Israel maar voor de hele wereld.

    The Obama Problem is simple to explain but impossible to solve. The problem is Obama himself, and most people not named Barack or Michelle understand that.
    President Obama’s political career is in free-fall. He will not be reelected. Many Democrats and media personalities now understand what appeared impossible even mere months ago.
    Mr. Obama burst onto the political scene as a relatively unknown wunderkind. He could read a mean teleprompter and did so with fanfare at the 2004 Democrat Convention. He had good speechwriters, an intelligent and disciplined campaign strategy, a carefully crafted biography, and a highly compliant media. He was charismatic and eloquent. Joe Biden awkwardly described him as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
    The Perfect Storm
    The 2008 election was the political equivalent of a perfect storm.” Two factors were key to Obama’s election:
    Americans were disgusted with Washington, and especially with George Bush. The media anointed Obama as their man. They publicized his strengths and hid his weaknesses. They painted him as an outsider, someone who could bridge the gap between political parties and make Washington function. The media engineered Obama into the nomination and threw Hillary Clinton overboard in the primary process.
    The Republicans chose a sure loser to run — shopworn Washington-establishment figure Senator John McCain. McCain offered nothing that had not already been rejected by the public. He was little more than an elderly George W. Bush who carried the additional baggage of a Washington insider. It is likely that any Democrat would have easily beaten McCain.
    When the perfect storm cleared, Obama was president.
    No president in recent history began his term with higher expectations and goodwill than Barack Obama, but the promise and exhilaration that accompanied his election was short-lived. In less than three years, Obama plummeted from the heights (his “Messiah” entry) to the depths (a “worse than Jimmy Carter” figure).
    The turnaround was astonishing in its speed and magnitude. To put matters in perspective, it took George Bush almost eight years to hit bottom. And Bush always had little support from the media, a force that continues to protect Obama.
    How Things Went So Wrong So Quickly
    To understand Obama’s loss in popularity, it is necessary to recognize that Barack Obama was a fluke. He was an unlikely candidate, pushed to his party’s nomination as a result of the media. His election was another quirk, more aberration than achievement. The perfect storm virtually ensured that the Democrat candidate would win in 2008. It is not a strain to conclude that the mainstream media, rather than the electorate, put Obama into the highest office in the land.
    In hindsight, a great mistake was made. Even the fawning media and the Democrat establishment now recognize that, although are unwilling to publicly admit it. Their behavior is analogous to refusing to discuss a friend’s terminal illness in the hope that it will somehow go away.
    The media and the Democratic Party are at risk if the tragedy they foisted on the nation continues. Their future is intertwined with the Obama Problem. Both sponsored him, and both may ultimately be held accountable. The battle so easily won in 2008 may cost them subsequent battles, if not the war itself.
    Both know the risk. They just have no easy way of solving the problem.
    Opinions regarding the factors responsible for Mr. Obama’s political demise abound. A full menu is available — the economy, broken promises, cronyism, socialism, bailouts, corruption, disillusionment, inexperience, incompetence, Chicago-style politics, etc. Pundits have a target-rich environment from which to approach the failure of the Obama presidency.
    The factors above are relevant but one level removed from the root cause. The real problem is that there never was any substance to Obama. He was the political equivalent of a Potemkin village. There was nothing behind the façade. There was no “there” there. All of the problems arise from this obvious flaw.
    President Obama is little more than a run-of-the-mill Hollywood extra hired to play president of the United States. A brilliant marketing campaign coupled with the perfect storm put him in office. The marketing campaign was so good that it merits a case study for the Harvard Business School.
    The “man with no past” and a Hollywood veneer turned out to be a perfect candidate. “Sizzle” rather than substance was sold. Little was known about Obama and his past, allowing David Axelrod to market the political equivalent of a Rorschach blot.
    Voters saw in Obama whatever they desired in a candidate. To some, Obama was a breath of fresh air, a man of principles. To others he was an outsider, not a crass politician. Others saw him as a chance to prove that they were not racists. Still others saw him as the reincarnation of Roosevelt or whomever else they admired.
    Obama was a blank slate to be imagined or drawn upon by the voters. He was their chameleon, and each voter could use his or her imagination to create the ideal candidate. Not surprisingly, voters bought this product that existed only in their minds. They elected Chauncey Gardiner. Unfortunately, this fraud did not come with Peter Sellers’ range or abilities.
    A brilliant marketing strategy can make a first sale, but performance and satisfaction are required for the second. Axelrod’s skill in marketing had no counterparty in production. No one seemed to be concerned about delivering a product that actually worked.
    Obama entered office unorganized and unstructured. Nothing in his background suggested that he knew anything about management, organization, or leadership. Nor did anyone see the need for bringing in talent with these skills. As a result, the Hollywood mannequin was almost immediately exposed as nothing but flair, hype, and hot air. The public had bought a product that did not perform.
    Marketing can do many things, but it cannot sell a product that people have tried and rejected. That is Obama’s reelection problem. At the risk of being unsophisticated and abusing the concept of Occam’s Razor, Obama’s reelection problem can be expressed in one simple sentence: “Now, too many people know him.”
    Obama’s only strength was Axelrod’s ability to play on the imagination of voters. That strength no longer exists. People now know the product and have rejected it. They did not get even Chauncey Gardiner. Embarrassed and angry, the public is stuck with Chance the Gardener.
    The irony is that Mr. Obama has not changed. He is the same man who was elected. His problem is not communicating, Republicans, George Bush, tsunamis, or anything else. His problem is the man in the mirror. There is no more there than an image.
    Obama was all hype and no substance. That realization has dawned on voters, resulting in horrendous polling. Richard Nixon was never liked, but he was at least thought competent. Obama was liked but never competent. Now Obama is living proof of the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt. He is neither liked nor competent.
    Even the hapless Jimmy Carter did not attain that status.

    Like

  7. Henk Schroemges zegt:

    Zodra ik lees dat iemand als racist wordt weggezet door Links, is dat voor mij een aanbeveling om direct te lezen. Racist is momenteel -indien het door links wordt gebruikt- een geuzennaam.
    Het komt van Thilo Sarrazin; dus dan is het in ieder geval perfekt net als zin 1e boek.

    Like

  8. Paardestaart zegt:

    ” Obama´s externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusion”

    Maybe, of nee: probably. Vast en zeker.
    Het vervelende is alleen dat hij die delusie met driekwart van de linkse bevolking deelt, niet eens alleen onder de Amerikanen. .: de republikeinse partij is ook volgens Vieze van Rossum op bezoek als deskundoloog bij vaderlandse P en W of bij DDW beyond the pale, niet om mee te praten, een stel miserabele, sexueel gefixeerde en godsdienstwaanzinnige psychopaten met een wapenfetisj..En als je per ongeluk een Occupy-kampement oploopt vliegen de paranoia-verhalen over die ene procent je ook om de oren

    En verder: wat heb je aan die psycho-therapeutische suggesties? Als die man prez is van de VS zul je hem moeten verdragen, totdat hij niet meer te houden is en wordt afgevoerd in een dwangbuis. Hi zal overigens de eerste psychopaat niet zijn die een wereldrijk bestuurt, om niet gelijk maar te zeggen dat dergelijke mensen vaker wel dan niet met molentjes lopen..
    Therapeuten overigens die mensen gek verklaren uit de verte hebben het pad van de wijsheid verlaten, als je het mij vraagt.
    En zoals ik al zei: OK – so now what?

    Over het boek van Sarazin: hoera! Daar zal Wilders blij om zijn, en iedereen trouwens die de eurokraten niet gelooft. Ik hoop wel dat het snel vertaald wordt, want een financieel-economische verhandeling auf Deutsch gaat mijn souplesse te boven..

    Like

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s