Search

Kl 7 på torsdagsmorgonen svängde en man på motorcykel förbi den ryske generalmajoren Nikolaj Varpachovitjs hem i en by nära Engels-flygbasen i ryska Saratovregionen och sköt honom med en kula i huvudet och en i buken. Varpachovitj som var chef för den 22:a tunga bombflygplansdivisionen är nu på sjukhus i kritiskt tillstånd. Så kan det gå när man är ansvarig för attacken bl.a. mot barnsjukhuset Ochmatdyt och flera andra ställen i Kyjiv den 8 juli 2024 när 47 personer dödades och attacken mot Uman den 28 april 2023 där 24 personer dödades. Dessutom är han förstås ansvarig för en lång rad andra angrepp mot ukrainska städer och även mot syriska civila 2015-2016. I måndags gick SBU ut med att just Nikolaj Varpachovitj identifierats som ansvarig för attackerna i Kyjiv den 8 juli 2024. Skytten på motorcykeln har inte kunnat identiferas eller gripas av den ryska polisen. #Ukraina #Säkerhet #Konflikt

Nu skal også Stig Tøfting betale mere end 100 procent i skat. Den tidligere professionelle fodboldspiller er i dag kendt for at kommentere fodbold på Viaplay. Indtægten fra netop dét arbejde vil Skattestyrelsen beskatte med 110 procent: først som selskabsskat hos konsulenten, dernæst igen som løn. Sagen er grotesk. Det er mig en gåde, at Skattestyrelsen kæmper med næb og kløer for at fastholde en praksis, som eksperter vurderer strider mod både grundloven og menneskerettighederne. Og efter afgørelser som denne kan ingen selvstændig konsulent vide sig sikker. Det viser sagens fakta. Tøftings selskab fakturerer først, når arbejdet er udført. Ingen fast månedlig betaling. Intet opsigelsesvarsel. Han bestemmer selv, hvilke kampe han dækker, og melder på forhånd ud, hvornår han har tid. Han deltager ikke i redaktionsmøder. Han får ingen løn under sygdom. Viaplay skrev endda direkte til Skattestyrelsen og bekræftede, at parterne var enige om, at han ikke var ansat. Undervejs gav Skattestyrelsen ham ret i, at Viaplay ikke har instruktionsbeføjelse over ham. De bestemmer altså ikke, hvordan opgaverne løses. Netop instruktionsbeføjelsen er ellers normalt et af de vigtigste kriterier for Skattestyrelsen. I stedet vægtede Skattestyrelsen nogle andre kriterier: at selskabet stiller sin ejer til rådighed for en kundes kerneopgave, at der er en konkurrenceklausul, at samarbejdet løber over tid, og at Tøfting ikke selv medbringer udstyr. Er de kriterier opfyldt, skriver Skattestyrelsen i afgørelsen, vil det være ”meget sjældne tilfælde”, hvor den ikke vurderer, at der er tale om et lønmodtagerforhold. Tager man Skattestyrelsen på ordet, er titusindvis af enmandsvirksomheder hermed jaget vildt. IT-konsulenter, tolke, freelancejournalister, selvstændige projektledere, sygeplejersker med eget vikarfirma. Skattebetalerne opfordrer skatteminister @engelschmidt til at gribe ind og standse Skattestyrelsens urimelige praksis hurtigst muligt. Links til uddybende artikel om Tøftings sag og vejledning i, om du også kan blive ramt nedenfor 1/3 #skat #selvstændige #Danmark

Välkommen Abdul Abdulmalik! 💙 Djurgården stärker upp offensiven med den flitigt omskrivna engelske yttermittfältaren som nu ansluter från Boreham Wood FC.  – Den här värvningen speglar vårt starka åtagande att bygga en framgångsrik framtid, både här och nu och på lång sikt. Abdul är en viktig del av vår strategi att identifiera, rekrytera och utveckla spelare på högsta nivå, säger fotbollschef Maximilian Hahn. Läs mer och se intervjun i appen eller på https://t.co/rmrC3VAefE #Djurgården #fotboll #värvning

The Elite Origins of Marxist Revolution Bertrand Russell, a socialist who visited Moscow in 1920, observed that the Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics more than political theorists. Lenin quoted Marx and Engels as a pastor recites Scripture. In his *History of Western Philosophy*, Russell described the parallels: dialectical materialism replaces God, the Communist Party becomes the church, communist revolution the Second Coming, punishment for capitalists hell, and the communist commonwealth heaven. The *Communist Manifesto* declares that its aims can be achieved only through “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Marx sought to destroy the existing world and assumed that an undefined utopia would rise. If Marxism claims to speak for the oppressed, why has it so often been adopted by elites? Marx came from an upper-middle-class family that owned vineyards and employed servants. Friedrich Engels, his chief supporter and financier, inherited wealth from his family’s textile business. Lenin’s family owned property and employed servants, while Mao Zedong’s family was considerably wealthier than ordinary Chinese peasants. Fidel Castro’s family owned a large estate, Che Guevara came from an affluent background, and Pol Pot’s family had connections to Cambodia’s royal court. Pol Pot encountered Marxism while studying in Paris. These men went on to create, support, or lead revolutions that killed millions of the people they claimed to represent. This was no accident. The *Communist Manifesto* states that “a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat,” especially those who understand “the historical movement as a whole.” Marx therefore incorporated an explanation for his own class position into the movement’s founding text. Lenin expanded this idea, arguing that workers left to themselves could achieve only “trade-union consciousness.” Socialist theory, he believed, had to be brought to them by educated elites—the revolutionary vanguard. Although Marxism and communism are commonly portrayed as movements created for the poor, the men who developed and led them were, almost without exception, members of the elite.

Marxism: A Religion of Destruction and Resentment Marxism is not an economic theory. It is a religion for destructive and resentful losers. The *Communist Manifesto* opens with spiritual language. Marx and Engels declare that “a specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism”—and that “all the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance” to exercise this specter. Academics and useful idiots claim that the doctrine aims to redistribute wealth in order to create a more equitable world, erasing the distinction between the haves and the have-nots. It is all about love and compassion, guys. Yet, in the roughly 12,000 words of the authorized *Communist Manifesto*, Marx does not use these words of positive affirmation. “Neighbor” is not mentioned, “redistribute” does not appear, and “love” is used twice—but not in reference to loving anybody else. Now consider the opposite. “Violent” or “violence” is used seven times; “overthrow,” nine times; “radical,” fifteen times; “force,” “forced,” or “forcible,” forty-seven times; and “abolish” or “abolition,” sixty-one times. The doctrine is presented as something achieved through violence, revolution, and theft. The one place Marx gets concrete is in his list of ten measures, and every one of them involves a seizure, a confiscation, or an abolition. Of the classless heaven that is supposedly meant to follow, he says almost nothing. Rather, writing to Arnold Ruge in September 1843, Marx claims that his program is “the ruthless criticism of all that exists”—that everything is worthy of criticism—and builds his work from there. Perhaps he was echoing a line from Goethe’s *Faust* that had caught his attention: “All that exists deserves to perish,” a line spoken by a devil. This is another pattern in Marx’s thought. He is not a reformer aiming to make a tweak here or there. His language is totalizing: all, every, everything. Marxists constantly claim that real communism has never been tried. They argue that totalitarian psychopaths such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were merely defects or deviations. Yet their attempts to control everything, down to thought itself, echo the dogma of the *Communist Manifesto*.