Benny gik helt fra Snøvsen

Diverse — Drokles on August 18, 2018 at 9:23 am

Der er et par kulturpersoner der er døde inden for de seneste dage. Soulsangerinden Aretha Franklin døde i går. Da hun var på toppen, spændte hendes stemme over 4 oktaver (Julia Andrews klasse) og hun var en rigtig kvinde, der forstod at man godt kunne ønske sig en mand, der kunne sætte hende på plads som en boss så hun vidste, han kerede sig for hende, uden dog at miste Respekt. Nu har musikken mistet hende, som vi danskere har mistet Benny Andersen.

Ja, Andersen var ikke så plat med sine små tø-høer, som jeg og hvor fuglene fløj i flok når de var mange nok, udnyttede han sprogets nuancer og dobbelttydigheder til det gode. Derfor er det også en stadig kilde til undren, når sådanne mennesker med raffinerede sind, bliver så platte som mine Franklin referencer, når de skråsikkert tramper sig ind i den politiske debat.

I Danmarks Radios lille artikel træder Andersens kunstneriske virke i baggrunden for hans meninger i islamdebatten. Så her mindes Andersens ven Mustafa Gezen, “vicerektor og formand for organisationen Dialog Forum, der vil bygge bro mellem folk fra forskellige kulturelle baggrunde”, hvorledes den ‘folkekære’ digter i 2008 var “rejst fra Lyngby til Aarhus for at deltage i ramadanmiddagen, fordi han var nysgerrig”. Som en 3 timers køretur i bil eller tog bliver beskrevet som ‘en rejse’, således opfattes en Ramadan middag også som et kulturmøde, der skulle tjene til inspiration for danskerne. Middagen, uden den månedslange faste, var rigeligt til at inspirere Andersen til at gøre op med danskernes ‘fremmedfrygt’ og fordomme om islam og i 2015 skrev han bogen ‘Sådan kan islam også være‘ i et forsøg på at “nuancere og korrigere en række af de usandheder, der florerer om islam og integration”. Det belønnede Dialog Forum med en dialogpris og i samme år. Også i 2015 var Mustafa Gezen fortaler for en “rummelig og brobyggende stormoske” i København - da som talsperson for Muslimernes Fællesråd.

At tale muslimernes interesser er en god dialog. Plads til mangfoldighed er for muslimer også kun plads til muslimernes propaganda i bybilledet såsom burkaer - det er ikke plads til bøsserne.

Det hører Andersen ikke. Ja, han “kunne beskrive danskerne med humor og ironi” fordi han var god til at lytte til de mindste nuancer i det danske sprog. Han var virkeligt meget, meget dansk. Men han var tonedøv i mødet med det fremmede, der vedblev at være en abstraktion og ikke noget konkret. Det fremmede var blot en spejling af dig selv, det samme, bare anderledes.

Nej, det fremmede er virkeligt fremmed og ikke et spejlbillede af ønsketænkning. Vidia ‘V. S.’ Naipaul havde rejst meget i de muslimske lande, observeret, talt og lyttet og havde så skrevet Blandt De Troende - det var forlægget for Martin Krasniks ‘De retfærdige - en islamisk stafet’. David Pryce-Jones mines Naipaul i National Review

In March 1979 I interviewed him for the BBC. He said to me, “I know that Trinidad, like India, the other ancestral strand, is a place without any possibility. If a place has some positive element you like to feel for it, it gives you a little hope. There is intellectual nullity there nowadays. No mind at all.” That last sentence is key. Mind is a universal value; everybody can acquire it just the way he did, and then they are civilized.

Those, and only those, who use their mind are able to escape from injustice and cruelty. Among the Believers and Beyond Belief are books of reportage on the horrors that he encountered in Muslim countries where mindlessness has taken control.

Liberals were slow to realize the extraordinary damage Vidia was doing to their aspiration that the world be what they would wish it to be. Some Indians have described him as a traitor to his race, and I once heard a Jamaican professor criticize him as “too brown.” The West Indian poet Derek Walcott accused him of fouling the nest and caricatured him in print as V. S. Nightfall (though he later apologized for this). In Marxist clichés, the academic H. B. Synge called him “a despicable lackey of neo-colonialism and imperialism.” But even those who disliked what he stood for acknowledged his mastery of the English language.

Vidia the writer had complete inner certainty. Inevitably he generated controversy, but he hardly bothered to read what was written about him or to respond to it. Nadira, whom he married after the death from cancer of Pat, filled his final years with grace. On the morning when the Swedish Academy announced his Nobel award, I rang to congratulate him. “Oh, you’ve heard of my little spot of luck, have you.” Nadira and he invited me to accompany them to Stockholm. The moment we reached the hotel, Vidia was swept off to a television studio. On the program with him were two previous Nobel winners, Nadine Gordimer and Günter Grass. They were agreeing that poverty is the whole motivation of Islamist terror. Vidia shot back that like millions of others he came from a poor family and did not commit terror. Infuriated by the liberal twaddle, he went to his room without dinner. About 2,000 people attended the ceremony, and Vidia was instructed to speak to them for not more than three or four minutes. On a podium, he then held up his watch, whose strap had just broken, and said that Julius Caesar invading Egypt had slipped on the sandy beach. An omen! Getting up, Caesar rallied his officers, “What I have, I hold.”

Vidia was a free spirit.

Ja, en køretur kan ses som en rejse og islam som værende mange ting. Men mange af de ting, er der grund til at frygte. Islam kræver magten og i så tilfælde må du sluge hele pakken. Og det er ikke blot den månedslang faste, der skal overholdes, hvis man ikke vil ‘mærke at man lever’ på sine rygstykker.

Sameksistensen med palæstinensere

Diverse — Drokles on August 5, 2018 at 4:47 am

Palæstinenserne er i krig med Israel og har derfor en krigsøkonomi, hvor ressourcerne ledes hen mod terrorsektoren, skriver The Tower

A Palestinian terrorist, who murdered a 31-year-old Israeli man in the West Bank community of Adam on Thursday, has been declared a “martyr” by the Palestinian Authority and is entitled to a one-time payment of $1,600, as well as monthly salaries starting at $380, under the PA’s “Pay to Slay Program.”

The 17-year-old Palestinian terrorist Muhammad Tareq Dar Yusuf fatally stabbed Yotam Ovadia, a father of two young children, and wounded two other Israelis, in a frenzied attack in Adam last week.

A day after the murder took place, Yusuf was hailed a “martyr” in an article published in the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Shiri Moshe reported in The Algemeiner on Monday. According to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli research and advocacy organization, the same description was used in a Facebook post published the same day by the Bethlehem branch of Fatah, the party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Men palæstinenserne er, som muslimer flest ikke kun prosaiske og der er masser af åndelige værdier der motiverer jødedrab, fortæller de gladeligt herunder. Det er ligemeget om det er civile eller endda børn, fortæller en palæstinenser om sine terrordrømme. En anden har ambitionen om at blive martyr, for alle elsker sådan en. Min mor ville blive kisteglad fortæller en tredie. Allehånde forskellige drømme der motiver disse unge mennesker om de foretrækker kniv, pistol eller bombe, alle har deres egen stil. Men det grundlæggende er, at tro på Allah får vi fortalt, og de døde lever i Paradis, hvor de får 72 jomfruer - og den kvindelige martyr er den smukkeste af jomfruerne, så der er noget til alle. Det er ikke bare noget de selv finder på, det står skrevet

PALESTINIAN JIHAD from Pierre Rehov on Vimeo.

Det er svært, at diskutere sameksistens på de præmisser.

En Sump af Drengepolitik

Diverse — Drokles on August 4, 2018 at 5:38 am

“[W]hen do we see almost a shadow government come out and say, ‘We cannot side with the government, whether it’s the cabinet or the Senate” spurgte den tidligere terrorekspert for både CIA og FBI Philip Mudd retorisk CNNs Anderson Cooper. Og guderne skal vide, at det ikke er manglende vilje blandt efterretningsvæsenets top. Foragten for folkets mand Trump og frygten for, hvad han kan gøre mod ’sumpen’ er tydelig, som Victor Davis Hanson gør opmærksom på

No federal official, in the manner of Andrew McCabe, should be in charge of investigating a suspect whose campaign affiliates have recently donated huge amounts of money to the investigator’s wife’s prior political campaign. And a DOJ official is required to state whether he has conflict of interests that affect his performance in the manner in which Bruce Ohr allegedly did not cite his own spouse’s employment for the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS Steele project, or his own contacts with those concerned.

No doubt the idea of impeaching Rod Rosenstein may be misplaced. But Rosenstein himself must know that in such politically charged times he has by needs played some sort of prior role in the Uranium One investigations, the Clinton email investigations, the FISA court warrants, and the collusion investigations, and that these issues swirl around both his current prosecutorial choices and may at some future date put himself in legal limbo. Clearly, if there exists such a doctrine of recusal, he should have long ago recused himself in the fashion of Jeff Sessions, who may have had far less exposure to charges of conflicts of interest.

It wins the Mueller investigation no favors that its origins, by the admission of former FBI director James Comey, were instigated by the leaks of confidential presidential memos by Comey himself — and then coincidentally led to the selection of Mueller, a friend of Comey and for a moment, before his special-counsel appointment, an apparent willing aspirant to be Comey’s replacement as FBI director.

A second worry, of course, is the necessary appearance of political neutrality, crucial for public support for any high-profile federal special inquiry. Robert Mueller needlessly incurred criticism by his own appearance of conflicts of interests, when, for example, he did not disclose promptly the reasons for the departures of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok from his investigative team, and delayed notice until much later after their severances, and seemingly staggered their reassignments to cloud any inference that they were related and prompted by their shared incriminating texts.

Mueller did not need to include counsels on his team, again in such a politically charged atmosphere, who had earlier represented either the Clinton Foundation or contractors for Hillary Clinton under suspicion for the destruction of key evidence.

It would have also been wiser to have gone beyond the law and either have insisted that his legal team’s members had not been donors to either presidential candidate, or, barring that, to have included roughly equal numbers of 2016 partisans. No doubt there are individual complexities and extenuating circumstances surrounding the retirements, resignations, firings, or forced reassignments of a spate of FBI and DOJ officials. But it is not conspiratorial or improper to suggest that something is wrong in Washington when the public was never really told the initial circumstances surrounding the fates of James Baker, Peter Kadzik, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, James Rybicki, and Peter Strzok.

Baseret på en rapport, Steele rapporten, udarbejdet på uverificerbare kilder fra Rusland, af alle steder, på vegne af Trumps direkte modstander til præsidentposten Hillary Clinton, gik FBI til domstolen for udenlandsk spionage (FISA court) og opnåede tilladelse til at aflytte og spionere mod Trumps valgkampsmaskine. Dommeren fik ikke at vide at FBIs viden ikke var viden og interesserede sig heller ikke for at få det afklaret, så spioneret blev der.

Det kom frem da Justitsministeriet offentliggjorde en bunke dokumenter, der kastede lidt lys over baggrunden for efterretningsvæsenets grundlæggende interesse for alting Trump. Men det meste i disse dokumenter var censureret (redacted) af hensyn til… Statens ansattes gode navn og rygte. Men hvad der gemte sig i mørket, mente republikanernes formand for sikkerhedsudvalget Devin Nunes, var endnu værre

“If people think using the Clinton dirt to get a FISA was bad, what else that’s in that application is even worse,” Nunes recently told the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel.

“There’s a stall game going on at DOJ and FBI – they’re trying to stall as much as they can, hoping and betting that Republicans would lose the House in the fall,” Nunes said. “And if that happens … it essentially shuts down everything. Rod Rosenstein will not be held in contempt, FBI will not be held accountable, all these investigations will shut down, everything will be buried…. That’s why the sooner the president declassifies this, the better.”

Det er noget af en rådden gestalt, efterretningsvæsenet der holder sig. Et giftigt meningsfællesskab har set sig selv, som på en særlig mission, hvor overordnede hensyn tilsidesatte de regler, der definerede selvsamme hensyn. Drengepolitik, med andre ord og denne opfattelse af at være en del af de få udvalgte med en højere mission rykker grænserne for almindelig moral umærkbart for den enkelte. Jeg tror Bombards Body Languages analyse, skønt dansende med selvbekræftende observationer, af Peter Strzok er rigtig. Strzok blev fyret fra Muellers hold, for at have udtrykt sin foragt og had til Trump i en masse korrespondancer han havde med sin ligesinde elskerinde i FBI Lisa Page

Bare ikke her

Diverse — Drokles on July 31, 2018 at 8:54 am

Mette Frederiksen foretrak at være en god mor frem for en god socialdemokrat, da hun efter at have skoset danske forældre for at fravælge den lokale folkeskole til fordel for en privatskole og således svigte at bære den samfundsbyrde som især er kommet tilrejsende med Socialdemokratiets stemmer. Det var en pinlig pille af hykleri hun måtte sluge, men da aviser skrev om at det var mønsteret over hele den humanistiske fløj, var det hurtigt overstået så idag kan hun kalde sig formand efter at have ventet Helle Thorning Schmidt ud.

Ingen politikere med blødende hjerter for Folkeskolen fravalgte deres lokale folkeskole, istedet tilvalgte de alternativet fordi deres poder alle som en havde specielle behov. En københavns lokalpolitiker argumenterede med at siden hans børn var adopteret for Asien, den charmerende del og ikke der hvor Pakistan ligger, så havde de bedst af at være omgivet af hvide, som blommen i et æg. Ikke megen tro på de multikulturelle lyksaligheder man ellers arbejdede intenst på at indføre for almuen. I solidaritet med den ængstelige middelklasse med værdierne i orden begyndte man derfor at arbejde på at skabe ressourceskoler, folkeskoler der satsede på netop de værdier, som tiltalte selvsamme humanister, som kreativitet og musik og som således sikrede hvidheden. På den måde købte man sig lidt respit på fortsat at støtte Folkeskoleideen uden at skulle ofre sine egne børn på ens fine menneskesyns alter.

Jyllands-Postens leder skrev forleden om det besynderlige i at de fleste folk ikke foretrak, selv at leve i deres humanistiske idealer

På en villavej i Tønder med det emblematiske navn Lærkevej er der gået skår i idyllen. Årsagen er den pikante, at en bosnisk muslimsk forening har købt et lille, gult murstenshus på vejen med den tanke at indrette det som »forsamlings- og bedehus«; beboerne fik en e-mail fra kommunen med det ordvalg.

Det var de ikke begejstrede for og startede derfor en underskriftsindsamling, ligesom de gjorde indsigelser under den kommunale høring. Flere end 30 husstande på Lærkevej har skrevet under på protesten, men da pressen – in casu Kristeligt Dagblad – opsøgte Lærkevej, var det langtfra alle, der havde lyst til at stå frem, og heri er noget karakteristisk. Mon ikke de fleste beboere på danske villaveje godt kan forstå de bekymrede borgere på Lærkevej i Tønder, sådan inderst inde og i det dulgte? Hvis man er vant til at leve stille og almindeligt mellem studsede hække og en fælles vejfest en gang imellem, kan det virke forstyrrende, hvis en religiøs forsamling pludselig flytter ind. Det er forståeligt. Men man forstår jo også beboernes ulyst til at sige for meget, for det skulle jo nødigt hedde sig, og man kan jo blive kaldt både det ene og det andet. »Nej, vi skal da ikke begynde at være decideret imod de her mennesker. Det er ikke noget racistisk,« som en beboer siger til avisen, hvormed han ligesom tager forskud på den forudsigelige fordømmelse af de frygtsomme beboere på Lærkevej, deres intolerance og fremmedangst, deres islamofobi.

Og efter at have draget en fin parallel til nabostriden på Sundvænget ved Strandvejen i det nordlige København, hvor en hovedrig plebejer truer Uffe Ellemann Jensen og hans distingverede naboers udsigt med sine byggeplaner - en skræmmende “yderligere fortætning i kommunen” - konkluderer Jyllandsposten

Eliten, der prædiker tolerance, bor langt fra de steder, hvor forandringerne føles. Det er ikke på Sundvænget, juletræet står til at blive afskaffet. Alligevel kender man også der til følelsen af ubehag ved det fremmede, ja, der skal faktisk meget lidt til at vække det, meget mindre end et bedehus. Blot tanken om at miste en flig af sundudsigten er nok til at få de tolerantes fremmedangst til at bryde ud i lys lue.

Idealer er altid lettest at opretholde på afstand, virkeligheden er en grum læremester. Mere diversitet betyder flere konfliktzoner, ikke bedre vilkår for frisindet. De fleste kan ikke tænke og må føle og det er venstrefløjens dilemma, skriver Thomas B. Edsall i New York Times

Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, published a book last year, “The Space Between Us,” suggesting that the ideological commitment of liberals in these and other similar communities may waver, or fail entirely, when their white homogeneity is threatened.

Not only is the upscale wing of the Democratic Party an unreliable ally of the left on economic issues — as I have noted in this column before and as Lily Geismer and Matthew D. Lassiter eloquently pointed out in The Times last week — but Enos demonstrates that the liberal resolve of affluent Democrats can disintegrate when racially or ethnically charged issues like neighborhood integration are at stake.

Enos havde ved et kompliceret forsøg, udsat hvide globaliseringsparate Demokrater for en lille symbolsk dosis diversitet i form af pendlende spansktalende og registreret en faldende velvilje overfor den slags i nabolaget. Og Enos skriver i “The Space Between Us

The negative effects of diversity may be responsible for some of the profound differences between places such as Denmark and Zambia or Singapore and India. Noting that these four countries are all democracies, we see the consequences of voters — normally separated by geographic, social, and psychological space — coming together to govern and having to make decisions and allocate resources. It appears that when people are faced with these decisions in a diverse democracy, rather than a homogeneous one, they often choose not to do the things that “make democracy work,” failing to bridge the space between groups by cooperating to share resources and provide for the common welfare.

Og Edsall fortsætter sin læsning af “The Space Between Us

Liberal democracies endorse diversity, Enos writes,

indeed, it is often considered one of our strengths and liberal individuals usually favor diversity as a matter of ideology and public policy. We often support diversity out of a genuine ideological commitment and because we rightly perceive that diversity can improve the performance of many organizations, such as universities and businesses.

But, he continues, “looking across the world and even across states and cities within the United States, most of us would rather not live with some of the social, economic, and political consequences of diversity.” This is what Enos calls “the liberal dilemma.”

Enos cites Gordon Allport, formerly a professor of psychology at Harvard, who described “contact theory” in his 1954 book, “The Nature of Prejudice.” Under the right circumstances, Allport argued, interracial contact could reduce hostility. Those circumstances, Enos notes, include “economic equality and social integration.”

In practice, Enos points out:

Allport’s conditions for prejudice reduction are seldom fulfilled. One of these conditions was that interpersonal contact would reduce prejudice when members of each group were of equal social standing.

In reality,

not only does equality between groups not exist, but true interpersonal contact across groups seldom takes place, even when groups are proximate. Two groups can live in the same area without having meaningful interpersonal contact.

It almost goes without saying that the patterns Enos describes have been crucial to President Trump’s political success.

Processen imod Donald K

Diverse — Drokles on July 27, 2018 at 3:08 am

Napoleon skulle have sagt at man aldrig skal forstyrre fjenden, når denne er i færd med at dumme sig. Og dummer sig, det gør Donald Trumps mange fjender. Det største fejltrin var at gøre brug af efterretningsvæsenet til at bedrive spionage imod hans valgkamp, for derefter, gennem lækage, at rejse et politisk postyr for at få ham og hans stab underkaster diverse efterforskninger for at have samarbejdet med Vladimir Putin, hans regime, disses støtter og bare russere i al almindelighed. Politisk har man fra mediernes side brugt selve eksistensen af processen imod Donald T til at deligitimere ham og hans præsidentskab, mens man har opvirglet allehånde venstreekstreme og entertainere til en fysisk revolte.

Donald T er dog ingen Josef K og går ikke i spåner over de mange diffuse anklager eller søger at rense sit navn. Han afviser kategorisk vanviddet og lader processen vikle sig ind i sit eget spind. Mens den tidligere administration forregnede sig på at Hillary ville føre den korrumperende arv videre så karrierebureaukraterne kunne fortsætte deres lyssky aktiviteter, stolede Trump både på sin evne til at vinde, sin egen uskyld og det amerikanske folk. Og hele det amerikanske folk kan man ikke snyde hele tiden.

FBIs interesse for Trump hviler, som det har været fremme før, på en rapport, som blev sammenfattet af en tidligere britisk efterretningsofficer ved navn Christopher Steele. Baseret på uunderbyggede kilder tegner Steeles rapport et fantastisk og kulørt billede af Donald Trump og hans russiske forbindelser, der er så tætte at det russiske efterretningsvæsen GRU har videobånd af Donald Trump og et par prostituerede der leger tisselege i et hotelværelse i Moskva. Således i lommen på russerne var det eneste logiske skridt at få Trump valgt som præsident, fordi den slags er noget man bare gør.

FBI brugte Steeles rapport som de bærende oplysninger, oplysninger der ser ud til at være grebet ud af den blå luft, til at opnå dommerkendelser for overvågning af Carter Page, et medlem af Trumps stab, blev det i sidste uge bekræftet, da FBI offentliggjorde hundredevis af dokumenter. National Reviews Andrew C McCarthy har tidlige benægtet at noget sådan kunne forekomme, og afvist de der spekulerede i sumpens målrettede angreb på Trump som konspirationsteoretikere. Men, indrømmer han nu med sorg i hjertet, “the crazies were right”

Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

Based on the dossier, the FBI told the FISA court it believed that Carter Page, who had been identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser, was coordinating with the Russian government in an espionage conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

This sensational allegation came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy. The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele’s allegations had never been verified. To the contrary, each FISA application — the original one in October 2016, and the three renewals at 90-day intervals — is labeled “VERIFIED APPLICATION” (bold caps in original). And each one makes this breathtaking representation:

The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures, which include sending a copy of the draft to the appropriate field office(s).

In reality, the applications were never verified for accuracy.

Toxic Sexuality

Diverse — Drokles on July 23, 2018 at 8:14 pm

Homosexualitet er en aktivitet, der bør fejres over helheden, fordi detmener Københavns Universitet i tråd med tidens ånd.

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-07-04-kl-2232191

Behaviour Patterns of Child Molesters (1988, Erickson et al) kan man læse at ud af 229 dømte pædofile betagnede 86% af dem sig selv som enten homo- eller bi-sexuelle. I det tilfælde ville det være på sin plads at fejre den heterosexuelle pædofile med en parade rundt i fængselsgården for deres bidrag til diversiteten thi “Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals” skriver Jon Dougherty på WND om den seneste forskning inden feltet blev oversvømmet af politik

Baldwin says his research not only “confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” but it found that “the mainstream homosexual culture” even “commonly promotes sex with children.”

“The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,” Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

  • The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”
  • In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
  • Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, “Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist”: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it.”
  • In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a “Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
  • Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Fordi mange homosexuelle, selv har oplevet overgreb, typisk i puberteten, gentager de en adfærd indlært af et psykologisk traume. “[C]hild molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement” fortsætter Balwin derfor. En selvbekræftende svikmølle, med bøsser, der vidner om tidlig sexualdebut med en mand, promoveres gladeligt henover de mange ofre for samme mænds overgreb, der bruger resten af livet på at fortrænge barndommens traume.

Desmond er muligvis en fantastisk 9 årig dreng, men også et hypersexualiseret barn

On July 11th, Desmond was featured in an uncomfortable live streamthat unfolded on Facebook. The host of the stream was an adult drag performer who goes by the name “Bella Noche”. During the course of this video, Bella references the use of Ketamine and Desmond imitates sniffing the drug almost instantly as if he’s seen or done it a thousand times. This is learned behavior, and more proof that this child is in a toxic and abusive environment.

I England vil den siddende regering gøre det ulovligt at kurere homoseksualitet, skriver Daily Mail, der samtidig og uden ironi oplyser at 300 børn medicinsk er under behandling for at være ‘det forkerte køn’.

Putins patetiske hævn

Diverse — Drokles on July 23, 2018 at 8:34 am

Spengler minder om årsagen til de senere års forsuring at forholdet mellem USA og Rusland

The United States supported the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in the hope of repeating the exercise in Moscow sometime later. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled whatever strings America had to replace the feckless and corrupt Victor Yanukovych with a government hostile to the Kremlin. She didn’t say it in so many words, but she hoped the Ukraine coup would lead to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Evidently Nuland and her boss, Hillary Clinton, thought that the Ukraine coup would deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, and did not anticipate that Russia simply would annex an old Russian province that belonged to Ukraine by historical accident.

At the time, liberal opinion evanesced with the notion that Moscow would follow Maidan. The Christian Science Monitor reported in February 2014:

Some in Russia’s liberal community see in the Maidan a hope that the Kremlin, no matter how solid it looks, could one day crack under similar popular pressure. “What we are seeing in Ukraine is the realization of the Ukrainian people’s aspiration for democracy, of the right to revolt,” says Sergei Davidis, a board member of Solidarnost, a liberal opposition coalition. “It doesn’t mean we’re ready to follow that example. Russian conditions are different. But in the long run, as the contradictions pile up, we may well come to the same pass and find ourselves with no alternatives but the Ukrainian one.”

Of course, no such thing occurred.

The Maidan coup was the second American attempt to install a Ukrainian government hostile to Moscow; the first occurred in 2004, when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of State rather than Hillary Clinton. As I wrote in Asia Times a decade ago, “On the night of November 22, 2004, then-Russian president - now premier - Vladimir Putin watched the television news in his dacha near Moscow. People who were with Putin that night report his anger and disbelief at the unfolding ‘Orange’ revolution in Ukraine. ‘They lied to me,’ Putin said bitterly of the United States. ‘I’ll never trust them again.’ The Russians still can’t fathom why the West threw over a potential strategic alliance for Ukraine. They underestimate the stupidity of the West.”

Hverken Spengler eller Monokultur er fans af Putin og hans bøllestyre. Men proportionerne, proportionerne. Rusland har ikke andet at tilbyde Verden end olie/gas og våben, som tidligere præsident Obama mindede om da han afskrev dem som en seriøs trussel mod USAs demokrati. Så mens Robert Mueller har skudt sine teorier ud i uvished ved at anklage en række russere der aldrig kommer til at afkræve beviser for deres påståede memfabrikker og arrangementer af besynderlige demonstrationer ved en amerikansk domstol, så mener FBI at Kina er den store spionagetrussel. Og Riget i midten sammen med EU den største største trussel mod internettets frihed, frygtsomme som de begge, på hver deres måde, er, for dissens fra det herskende meningsparadigme.

Diplomati, magt og skuespil

Diverse — Drokles on July 20, 2018 at 8:36 pm

Rusland og USA har ikke noget at tilbyde hinanden, skriver Bryan MacDonald for Russia Times, så de kan lige så godt søge at få en forståelse for hinanden, og holde spændingerne imellem dem i ave. Topmøder tjener mest som teater for offentligheden, mens det virkelige møde sker bag lukkede døre (Demokraterne vil derfor have udleveret tolkenes referater) og som de fleste store værker forstår samtidens kritikere af hysteriske vanetænkere og selvsvingsdogmatikere. Mark Davis er ædruelig i Townhall

The strength his base expects every day is not some empty political theater designed to win praise from CNN. There is only one battle that matters in the short term, and that is the attack on his presidency from the Mueller probe and the weaponized subsets of the FBI and Department of Justice.

The slightest hint of a Trump denunciation of Russian meddling would have been instantly, virally blasted around the universe as a confession that his election was indeed illegitimate. The hounds baying for his demise gleefully conflate Russians hacking Democrat emails with the Trump campaign conspiring to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful victory. They know that an underinformed public will lap up that narrative if they can hammer it forcefully enough.

We will never know the exact language Trump may use to address past meddling or discourage it in the future. But anyone who was expecting some high-drama public showdown in Helsinki is ignorant of what Trump seeks to do long-term with Russia, and is oblivious to the baseball bat he would have handed his enemies to beat his brains in.

That is excusable among the general public. But for those who pay attention to these matters for a living, the blindness is willful.

Og der har Trump ikke givet efter for russerne “on anything“, skriver Daniel Greenfield - tværtimod

The media is outraged over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But when that happened, Ukraine asked for weapons and the only aid that Obama offered their country was MREs. It took months for Obama to come through with boots and tires. Meanwhile Trump has delivered actual weapons.

Why did Obama refuse to provide Ukraine with weapons? According to senior officials, to avoid antagonizing Moscow. Trump isn’t afraid of Russia. Obama however was shaking in his loafers.

While Trump approved anti-tank missiles for Ukraine, Obama slow-walked shipments of boots, putting them on trucks instead of planes so that they took months to arrive, so as not to upset the Russians. Meanwhile the Trump administration cut the red tape by dipping into its own European stockpiles.

In the time it took Obama to ship boots to Ukraine, Trump shipped Javelin missiles.

Obama shelved missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic. Trump cut a multi-billion deal for selling Patriot missiles to Poland. When Obama provided Patriot missiles to Poland, he neglected to mention that the batteries would not actually contain missiles. The ambassador to Poland, had noted, “The Poles have not been told that the battery will rotate without actual missiles… but it will also not be operational, and certainly interoperable… this will be a question of basic definitions for the Poles: is it a Patriot battery if it doesn’t have live missiles?” Trump’s missile deal comes with actual missiles.

“After my election I have more flexibility” forsikrede Obama Putins Medvedev et par senere. Obamas udenrigspolitik var at give efter for russerne ved enhver konfrontation og se bort fra deres overtrædelser af aftaler. Trump ophidser de mennesker, der hyldede denne ‘leading from behind’, “smart diplomacy” blindgyde, der empowerede af mediernes guldfiskehukommelse, overser at Trump ikke blot styrker USAs økonomiske magt, opruster militært, presser NATO landende til det samme, mens de chores over at Trump har den frækhed at underminere Tysklands milliard investering i russisk gas. Måske har Roger L Simon ret, når han påstår at dette kunne være ‘Trumps finest hour’

He is, as Greg Gutfeld noted on The Five, his own good cop and bad cop all rolled into one.  The good cop part is what we saw with Kim Jong-un and now with Putin — complimenting tyrants to an almost uncomfortable degree.  It’s oddly a Christian love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin kind of thing.

The bad cop part is what Trump actually does concretely — and, as Putin certainly knows, this is far more important than photo ops and press conferences with all the attendant words.  Trump’s actions vis-a-vis Russia have been considerably more stringent than his predecessor’s — opening the energy spigots, increasing sanctions, arming the Ukrainians, ejecting 60 Russian agents, etc.  As Walter Russell Mead pointed out, if Trump is in Putin’s pocket, he’s doing a terrible job of it.

Og de hader ham for det, men Breitbarts John Nolte “saw Trump choose, at great personal cost, to do the moral and patriotic thing over what would have earned him that adulation and praise”.

Mueller begraver ‘russersagen’

Diverse — Drokles on July 18, 2018 at 6:52 pm

Den har været død længe, dødfødt faktisk, men nu begraves den. Den specielle efterforsker Robert Mueller har sigtet nogle flere russere, denne gang agenter, for at have koordineret en indsats med det formål at påvirke det amerikanske præsidentvalg. Ingen af de tiltalte er under amerikansk myndighed så bevisernes stilling vil aldrig blive anfægtet. Og alle formodes uskyldige indtil det modsatte er bevist efter retspraksis, som Andrew C McCarthy minder om i National Review

There is no known evidence that Trump-campaign officials had any involvement in hacking by the Russian intelligence services. Mueller’s new indictment powerfully suggests that this could not have happened — the Russians were expert in their cyberespionage tactics, they did not need anyone’s help, and they took pains to conceal their identity from everyone with whom they dealt.

Moreover, even though Trump-campaign officials have been charged with other crimes (having nothing to do with the 2016 election), and some of those Trump officials had “contacts” with Russians, Mueller has never charged one of them with a crime related to Russia’s espionage attack on the election, nor has he ever elicited from any defendant who pled guilty an admission of any such crime.

Den eneste eksistensberettigelse for Robert Muellers ’specielle efterforskning’ var at afdække alting relateret til et muligt samarbejde, lovligt eller ej, mellem Trump og hans præsidentkampagne og russere. Det har længe været McCarthys pointe at den slags efterforskning hørte hjemme under kontraspionagevirksomhed, da det ikke er så vigtigt at få domsfældelser, som at få afdækket trusselsbilledet. Og som en bekræftelse på den logik har Mueller netop ved sine sigtelser af russere, der aldrig vil komme for en amerikansk domstol - og derfor aldrig vil udfordre validiteten af Muellers bevismateriale - begravet den videre efterforskning i justitsministeriets “National Security Division, the home of other non-prosecutable foreign counterintelligence work that is never intended to see the light of day in a public courtroom”

Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was never something that the Justice Department was unable to investigate in the normal course. In fact, for months, the Trump Justice Department was investigating it in the normal course, just as the Obama Justice Department had done. Then, President Trump fired FBI director James Comey. It was this event that prompted Rosenstein to appoint Mueller. We got a special counsel not because of Russia’s espionage or any evidence indicating actual Trump-campaign complicity in it; we got a special counsel because Rosenstein was deeply involved in Comey’s ouster and wanted to fend off Democratic attacks on him over it.

The only point of the new indictment is to justify Rosenstein’s decision and Mueller’s existence. Proponents of the unnecessary special counsel want to say, “See, we really needed this investigation.” But that can be said with a straight face only if the goalposts are moved.

Muellers efterforskning har kostet en del penge, så noget skal skatteyderne have for penge, om det så bare er lidt røg.

Free achorbaby, Ti’z Nazi USA

Diverse — Drokles on June 25, 2018 at 10:45 am

Mediernes og oppositionens igangværende hysteri over opretholdelsen af loven er et udtryk for desperation over at det endnu ikke er lykkedes at etablere en substantiel kritik af Trumps foreløbige præsidentperiode. Økonomien går godt, tåbelige internationale aftaler ophæves, en fredsproces er sat igang med Nordkorea. Talkshow værten Bill Maherønskede derfor en økonomisk recession, hvis det kunne tvinge Trump fra magten. Andre frygtede gode nyheder fra topmødet mellem Nordkorea og USA/Sydkorea, da det ville gavne præsidentens popularitet, hvilket er værre end udsigten til et ‘nuclear showdown’. Som de gode nyheder fortsætter blev Trumps fresproces anklaget for at normalisere det nordkoreanske regime og glemt var Obamas fremstrakte hænder mod Iran og Cuba, som blot bed tilbage. Hadet til Trump trumfer virkeligheden. For medierne og venstrefløjen handlede valget ikke om, hvem man mente kunne gavne landet og dets indbyggere mest, men om ren æstetik.

Time havde en dramatisk forside, hvor en nådesløs Trump betragtede et grædende barn hans stormtropper havde reddet ud af armene på sin desperate mor. Men faktisk var pigen, Yanela, stadig i armene på sin mor, der tidligere var blevet udvist fra USA efter at have krydset grænsen illegalt (jævnfør retsforfølgelsen), og begge havde det efter omstændighederne fint, fortalte hendes mand til pressen, hjemme i Honduras. Og, hæftede manden sig ved, så var de nu i sikkerhed, hvad de ikke havde været på den lange tur, som bl.a indeholdt at krydse Rio Grande på en tømmerflåde. Moderen havde længe drømt om at udleve den ‘amerikanske drøm’ selvom manden sagde at “things back home were fine” og nu skulle det være - uden hendes mands vidende. Eller andre af de yderligere tre børns fra 6 til 14 år, som moderen efterlod med sin far efter at have betalt en menneskesmugler 6.000$ og rejst de 2.500 km.

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-06-25-kl-104219(billedet kan være bearbejdet)

Time stod ved deres historie, som selv CNN fik kvaler med fordi dens essens var sand, nemlig at Trumps politik betød grædende børn. Talsmand for Det Hvide Hus Sarah Huckabee Sanders sagde derimod, at historien var blevet adskilt fra fakta. Det er der meget der er.

Det Hvide Hus talsmand Sarah Huckerbee Sanders blev, sammen med sin familie, nægtet betjening på en restaurant, skriver Breitbart, der samtidig ironiserer over at det har været venstrefløjen så meget for, at tvinge bagerier til at udsmykke kager med budskaber, der strider imod bageriets værdier. En gruppe aktivister havde sat sig for, at chikanere chefen for Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, som de beskylder for at være “a modern-day Nazi” der, ved at opretholde den af Demokraterne vedtagne lov, begår forbrydelser imod menneskeheden, skriver Think Progress. Ved at forfølge hende og skabe et venstrefløjs spetakel hvorend hun bevæger sig er det deres håb at udskamme hende (som den første i rækken) til underkastelse. Og en Demokrat afspillede en optagelse af grædende børn i Kongressen i håbet om at udskamme det republikanske flertal. Hans kollega fra Kongressen, Maxine Waters, uartikulerede sin foragt således for åben mikrofon

“I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.”

Dickens kaldte omsorgen for det fremmede andet på bekostning af omsorgen for det nære for ‘teleskop filantropi’, skriver Bruce Thornton i Frontpage Magazine. Og efter en hurtig litteraturhistorisk gennemgang af begrebet, skriver han videre

So too today, with those beating their breasts over sloppily vetted illegal aliens who endanger their children by bringing them across the border or sending them off with “coyotes.” They can’t seem to summon similar compassion for the victims of the criminals allowed into the country and kept here despite serial felonies. And remember the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the terrorist murderers held in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib? And how about the “Palestinians” who use their own children as shields behind which to launch lethal attacks on Israelis? When do we hear the same lamentations over innocent Israeli children and families murdered by homicide-bombers, scud missiles, and knife-wielding terrorists?

Then there is today’s favorite venue for politicized conspicuous compassion––the postcolonial Third World. Our morbid fascination with the misery and suffering there serves both our need to signal our superior virtue, and the leftist melodrama of the Western colonial and imperialist oppression allegedly responsible for that suffering.

This combination of conspicuous compassion and ostentatious self-loathing is the essence of Third-Worldism, that idealization of the non-Western “other” combined with self-flagellation over the original sins of imperialism and colonialism. French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote a brilliant analysis of this cultural neurosis in Tears of the White Man. Bruckner describes how Third-World suffering has become a lucrative commodity for the modern media, who provide the images that we consume in order to enjoy cost-free pathos and smug superiority about our righteous compassion. In this way, we compensate for our “certain essential evil,” as Bruckner calls the West’s original sin, “that must be atoned for.”

Which is to say, conspicuous compassion is about political power, since this neurosis empowers the foreign policy favored by globalists and leftists alike –– foreign aid and “development” even if they’re not in our national interest and don’t help to protect our security. Domestically, for decades, including during George W. Bush’s bout of “compassionate conservatism,” the progressives have slandered conservatives as heartless and ruthless racists, bigots, and xenophobes who fear the dark-skinned “other” and seek to “roll back the clock” to the time when their “white male hetero-normative privilege” was unchallenged.

That caricature reinforces as well progressives’ self-image as more enlightened and tolerant, more caring about the suffering victims of conservatism’s crimes. Both caricatures serve political theater by giving us a melodrama in which good and evil, white hats and black hats, are easily recognizable without having to think too much about, say, the long track-record of progressivism’s failures, both at home and abroad, to improve the lives of those they have so much compassion for.

En hel politisk fløj går og dens medier går fuld Helen Lovejoy.

Det globale klimakterium

Diverse — Drokles on June 21, 2018 at 6:24 am

klimaramt-klode

Under den besynderlige titel “Danmark skal hjælpe med at brødføde en klimaramt klode” advarede Dan Jørgensen i 2014. Han havde læst i en FN rapport, at fremtiden, også den lige om hjørnet, ville byde på fødevaremangel grundet flere og værre tørker med oversvømmelse vil ødelægge verdens afgrøder. Alle ved hvor svært det er at få noget til at gro i troperne.

Hvis man ville vide hvad klimaforandringerne vil bringe, skrev det ventreorienterede Think Progress sidste år, skulle man blot se på den irske kartoffel hungersnød (1845-89). “Economic inequality and rampant xenophobia make environmental disasters worse” - hvorfor det sikkert var derfor Dan Jørgensen mente, at det vil være op til danskerne, med deres xenofobe rigdom, at redde resten af verden.

Think Progress indrømmede, at deres lære af klimaforandringer, fra et tilfælde førend mennesket på nogen meningsfuld måde kunne have påvirket klimaet, ikke havde nogen årsag i klimaet, da selve kartoffelpesten var et parasitangreb. Men fordi de engelske protestanter udbyttede de livegne irske katolikker og fortsatte med at eksportere deres rigelige afgrøder af anden slags til England, havde de fattige irlændere stort set intet andet at spise end de kalorierige kartofler, der nu var ramt af parasitter.

“Basically, what you had is a society controlled by what we would today call neoliberal capitalism, in which the rich viewed poor people as totally superfluous” citerede de en professor for at sige. Og fordi alt bliver slemt med klimaforandringer vil det, der er slemt allerede, som det neokapitalistiske samfund, blive endnu være med klimaforandringer. 1 million irlændere døde i de år og en million emigrerede til USA, hvor de også fandt og selv udviste xenofobi. Og så stod der noget med automatiseringer og Trump, men hvorom alting var, så var det perspektivet ifølge Think Progress.

Men på Politico hæftede man sig ved et andet problem ved klimaforandringer end hvad Think Progress, Dan Jørgensen. FN frygtede nemlig, at der kommer til at gro for store afgrøder grundet den CO2 rige atmosfære. Også det vil være galt, for alt der forandrer sig fører kun ulykker med sig, hvis ikke i den ene retning så i den anden. Så fremtiden bringer en omvendt kartoffelkrise, hvor folk kvæles i kalorier.

Det er historier, som disse, der gnaver i folks tillid til den brovtende ekspertise. Og klimasagen er også reelt set helt død, skrev Steven F Hayward for Wall Street Journal

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.

Det var forudsigeligt, skrev han videre, ikke fordi det var en tosset ide, hvilket det var, men fordi den slags politiske bevægelser har en livscyclus ifølge Anthony Downs. I den første fase slår nogle eksperter og aktivister alarm over et eller andet de finder er et problem. Denne fase afløses af ‘dopamin’ fasen, hvor aktivister overvejer mulighederne i løsninger på katastrofen. Dernæst indses det at omkostningerne vil være astronomiske for at forhindre katastrofen og til slut taber offentlig langsomt interessen, som dommedagsbasunerne bliver færre og mere fjollede.

A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”

Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

På Verdensnaturfondens hjemmeside kan man læse at “Klimaforandringerne er en kendt synder, og er medskyldig i det markante insektfald overalt i verden”. Så overalt i Verden, fra troperne til polarcirklen, lever der insekter som nu dør fordi de rammes af klimaet.

Det vender for Trump

Diverse — Drokles on June 20, 2018 at 9:26 am

Der er masser af undersøgelser i det amerikanske juridiske system, ikke blot af den siddende præsident Trump og hans modkandidat Hillary Clinton og allehånde personer tilknyttet de to og deres valgkampsorganisationer, men også af systemet selv. Justitsministeriet har i ugens løb har Justitsministeriet offentliggjort en rapport (af flere og kommende) om FBIs gøren og laden under præsidentvalgkampen. Og det viser sig at der var mange, der havde en ide om, hvorledes de kunne hjælpe amerikanerne med at træffe et kvalificeret valg; et læk-o-rama kaldte Allah-pundit det.

56 årige James Wolfe, “security director, responsible for receiving, maintaining and managing all classified intelligence shared with the [Senate Intelligence Committee] by U.S. spy agencies (or is it informant agencies?)” havde en affære med en journalist først i tyverne, ved navn Ali Watkins, som han forsynede med allehånde fortrolige oplysninger fra sit arbejde, så hun kunne få sit scoop og han bevise at han endnu kunne. Begge havde de et anstrengt forhold til udsigten af 8 år under Trumps præsidentskab. Andrew C McCarthy giver en smagsprøve

For example, in spring 2017, Wolfe tipped Ms. Watkins that Russian spies had attempted to recruit Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page back in 2013. This leak did not occur in a vacuum. It had been revealed that the Obama Justice Department used the unverified Steele dossier, generated by the Clinton campaign, to obtain FISA-court surveillance warrants against Page. To control the damage, Democrats and other, uh, non-partisans wanted to claim that the FBI had reasons independent of the dossier to suspect that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia.

Wolfe obliged with the leak, enabling Watkins to write a BuzzFeed article provocatively headlined “A Former Trump Adviser Met with a Russian Spy” — although the story could just as easily have been entitled “A Former Trump Adviser Helped Justice Department Prosecute Russian Spies.” (Page voluntarily provided information that prosecutors used to arrest Moscow’s operatives.)

The indictment implies that Watkins’s story was based in part on top-secret intelligence provided to the committee by a U.S. intelligence agency on March 17. On that day, Wolfe and Watkins exchanged 82 texts, in addition to having a lengthy phone call. On April 3, the day the story was published, they exchanged 124 texts and spoke on the phone after Watkins appeared on national television to discuss her report.

Wolfe cultivated other journalists, too, using what the indictment calls “anonymizing messaging applications,” and arranging surreptitious meetings in restaurants, bars, private residences, and secluded areas of the Hart Senate Office Building. Wolfe gave one unidentified reporter a heads-up that the committee had subpoenaed Page, and he even provided that reporter with Page’s personal contact information. Later, after the reporter’s story was published, Wolfe extended congratulations: “Good job! . . . I’m glad you got the scoop.” The reporter responded with thanks, noting that Page was not “pleased” but did not deny being subpoenaed. Page complained to the committee about media leaks, to no avail.

For skønt Trump mener at han ville vinde en meningsmåling blandt FBIs medarbejdere ‘med en større margin end nogen nogensinde har vundet en meningsmåling’ er kulturen i dele af FBI degeneret til, at flere fandt det naturligt at støtte ‘modstandsbevægelsen’, den del af den politiske opposition, der ville yde Trump modstand uanset hvad - uanset hans førte politik. Foragten for Trump og hans vælgere, der af en FBI medarbejder blev kaldt fattige, uuddannede, dovne skiderikker, som skal bekæmpes, var tilsyneladende så almindelig, at man på direktionsgangene ikke syntes at have haft kvaler med at begå ulovligheder

Eller sådan synes det at se ud, hvis man skal tolke på tidligere stedfortædende direktør Andrew McCabe forsøg på at opnå immunitet mod at vidne foran Kongressen. McCabe har haft en ledende rolle både i efterforskningen af alting Rusland og i Hillary Clintons email sag. Mens FBI på forhånd gav ledende medlemmer af Hillary Clintons stab immunitet, selv om de bl.a. havde medvirket til at destruere bevismateriale så var man anderledes nidkære med at retsforfølge Trump medarbejdere for ikke at være konsistente i deres vidneudsagn.

In fact, the most hair-raising section of the report, an entire chapter, is devoted to communications among several FBI officials (not just the infamous duo of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page), which overflow with abhorrence for Trump (“loathsome,” “an idiot,” “awful,” “an enormous d**che,” “f**k Trump”) and his core supporters (“retarded,” “the crazies,” one could “smell” them). More alarmingly, the agents express a determination to stop Trump from becoming president (e.g., Strzok, on being asked if Trump would become president, says “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”; and on being assured that his election is highly unlikely, opines that “we can’t take that risk” and that the bureau needs “an insurance policy” against him).

Med det målrettede had, der her demonstreres kan der næppe herske tvivl om at enhver antydning af bevismateriale mod Trump for at have et uheldigt forhold til ‘russerne’ var blevet lækket for længst. De har overspillet deres kort og satset på at de kunne finde et eller andet inkriminerende hvis blot de roede længe nok. Men Trump var smart. Han viste at der ikke var noget at finde og har brugt tiden på at styrke amerikansk økonomi og amerikanske interesser, mens hans fjender skaffede sig selv mere reb af hænge i.

Pyjamasdrengen har fået sparket

Diverse — Drokles on June 15, 2018 at 9:03 am

To medlemmer af det norske Fremskrittspartiet indstiller Trump til Nobels Fredspris for sin rolle i fredsprocessen i Korea. Lidt tidligt vil jeg mene, men i det mindste har Trump udrettet mere end blot ikke at være Bush, som hans forgænger Barak Obama vandt prisen for - eller var det for ikke at være hvid? Det var en anden tid dengang skrev Robert L Erlich Jr National Review, som minderne skyllede over ham med stemninger

Recall a lifetime ago (actually it was 2008), when a certified dove won the presidency in a landslide. One of his first official acts was to undertake a trip to a number of Muslim countries, wherein apologies were offered for America’s “imperialist” past. Assurances were also made: The cowboy Bush and his warmongering neocons were gone. Mr. Obama would now inform the world that America had learned its lesson. The U.S. would no longer manifest its arrogance on the world stage. We would henceforth strive to have the world like us — especially our charismatic but unthreatening young president, who was counterintuitive himself, seeming to act on the premise that if the United States was ostentatiously embarrassed about its dominance and power, we would be better liked. And we were better liked, but much more endangered and much less intimidating.

American withdrawal from world hot spots followed. Where we did show up, we made sure to provide the enemy with the date and time of our engagement. Where we did take action, only tentative commitment followed. Who can forget Secretary of State John Kerry promising a “unbelievably small, limited kind of [bombing] effect” against Bashar al Assad’s murderous regime, or a famously failed “red line” in that same country; or the description of deserter Bowe Bergdahl as having served with “honor and distinction”; or freezing defensive missiles in Poland to placate Vladimir Putin; or our feckless response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea; or the specter of funding the Iranian ballistic-missile program and the mullahs’ terror activities throughout the Middle East?

Alas, too many voters within flyover America saw all this as a step too far — too much weakness — too many vacuums — too many “kick me” signs displayed for consumption by America’s bullies. With apologies to Austin Powers, American had lost, indeed given away, its “mojo.”

And then one day the unlikeliest of political leaders appeared. Many voters (including some who ended up voting for him) saw Mr. Trump as unprepared to tackle the world’s most intractable problems. Another subset of supporters maintained serious concerns about “policy by tweet” and the man’s propensity to engage in sideshow fights with antagonistic politicians, reporters, and celebrities.

But there was one aspect to the Trump phenomena that all of his supporters firmly believed: that the “kick me” sign that had hung around America’s neck for eight years would be gone. Good riddance.

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-06-15-kl-091611

Victor Davis Hanson fangede også tendensen, pyjamasdrengens selvoptagede og egocentriske regime

6 dage i Juni II - De udvalgtes åg

Diverse — Drokles on June 12, 2018 at 7:40 pm

Det var aldrig meningen at Israel skulle blive, som det er idag, skrev Göran Rosenberg f.eks i Information sidste år. Rosenberg var skuffet på den Første Zionistiske Kongres vegne over at Israel i de 121, der er gået, med alt hvad der er sket af uforudset ting i historien, ikke har været efter den oprindelige og lettere diffuse plan. Rosenberg sammenligner simpelt hen nogle drømme med et nutidsbillede uden hensyn til at vilkårene har ændret sig - hensynet til virkeligheden er den mangel han stiver sin indignation af med. For eksempel kollapsede det Osmanniske Rige, hvis velvilje planen afhang, som følge af 1. Verdenskrig. En anden udvikling man ikke havde set i 1898 var at det ellers stort set tomme land omkring Judæa og Samaria ville tiltrække allehånde arabere, som jøderne skabte økonomisk liv. Det var heller ikke med i planen at araberne ville erklære jihad mod selv ideen om at jøder ikke levede ydmygede under muslimsk fod, men havde deres egen bestemmekalot på issen. Virkeligheden optræder faktisk ikke i Rosenbergs domfældelse af Israel.

6-dageskrigen blev, ganske rigtigt, et afgørende vendepunkt for Israels identitet og forhold til araberne. Fra at Israel kunne overleve arabernes forsøg på folkemord, beviste Israel i juni ‘67, at de kunne ’settle all family business’ til den arabiske og muslimske Verdens store ydmygelse - og de var ikke uskyldige. Og vist førte den sejr til en brovtende selvforståelse og det er alt hvad Rosenberg mener er relevant. “Uanset årsagerne til krigen” indleder han således et afsnit, og fortsætter

…varede det ikke længe, før Israels erobring af Østjerusalem og Vestbredden blev beskrevet som en historisk tilbagevenden. En bred politisk bevægelse på tværs af partier under navnet ’Hele Landet Israel’, Eretz Israel Hachlema, krævede, at ’Judæa’ og ’Samaria’ skulle beholdes. Den faktiske – og senere formelle – annektering af Østjerusalem (inden for stærkt udvidede bygrænser) blev forholdsvis hurtigt sat i værk. Få år senere var de første jødiske bosættelser på besat jord et faktum, deriblandt den aggressivt national-religiøse enklave i det centrale Hebron.

(…)

Med tilbagekomsten til Hele Landet Israel skabtes de militære, politiske og territoriale forudsætninger for jødiske bevægelser baseret på forestillingen om, at jødisk nationalt herredømme over den erobrede ’hellige jord’ var en opfyldelse af bibelske profetier. De millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu beboede og benyttede området, var reduceret til en hindring på jødernes vej.

Med den jødisk-ortodokse tænker Yeshayahu Leibowitz ord, blev det jødiske folks stat “et statsapparat for jøders tvangsherredømme over et andet folk”. Uanset årsagerne, vold er forkert, så spar ham for “den selvmedlidende tone” om selvforsvar “uanset om der måtte være nogen sandhed i disse påstande eller ej”.

Men desværre, sandheden kan ikke forskastes. Araberne forkastede FNs delingsplan og derved også deres krav på jorden. Jorden mente de, at de kunne erhverve sig uden om FN ved at tage den med magt og slagte jøderne. Derved afsværgede de sig også retten til det, der ikke var Israel (Israel anerkendte FNs delingsplan og har efter international lov, ret til det land, som Delingsplanen definerede) og det blev, som det stadig er, omstridt land.

I ‘48 blev Østjerusalem besat af Jordan, der straks ødelagde alle synagoger og jødiske kirkegårde med mere. De millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu boede og benyttede området havde ingen kvaler med den manøvre. Området tilhørte altså ikke dem, men en hvilken som helst repræsentant for arabere eller muslimer. Omstridt land besat af trediepart… hvem besætter Israel det fra? Jordan eller de millioner af palæstinensere, som endnu beboede og benyttede området?

Og hvorfor er hellig jord sat i citationstegn, når det var araberne der erklærede hellig krig? Og hvorfor benyttes navnet ‘Palæstina’, som det korrekte, når det hverken er arabisk eller jødisk (det er et romersk hånenavn) - og ikke indkluderer Jordan, som ellers var en del af det Palæstinensiske Mandat? Fordi fakta ikke betyder noget, kun anklagen.

Rosenberg medgiver at det er “givetvis korrekt”, at Israel bliver bedømt med en anden målestok end andre stater, men det syntes altså så uvæsentligt at han end ikke finder det væsentligt om det faktisk er korrekt. For hvis Israel bliver målt med andre alen, så hænger det sammen med at “at forventningerne helt naturligt blev eksalterede og frygten apokalyptisk”, ved vores civilisations udsigt til “Jødernes tilbagekomst til ’det hellige land’”. Det er altså jødernes egen skyld at de ikke har levet op til vores forventninger.

6 dage i Juni

Diverse — Drokles on June 10, 2018 at 3:56 am

Jeg missede 50 året, men 51 er også et år at huske 6-dageskrigen, her på datoen for den sidste krigs-dag. Medierne huskede det dog for enhver anledning til såkaldt Israelkritik forpasses aldrig.

USAs præsident Trump har lige omfavnet de enevældige arabiske herskere og Israels ultranationalistiske leder som de gode og stemplet iranerne som de onde” skrev tidligere dansk Udenrigsminister og Formand for FNs Generalforsamling Mogens Lykketoft i Berlingske Tidende. Dette synspunkt, som Lykketoft dutter Trump på, kalder han en “ekstrem forenkling”. Araberne bliver enevældige herskere i selskab med Trump, men er ikke en del af den virkelighed, som Israel skal overleve under. Næh, “De største trusler mod Israel kommer fra Israel selv”, slog hans overskrift fast. Og så bandt han, ganske sigende om tiden og den panik som Trump har skabt, sit håb til “tidligere chefer for militær og efterretningstjenester”

Lykketoft er ikke politiker uden evnen til at kunne besnakke de mindre indsigtsfulde. Hamas er den “islamiske bevægelse” og ikke en terrorbevægelse, hvis eksistensformål det er at udslette Israel og alle dens iboende jøder. Den slags er man vandt til, men Lykketoft er også mere subtil.

Et retorisk begreb som “det historiske Palæstina” skal få læseren til at se det land for sig som der strides om, så udgør Israel allerede broderparten af der hvor Palæstina jo ligger, som det har ligget siden den historiske tid startede. Da palæstinenserne efter 67 opkaldt sig selv efter Palæstina og ikke længere bare var en samling arabiske klaner, der end ikke kunne enes om at føre koordineret krig mod jøderne ved delingen, er det naturligt for mange. at tiltro palæstinenserne førsteret til landet. Så Israel har allerede fået mere end de burde ved deres blotte eksistens.

Med det etableret er der således anderledes dybde når Lykketoft smører retorisk på med at Israel “fortsætter undertrykkelsen, ydmygelsen og koloniseringen af de palæstinensiske områder”. Se, ikke palæstinensernes områder, som retorisk vil være de områder de allerede har, men de palæstinensiske områder hvori Israel befinder sig. “Israels regering har ingen reel vilje til at opgive besættelsen” får vi også at vide, som var selv Israel en stor besættelse.

Og se det i lyset af hans indledning af kronikken

FN bestemte i 1947, at jøderne skulle have et hjemland i Palæstina, og at landet skulle deles i en jødisk og arabisk stat med Jerusalem som neutral zone. Historien tog en anden drejning med krigen i 1948-49, som for jøderne var en frihedskrig og for palæstinenserne en katastrofe.

Han fortæller ikke at jøderne accepterede hvad FN tilbød, som de havde accepteret de seks foregående tilbud og holdt fest i det ganske land og derved fik deres land af FN. Araberne sagde nej til tilbudet, som de havde sagt nej til de seks forudgående, om at få deres del af resten af ‘det historiske Palæstina’ (anderkendt) af FN. De valgte krigen, som de tabte - og dermed står de uden krav på land i det nu omstridte område.

Han fortæller heller ikke at araberne allerede havde fået 80% af det historiske Palæstina han er så glad for at nævne. Det hedder Jordan og det besatte Jerusalem, som et led i krigen mod det af FN nyoprettede Israel, skændede alle jødiske kirkegårde og ødelagde synagogerne. Jordan annekterede faktisk hele Vestbredden, mens Ægypten annekterede Gaza - og aldrig var der en ‘palæstinenser’ der klagede over at være besat. For det katastrofale havde intet at gøre med antallet af flygtninge. Nogle hundrede tusinder er desværre ikke særligt mange mennesker i det regnskab, nogenlunde det samme antal som der de kommende år måtte flygte af jøder fra den arabiske verden til Israel. I Europa blev ca 12 millioner af tyskere fordrevet fra Østeuropa. Katastrofen bestod i at Israel overhovedet blev etableret, da jødisk selvherredømme strider imod islamisk lære.

Lykketoft får dog fortalt at under hans “formandskab holdt FN også et stormøde mod antisemitisme” hvor han i en tale sagde “at det ikke er antisemitisk at kræve afslutning på besættelsen og undertrykkelsen af det palæstinensiske folk eller kræve stop for ulovlige bosættelser på besat jord”. Det er der en islamisk bevægelse, der gerne vil skrive under på.

Venstrefløjens ondskab

Diverse — Drokles on June 9, 2018 at 6:30 am

Charles Krauthammer har bemærket at konservative anser venstrefløjsere (liberals) som idioter, mens venstrefløjsere betragter konservative som onde. Idioter kan man forsøge at få i tale og måske forklare dem, hvor i alverden det går galt i deres små hoveder - og måske lærer man selv noget undervejs. Men har man først dømt sin modpart som ond, så er der ingen grund til debat. Med ondt skal det onde bekæmpes.

Derfor faldt det helt naturligt for en række show-biz celebriteter at tilsvine Ivanka Trump for at være sin fars datter. Anledningen var et bedårende fotografi Ivanka havde offentliggjort på Twitter af hende selv med sin lille søn. “Feckless cunt!” kaldte en TV-entertainer hende til sit publikums store begejstring og celebritetskollegaers fulde støtte, der lagde ekstra lag på eller var fiffige som Sally ikke-uden-min-datter Fields, der mente at ‘fissen’ var modsætningen til Ivanka, god, smuk og livgivende som den var. Og Jon Stewart kendte Bee, som det mest sympatiske mennekse overhovedet, så hvis hun har tilsvinet nogen måtte det være fortjent. Hun er god, ergo…

Den amerikanske forfatningsekspert Alan Dershowitz er et af de mennesker, der har forsyndet sig allermest mod al anstændighed ved ikke at tolke Trump juridiske forhold ufavorabelt, skriver Legal Insurrection. Og det er nedslående læsning, for de af os, der tror på at debat i sidste ende kan gennemførs selv med idioter. Et halvt år gammelt eksempel er Elie Mystal på sitet Above The Law. Mystal fordømmer alle mennesker, der har stemt på, støttet eller ikke sagt fra overfor den Trump, der er “openly bigoted, is an admitted sexual predator, courts nuclear war, lies, cheats, steals”. Hun har mistet, ikke droppet, mistet, venner og familie fortæller hun som hun beskriver sin systematiserede foragt for dissidenter

In bucket A, you have all the private people, the friends and family, who you can no longer talk to. How can you still break bread with people who think that their economic grievances are so important that it justifies national racism towards you, your children, and your immigrant wife? I’ve lost friends because post-Trump I can’t even trust them to be around my kids.

In bucket B, there are the public people. The ones you don’t know personally but whose work or art you respected. I cannot respect somebody who will raise their voice and expend their effort on the same side that the Nazis are fighting for. I cannot forgive that. Some of these people openly support Nazis, others merely compartmentalize the white supremacy away from whatever policy point they think is really important. Either way, these people are irredeemable. When you decide to roll around in trash it matters little if you are rotten to the core or if you just smell that way. I’m keeping a list, for when the wheel comes back around.

In bucket C, there are those who are silently complicit. They don’t say anything overtly Trumpish, but they also don’t do anything at all to resist. These are the “both siders.” They are LEGION in media. I see you. You’re dead to me too.

Oprevet derfor skriver hun hvorledes “ Washington Post ran a piece today that allowed Dershowitz” at forklare sin position. Dershowitz - “a junkie who gets high off of playing devil’s advocate” kan kun, måske(!) blive tilgivet, hvis det viser sig, at en virus har sat sig på hans hjerne og reduceret ham midlertidigt til “some kind of brain eating, p***y-grabbing zombie“. Men sådan er det nok ikke, konstaterer hun mismodigt og konkluderer “Evil continues to win the day“.

—————————————-

Vi på Monokultur har med glæde benyttet Charles Krauthammers indsigt i amerikansk politik i 10 år. Det er sørgeligt, at han nu er dødsyg af cancer. Han offentliggjorde sit værdige og bevægende farvel til denne Verden i Washington Post. “It was a wonderful life — full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living” skriver han bl.a efter at have takket allehånde mennesker i sit liv, fra familie til læsere. Det kan anbefales at læse.

Europa

Diverse — Drokles on June 8, 2018 at 6:35 am

Der var en opsigtsvækkende sag i USA, hvor en voksen mand sagsøgte sine forældre for at smide ham ud hjemmefra. Forældrene mente at deres søn havde brug for at stå på egne ben, hvilket sønnen mente var en krænkelse af hans rettigheder og en trussel mod hans velbefindende. Den sag randt mig ihu da jeg læste følgende beklagelse over den nye italienske virkelighed med to populistpartier i regeringen, skeptiske overfor EU, afrikanske migranter hærgende i bybilledet, og regnskabsføring, i Der Spiegel

Europe is currently battling on many fronts, both internally and externally. The EU must adopt a united stance on Donald Trump, whose misguided policies threaten both Europe’s security and prosperity. Trump is forcing Europe into a trade war and, worse yet, he threatens to scrap the postwar international order that enabled the Europeans to find their place in the world — through trade and the structures of the World Trade Organization and the security it found in the form of NATO.

But how can the EU wage a trade war if Italy threatens to spiral into chaos? At a time when the EU could be proving itself as an alternative to Trump’s unilateralism, when Japan, Mexico and the members of South America’s Mercosur are lining up to conclude free trade agreements with Brussels, Europe may instead be facing months, if not years, of squabbling over a possible bailout for Italy. And then, almost as an afterthought, there’s Brexit, Britain’s departure from the EU, which is set to take place in nine months.

The attention instead is on Italy, a founding member of the EU, a pillar of NATO and the third-largest economy in the eurozone. If this country teeters, it will shake the entire architecture of the European Union.

Det sku’ være så godt… Ja, den internationale orden, hvor Europa fandt sin plads, ikke helt gennem “trade and the structures of the World Trade Organization and the security it found in the form of NATO”, men mere bag høje toldmure om Det Indre Marked, gratis beskyttet af det amerikanske militær. Så hvad skal der nu blive af EU “a bastion of reason“, “when Trump and Putin are trying to tear down the multilateral order, established over many years through painstaking work, and instead insist on the survival of the fittest.” Forstår “semi-autokraten” Trump da slet ingen ting?

“The longer the EU grows together, the more people are drifting apart from each other” citeres en italiensk filosof for at sige - måske fordi det lyder mere seriøst end at citere Prinsesse Leia. Og EUs kvaler vil selvfølgelig ikke udmønte i en borgerkrig, som Alessandro Gagaridis spekulerer i på Eurasia Review. EU falder fra hinanden (hvis det falder fra hinanden) af manglende interesse i de forskellige medlemstater. Fordi der ikke er en fælles offentlighed til at binde EU sammen vil der heller ikke være en fælles interesse i at holde på de enkelte medlemslande. Derfor kan man intet lære af eksemplerne USA og Jugoslavien. De frigjorte medlemslande vil blot komme ud af huset og stå på egne ben.

Et blodigt teater

Diverse — Drokles on June 5, 2018 at 10:20 am

“De mejes ned som fluer”, skriver Fathi El-abed i et løgnefyldt indlæg på BT. Som fluer ikke mejes er 93 ud af 112 dræbte Hamas terrorister (resten er grangiveligt glade amatører). Sidste år kunne man i New York Post læse at Hamas brugte halvdelen af den udenlandske støtte til at belønne terrorister. Det er også meget bedre uden en mellemmand, som UNWRA, der spilder for mange penge på potemkin kulissen.

Brendan O’Neill skriver i Spiked Online, at der er en klam symbiose mellem vestlige journalister, ivrige efter en simpel historie mellem gode ofre og onde undertrykkere, og Hamas propaganda. Og det er denne interesse for den gode historie, der er med til at holde konflikten på et unaturligt intenst niveau. Uanset hvor dårligt palæstinenserne ’som folk’ er blevet stillet ved at deres arabiske ledelse ukonstruktive kurs mod den Israels eksistens, belønnes ledelsen selv ved at opvirgle til nye kampe og sammenstød. Hamas får magt ved at levere døde civile til forslugne vestlige medier, konflikten er “a piece of bloody theatre, staged for the benefit of outsiders

It now seems undeniable that this was no instinctive, grassroots protest, but rather one that was carefully orchestrated by Hamas. As a New York Times reporter described it, after midday prayers clerics and leaders of Hamas ‘urged thousands of worshippers to join the protests’. And Hamas’s urging was littered with false claims. It told people ‘the fence had already been breached’ and Palestinians were ‘flooding into Israel’. This was a lie. A Washington Post reporter details how Hamas’s leaders told people to keep attacking the border fence because ‘Israeli soldiers [are] fleeing their positions’. In truth, as Hamas knew only too well, the IDF was reinforcing its positions.

Israel had made clear, including in an airdrop of leaflets, that anyone who sought to dismantle the fence in Gaza, the de facto border between this part of Palestine and Israel, risked coming to harm. And still Hamas encouraged the protesters to strike at the fence. Still it sought to swell the angry ranks by pleading with people to go from their mosques to the border. Why would it do this? Why would the governing party of a territory knowingly put that territory’s citizens into serious danger?

Hele Behind The Smokescreen. Det er de færreste journalister, der, som Daniel Sugarman, indrømmer at de fejlede ved at kolportere Hamas propaganda. De fortsætter at servere, hvad Hamas kokkerer og offentligheden sluger det. Matthew J Brodsky skrev i The Weekly Standard

For example, there were more than 40 staffers covering Israel and Palestinians, which was more than the AP had in China, Russia, and India combined. The situation was worse along Israel’s periphery. Before the 2011 Arab upheaval, there was a single, permanent, Assad-regime-approved AP reporter in Syria.

As Friedman pointed out, “The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago.” It had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita in 2013 than Portland, Oregon.

To fit the pre-designed narrative, the media have distilled the role of Palestinians, scrubbed the inconvenient truths that run contrary to their storyline, and transformed them into reactionary protagonists. Their motivations and messages are then explained away with talking points that lead back to Israel. Cut to a Fatah party member wearing a suit in the West Bank as he repeats the word “occupation,” then add a quotation from the beacon of morality known as the United Nations Security Council, hit save, and send. These stories practically write themselves.

Alligevel har angrebet på Israels grænser ikke skabt voldsom opmærksomhed, som man ellers traditionelt kan forvente. Der tales ind imellem om ‘demonstranter’ i titusindvis - når det går højt til. Men det er ikke særligt mange mennesker når man betænker at ingen af de 1,8 mio. i Gazastriben bor meget mere end et stenkast fra Israels Grænse. Ikke underligt at de fleste foretrækker ramadanhyggens lækkerier fremfor lugten af morgenstundens brændte bildæk og naturreservater. Jovist lyves der stadigt af gammel vane, men medierne anser ikke denne historie for den mest presserende, mere som kævl i sigøjnerlandsbyen.

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market

Diverse — Drokles on June 3, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Dette EU ‘forslag’, også kendt som Article 13, vil gøre følgende handling fra min side ulovligt

Critics of the proposed directive claim that Article 13 violates the fundamental rights of internet users, contradicts rules previously established by the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, and misunderstands the way people engage with material on the internet. Memes, remixes and other types of user-generated content would all be put at risk, they claim, as these could technically be seen as breaches of copyright.

Public domain organisation, the COMMUNIA International Association, says the EU’s measures “stem from an unbalanced vision of copyright as an issue between rightsholders and infringers”, and that the proposal “chooses to ignore limitations and exceptions to copyright, fundamental freedoms, and existing users’ practices”.

The Article stipulates that platforms should “prevent the availability” of protected works, suggesting these ISSPs will need to adopt technology that can recognise and filter work created by someone other than the person uploading it. This could include fragments of music, pictures and videos. If you’ve ever been on the internet, you’ll know that this ‘remix’ culture is a key part of how online communities function. The worry is that Article 13 will hinder this, and create a type of censorship that ignores nuances in how content can be adopted, quoted or parodied.

Nemlig at citere ud fra ‘fair use’. Ikke blot det, men det vil ligeledes være en ulovlig handling at linke til citatets ophav, i dette tilfælde Thomas McCullan. Den umiddelbare konsekvens er at kun nyheds- og it-giganter kan operere på internettet, hvilket vil koncentrere adgangen til information på få hænder - ganske i EUs ånd, som med Jean-Claude Junckers ord, handler om at “stand up against the rampant populism that we are seeing in all countries” ifølge Breitbart

“I want governments to agree on a perfectly straightforward principle. On foreign policy, if we want to be efficient … Europe must from here and onwards have a qualified majority. We can’t lead the world if we [are] hobbled by unanimity,” he said.

Veteran Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) parliamentary group leader Guy Verhofstadt also spoke at the session, claiming: “Democracy is important just because of Europe. When there was no European Union there was utter desperation in Europe, fascism in Europe between the two World Wars.

“It is since we have had the European Union that we have guaranteed democracy in the European Union, that is what we have achieved,” he claimed.

Det handler om at samle Europa.

Spygate?

Diverse — Drokles on June 1, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Det meget seriøse medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus, Republikaneren Trey Gowdy, har løftet lidt af låget for, hvad ‘man’ ved om hvor meget FBIs efterforskningen af russiske forbindelser i trumps stab kammede over i politisk spionage for den siddende regering. Som formand for Kongressens Sikkerhedsudvalg har Gowdy første parket til alt, som efterretningstjenesterne er villige til at afsløre bag lukkede døre. Og Gowdy ser ingen tegn på at Trump og hans stab skulle have været ofre for spionage på FBIs vegne.

Townhalls Guy Benson ser Gowdys vurdering, som en bekræftelse på, at teorierne om ’spygate’ stammer fra overdrevet. Han hæfter sig ved at både Carter Page og George Pappadopoulos, der arbejdede for Trumps kampagne, allerede var i FBIs søgelys længe før Trump annoncerede sit kandidatur, at Trump havde fortalt tidligere FBI direktør Kames Comey og at han mere end nogen, hellere end gerne ville vide om nogen i hans stab, arbejde for russiske interesser. Og derpå spekulerer Benson

Even if the feds were examining the conduct and associations of a small number of individuals “loosely connected to” the Trump campaign as part of a broader probe, the FBI’s focus and targets had “nothing to do with Donald Trump,” he said.  Either the South Carolinian has an extremely strong poker face and somehow has it in for the president, or he’s seen enough material about the provenance and progress of the investigation that he’s convinced Trump is not a target and is not in any serious peril.  My suspicion that the latter is true is only deepened by Gowdy’s advice that Trump ought to talk to Robert Mueller (within reasonably confined parameters, he adds) in order to formally assert his innocence on alleged “collusion.”

(…)

What Gowdy et al appear to be signaling is that there was enough ’smoke’ to justify the feds’ use of an informant within the Trump campaign, which is not tantamount to spying on Team Trump in order to harm the campaign.  I’ll say it again: The easiest way the “deep state” could have devastated Trump’s (already thin-seeming) electoral chances would have been to leak the existence of a multi-pronged federal counter-intelligence investigation into Trump campaign figures, circa October 2016.

Altså har hverken Trump eller hans ‘kampagne’ været under FBIs lup, blot enkelte medlemmer der uafhængigt havde tiltrukket sig opmærksomhed. Benson citerer en underspillet Gowdy for at fortælle Fox: “Those who have not seen the information?  I don’t know what informs their perspective.” National Review ledte an i de konservatives ‘Never Trump’ kampagne og derfor er det ironisk at Andrew McCarthy holder ved at argumentere for ‘Spygate’. Uanfægtet af Gowdys priviligerede første parket til virkeligheden, svarer han “Gee, senator, when you were carefully perusing the evidence of what the FBI was doing, did you ever sneak a peek at what the FBI said it was doing?

McCarthy hæfter sig ved, hvad alle har adgang til, nemlig Comeys vidneudsagn til Kongressen, hvori han slog fast at hans job var at finde ud af, om der var nogen som helst forbindelse mellem Trumps kampagne og ‘russerne’. “Comey went to extraordinary lengths to announce that the FBI was not merely zeroing in on individuals of varying ranks in the campaign; the main question was whether the Trump campaign itself — the entity — had “coordinated” in Russia’s espionage operation.”

It is a diversion for Gowdy to prattle on about how Trump himself was not a “target” of the Russia investigation. As we’ve repeatedly observed (and as Gowdy acknowledged in the interview), the Trump-Russia probe is a counterintelligence investigation. An accomplished prosecutor, Gowdy well knows that “target” is a term of art in criminal investigations, denoting a suspect who is likely to be indicted. The term is inapposite to counterintelligence investigations, which are not about building criminal cases but about divining and thwarting the provocative schemes of hostile foreign powers. In that sense, and in no other, the foreign power at issue — here, Russia — is always the “target” of a counterintelligence probe; but it is never a “target” in the technical criminal-investigation sense in which Gowdy used the term . . . unless you think we are going to indict a country.

(…)

So, apart from the fact that Gowdy is dodging the question about whether the Trump campaign was being investigated, his digression about “targets” is gibberish. Since the Obama administration was using its counterintelligence powers (FISA surveillance, national-security letters, unmasking identities in intelligence reporting, all bolstered by the use of at least one covert informant), the political-spying issue boils down to whether the Trump campaign was being monitored. Whether Trump himself was apt to be indicted, and whether threats posed by Russia were the FBI’s focus, are beside the point; in a counterintelligence case, an indictment is never the objective, and a foreign power is always the focus.

Second, if Gowdy has been paying attention, he must know that, precisely because the Trump campaign was under investigation, top FBI officials had qualms of conscience over Comey’s plan to give Trump a misleading assurance that he personally was not under investigation.

Det er en af McCarthys mest gennemgående pointer at skelne mellem kontraspionage og efterforskning af kriminelle forhold. Det første skal ikke ende i en retssag, men i at indsamle viden om fjendens aktiviteter uden at denne opdager det. Derfor giver det mening at “Comey and then–acting attorney general Sally Yates had met with the political leadership of the Obama administration — President Obama, Vice President Biden, and national-security adviser Susan Rice — to discuss withholding information about the Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration.”

It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign — not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign — was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe. Indeed, we now know that Obama’s Justice Department had already commenced FISA surveillance on Trump campaign figures, and that it was preparing to return to the FISA court to seek renewal of the surveillance warrants. We also know that at least one informant was still deployed. And we know that the FBI withheld information about the investigation from the congressional “Gang of Eight” during quarterly briefings from July 2106 through early March 2017. (See Comey testimony March 20, 2017, questioning by Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.).) Director Comey said Congress’s most trusted leaders were not apprised of the investigation because “it was a matter of such sensitivity.” Putting aside that the need to alert Congress to sensitive matters is exactly why there is a Gang of Eight, the palpable reason why the matter was deemed too “sensitive” for disclosure was that it involved the incumbent administration’s investigation of the opposition campaign.

(…)

Comey’s unidentified adviser connected the dots: Because (a) the FBI’s investigation was about the campaign, and (b) the campaign was Trump’s campaign, it was necessarily true that (c) Trump’s own conduct was under FBI scrutiny.

“Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.” Alligevel bad Trump om at få det for en dag om nogen i hans stab havde arbejdet for ‘russerne’? “Such a specious argument” fortsætter McCarthy og pointerer at Trump først fremsatte det ønske lang tid efter at ‘informanter’ havde infiltreret hans organisation, efter at Comey allerede havde ladet Trumpo vide at de vidste hvem der tissede i hvilke senge i Moskva uden dog at fortælle hvorfra denne “viden” stammede fra (fra modstanderen Hillary Clinton) og at hans nylige præsidentskab var født ind i mediernes  beskyldninger om russiske forbindelser.

Alle træerne tegner en skov.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress