Alle politikere er rystede over endnu et møde med gentagelsen, dekade efter dekade - intet ændrer sig andet en frekvensen stiger støt og intensiteten følger snart efter. Ingen kan stoppe en gal mand, siger vores politi, livet går videre, siger vores Statsminister. På hvilke betingelser er underordnet blot vores tilgang er zen. Det er livet i en storby, siger Londons muslimske borgmester, det må man vænne sig til. Men sandheden er at det er livet med en stor muslimsk befolkning og det vil man ikke vænne sig til. Man vil smide dem ud eller lade sig trampe ned, men vænne sig til det vil man ikke. Den luksus har kun politikerne, der håber det ikke ramler, mens deres karriere er på spil. Et demografisk pyramide spil er der sikkert nogen der har kaldt det.

Andre lader sig ikke ryste så let

Forargelsen er stor over at billedet er gået viralt, et snapshot er ude af kontekst og ingen ved, hvad der foregår under et muslimsk tørklæde. Sådan var det ikke med den døde dreng i vandkanten, der blev selve symbolet på de lukkede europæiske grænsers grusomme konsekvenser. Men drengens familie var ikke flygtninge, de boede trygt og tyrkisk og ville til Canada selv om de havde fået afslag. Medierne labbede også den muslimske brud, der lagde blomster efter terrorangrebet i Australien til sig - et så flot billede at man næsten skulle tro, det var til ære for fotograferne, hvis ikke ens menneskesyn var bedrevidende. Og medierne faldt også på halen da den ensomme muslimske kvinde i ikke kunne finde en plads blandt de afvisende danskere, selvom historien var den modsatte.

Men billedet af den tilsyneladende indifferente muslimske kvinde der krydser ummeans spor fortæller den grundlæggende sandhed, som den europæiske islamofobirapport anno 2016 forsøger at benægte på imponerende 612 sider. Det samme gør Theresa islam-er-fjong May der ved at en historie skal frames hurtigt, hvis den skal overleve mands minde i nyhedsstrømmen.

Taking on the role of a theologian, Theresa May insisted: “It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.”

Speaking in Parliament, she also said the attack showed “the importance of all of our faiths working together, and recognising the values that we share”.

Adding: “This act of terror was not an act of faith. It was a perversion; a warped ideology, which leads to an act of terrorism like that and it will not prevail.”

Men ak, nyhedsstrømmen udtrykker også den bedrøvelige sandhed, her fanget ved tilfældige screenshots fra Al Jazeera

I vores broderland, der importerer så meget fætterkultur, er politikerne rystede over at våben strømmer ind over landets grænser og det sker via Danmark. Politichefen i Malmø siger at det er mest til kriminelle, men “De er ikke spesielt organiserte, mer kamerater som kjenner hverandre og bygger ulike nettverk” og det lyder jo langt mere hyggeligt og tilforladeligt. Og ikke et ord om islam.

Medier, fagfolk og politikere har gjort det til en vane af affærdige ensomme ulve, der næsten altid synes at være godt assisteret, som værende psykisk ustabile socialt udsatte eksistenser. Belgisk politi har netop arresteret en 14 årig af slagsen og det er oveni de 29 andre ensomme jule-ulve.

Psykisk ustabile mennesker er fanget i deres egne unikke indre universer. Grupper opstår om noget medlemmerne deler. Selv hvis man som læser af Politiken skulle finde trøst i forklaringen om terroristens forvrængede virkelighed, kan man vanskeligt komme udenom at stille spørgsmålet; hvorfor er så mange muslimer, med de traditionelt grænsende over til det rent morderiske tætte sociale bånd, så udstødte psykofanter. For empirien løber ingen om hjørner med i sidste ende - man kan ikke skrive islam ud af ligningen for islamisk terrorisme.

For nyligt offentliggjorde Islamisk Stat en særligt grusom video i HD. To unge mænd, angiveligt tyrkiske soldater, bliver lukket ud af deres jern-bur i et goldt stenlandskab i Levanten, tvunget ned på alle fire og må kravle, ført som hunde, hen til eksekutions-stedet. Her blev de rejst op og via et langt bånd antændt og brændt ihjel i et roligt tempo, der tillader minutters dødskamp.

Deres dødsskrig akkompagnerer den hoverende islamiske messen, der danner det gennemgående lydspor, som det altid gør. Aldrig en pause for at tænke synes der at være i islamiske videoer. Det var en tilfredsstillende forestilling for jihad-krigerne, der som selve videoen svælgede i de grusomheder, man udsatte en i forvejen besejret og ydmyget fjende for.

Når eksperter og medier beflitter sig med Islamisk Stats propaganda videoer hæfter de sig ved at de er i HD kvalitet med en billedside, der mestrer både den lækre belysning, flere kamerastillinger og bevægelser, der fanger en koreograferet opsætning. Dette sættes i modsætning til Osama Bin Ladens grynede VHS bånd af ham selv, der holder monotone monologer i en hule i Bore Bora eller fra hans sidste bosted med den store pornosamling. Men, som jeg har skrevet før, så undgår eksperterne altid videoernes smertelige indhold, måske fordi konklusionen ikke er til at bære.

Propaganda skal lokke nye krigere til og islamisk stat lokker med grusomheder mod en slagen og ydmyget fjende. Kom og vær med, hug hoveder af, se dem vride sig i smerte, som flammerne fortærer dem, hør deres skrig, vær med til at nære angsten. Og deres målgruppe, muslimerne, lader sig lokke af de smukke billeder med det hellige indhold - skønt alt vi synes vores velfærdsregimer har gjort for at få dem inkluderet.

Julen er tid for religiøs krig, skriver Michael Finch i American Thinker og Syv migranter forsøgte at sætte ild på en hjemløs mand i Berlins undergrundsbane.  ‘Nogen andre’ forsøgte at brænde Emanuelskirken i Hamborg ned til grunden og i Sverige lykkedes det med et indkøbscenter. Og så er der nogen der bare synes det er sjovt at sparke en ældre hjemløs mand i asfalten.

Tidligere kortavarig  Knessetmedlem for Arbejderpartiet Einat Wilf forsøgte med lidt optimisme ovenpå FNs resolution 2334, der delegitimerer alt israelsk udenfor 1967 ‘grænsen’, inklusiv Øst-Jerusalem med Grædemuren og det gamle jødiske kvarter. Wilf påpegede at resolutionen ved sin skelnen mellem bosættelser og selve Israel “essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem”. Optimismen slutter vi af med, men først til Caroline Glieck der i Jerusalem Post skriver om de palæstinensiske araberes diplomatiske svikmølle

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

Anne Bayefsky, der tidligere så glimrende har beskrevet FNs konstante krig mod Israel, skriver på Fox News

The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Abbas ser frem til at kunne stille israelske sikkerhedsstyrker for den International Krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Elder Of Ziyon mindede med et par gamle avisudklip om arabernes jødefri ønske for ‘Palæstina’. Men videre og måske mere foruroligende skriver Bayefsky

At its core, this UN move is a head-on assault on American democracy. President Obama knew full well he did not have Congressional support for the Iran deal, so he went straight to the Security Council first. Likewise, he knew that there would have been overwhelming Congressional opposition to this resolution, so he carefully planned his stealth attack.

He waited until Congress was not in session. Members of his administration made periodic suggestions that nothing had been decided. There were occasional head fakes that he was “leaning” against it. He produced smiling photo-ops from a Hawaiian golf course with no obvious major foreign policy moves minutes away. Holiday time-outs were in full-swing across the country. And then he pounced, giving Israel virtually no notice of his intent not to veto.

Profound betrayal of a true democratic friend of the United States is the only possible description.

FN taler ikke om Yemen og den slags får Charles Krauthammer at foreslå at USA burde stoppe med at være vært for FN og omdanne FN-bygningen til ejerlejligheder. Og netop Trump er optimismen

Jeg troede Julens absurditet var Prins Charles, der vil have at englænderne vil bruge Julen ikke til at tænke på “Lord our savior” men at tænke på Muhammed, fordi pædofeten var nødt til at emigrere til Medina for at finde sin frihed. Den frihed benyttede han, som bekendt for alle andre end Charles, til at etablere en intolerant stat, slagte de jøder han ikke solgte fra som slaver og alle sine kritikere, førend han vendte tilbage og erobrede Mekka. Ja, det er værd at tænke når man slipper hans følgere løs i Europa.

Men desværre er Charles afsindighed overgået af rigtig politik ved Obama, der har tilladt at FN definerer Tempelbjerget inklusiv Grædemuren som tilhørende araberne. Ben Shapiro skriver

Just in time for Chanukah, President Barack Obama has unleashed all the anti-Jewish fury of his administration on the state of Israel. According to a senior Israeli official, both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been pushing a United Nations resolution behind the scenes that would essentially declare East Jerusalem, which includes the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, non-Jewish territory off limits to Israel, as well as labeling any Jew living outside the pre-1967 armistice lines illegitimate.

The draft resolution is an utter rejection of Judaism’s claims to Jerusalem – a historical absurdity, since the only reason anyone cares about the spot is because of Judaism’s claims to it, which predated any Muslim claims by well over a millennium. It rejects Israel’s ability to defend itself by maintaining territory outside the “Auschwitz borders” of pre-1967 Israel. It ignores international law – the resolution says that Israel is occupying “Palestinian territory,” which makes no historical sense given the fact that there was never any sovereign Palestine, that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded prior to 1967 and called for the full destruction of the state of Israel (as indeed, the Palestinian governing organizations continue to do), and that Israel’s enemies never agreed to any international agreement granting them sovereignty over the territory. Essentially, the UN calls for all areas outside the pre-1967 lines, which would include East Jerusalem, to become Judenrein.

This isn’t a major shock from the Obama administration, which has a long, inglorious history of Jew-hating activity when it comes to Israel. This is the same administration that signed an Iran deal that puts Israel’s very existence in jeopardy, that forced Israel to apologize for attempting to blockade arms shipments to the terrorist group Hamas, that tried to stymie Israel’s ability to defend herself during a rocket war with Hamas, that pressures Israel consistently to make concessions to would-be Jew-murderers, that goes silent when American Jews are killed in Israel, that funds a terrorist unity government.

Mark Levin tweetede “It appears anti-Semite Obama is working with the extremist Palestinians, and using the Israel-hating UN, to undermine our ally Israel“. Og i The Weely Standard skriver Elliot Abrams at Obama har tilladt FN at vedtage “a nasty and harmful anti-Israel resolution”

Just weeks before leaving office, he could not resist the opportunity to take one more swipe at Israel—and to do real harm. So he will leave with his record on Israel in ruins, and he will leave Democrats even worse off.

It’s pretty clear that he does not care. Obama has gotten himself elected twice, the second time by a decreased margin (the only time a president has been reelected by fewer votes than in his first term), but he has laid waste to his party. In the House, the Senate, the state governorships, and the state legislatures, the Democrats have suffered loss after loss. Today’s anti-Israel action will further damage the Democratic party, by driving some Jews if not toward the Republicans then at least away from the Democrats and toward neutrality. Donald Trump’s clear statement on Thursday that he favored a veto, Netanyahu’s fervent pleas for one, and the Egyptian action in postponing the vote show where Obama stood: not with Israel, not even with Egypt, but with the Palestinians. Pleas for a veto from Democrats in Congress were ignored by the White House.

Does the resolution matter? It does. The text declares that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This may turn both settlers—even those in major blocs like Maale Adumim, that everyone knows Israel will keep in any peace deal—and Israeli officials into criminals in some countries, subject to prosecution there or in the International Criminal Court. The text demands “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Now add this wording to the previous line and it means that even construction in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City is “a flagrant violation under international law.” The resolution also “calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” This is a call to boycott products of the Golan, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem, and support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

Yet Barack Obama thought this was all fine and refused to veto.

National Review forsøger at forstå omfanget af resolutionen og spørger “If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem, is he or she now a criminal? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals?“. Abrams spørger “The remaining question is whether Jewish leaders and Democratic politicians who vouched for Obama and defended him for eight years will now tell the truth”. Jonah Goldberg skriver i samme ånd at “Obama has just thrown [liberal Jews and other supporters of Israel] under the bus” med sit forræderi og blandt Obamas egne partikammerater er der også vrede, skriver The Tower. I det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine skriver Lee Smith at “The lame-duck president is dismantling the alliance system that has kept America and much of the rest of the world secure”

In a sense, the UN vote is a perfect bookend to Obama’s Presidency. A man who came to office promising to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, has done exactly that by breaking with decades of American policy. It is also seeking—contrary to established tradition and practice, which strictly prohibit such lame-duck actions—to tie the hands of the next White House, which has already made its pro-Israel posture clear.

No doubt that many of those critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship will defend and applaud the administration’s action, even as the effects of the resolution are obscene. So what if it enshrines in international law the fact that Jews can’t build homes or have sovereign access to their holy sites in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3000 years? Israel, as Kerry said, is too prosperous to care about peace with the Palestinians. Maybe some hardship will shake some sense into the Jewish State—which after all, could easily have made a just and secure peace with the Palestinian leadership at any time over the past two decades, if that’s what it wanted to do. Accounts to the contrary, from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, say, or left-wing Israeli politicians like former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the late Shimon Peres, are simply propaganda generated by the pro-Israel Lobby, whose wings the President has thankfully clipped.

But the Obama Administration’s abstention isn’t just about Israel or bilateral relations with a vital partner in a key region. It’s also about the prestige of the United States and its power—the power, for instance, undergirding international institutions like the United Nations. Consider how the Obama Administration has used the UN the last several years—to legalize the nuclear program of Iran, a state sponsor of terror, and make it illegal for Jews to build in their historical homeland. In Turtle Bay, the White House partners with sclerotic socialist kleptocracies like Venezuela in order to punish allies, like Israel. Is this American moral leadership? For Sean Penn, maybe.

Det er Jul og der er håb. Om mindre end en måned træder en mand ind som ny amerikansk præsident

Within a couple of hours, Egypt withdrew the resolution, at least temporarily, and its president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, called Mr. Trump to discuss how “to establish true peace in the Middle East,” according to an aide to the president-elect.

Skrev New York Times og selv Charles Krauthammer var imponeret. Resolution blev kørt igennem alligevel da alle, med Tom Lehrers ord, hader jøderne.

Det er svært for Politiken, der i lørdagens udgave af Debat sektionen leger med tanken om Trump som Hitler, i form af Chaplins Anton Hynkel.

Og hans stab klar til krig

Politiken har næsten ret. Alfahannerne er kommet igen. Breitbarts sikkerhedsredaktør Sebastian Gorka om Trumps udnævnelse af flere generaler i sin kommende regering

“I’d like to recognize the fact that after eight years of Pajama Boys, it’s time for the alpha males to come back,” he added. “How appropriate that we’ve got three Marines from the same division, legendary figures in uniform, to represent three of the key posts in the new administration! The fact is, having met Donald Trump a long time ago, and talking about national security issues, one of the first things that was clear to me from this businessman, this very special businessman, is that he understands we are at war, Raheem. He gets it. And he wants to win that war. He knows he’s not going to do it with limp-wristed Pajama Boys. Who better than a bunch of legendary Devil Dogs to do it? So yeah, it’s baloney, and it’s very cool in my opinion.”

Kassam turned to a discussion posted at The Gorka Briefing, in which Dr. Gorka argued that “Europe is collapsing.”

“I think it’s patently obvious that the Trump Train was the result, in part, a reflection of, the general rejection of centralized federative bureaucracy, and as a result, we have Brexit foreshadow the future of what used to be called Project Europe,” Gorka elucidated. “And the fact is, people are waking up. They’re rejecting faceless bureaucracy. We see it all across the continent. Brexit isn’t a uniquely British phenomena. As a result, we will see more and more people say, ‘Enough is enough. We want national sovereignty. We want national security most important of all.’ And as a result, I think Project Europe is on the ropes.”

Den mest markante alfahan er tidligere general i det amerikanske marinekorps James Matthis, en mand der selvfølgeligt erkender, at “there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot”. National Reviews Tom Rogan kalder Matthis “at once a scholar and a warrior” og begynder sin beskrivelse med citatet “I don’t have worry and stress. I cause worry and stress!”, bl.a fordi sin “…annihilation upon al-Qaeda in Iraq”

Iran has particular reason for concern. Commanding CENTCOM, Mattis pushed for tough realism in constraining the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary expansionism. He recognizes that Iran’s leaders are rational actors, but he also knows that their revolutionary impulses must be checked. For this, he earned the ire of President Obama, who was so intent on kowtowing to the Iranian regime. But now he is set to take over the Pentagon, and Khamenei and the Qassem-crew have much to fear.

First, Mattis is likely to push Trump to focus on fixing the Iran nuclear deal. This will likely entail reducing Iranian cheating on inspections protocols and Iranian ballistic-missile research. If Trump and Mattis work with U.S. allies (notably the French) who are concerned about President Obama’s failure to enforce the deal, Iran could face rougher waters next year. Mattis has suggested blockading the country if the regime tries to play hard ball. It’s a good idea.

Second, a Mattis Pentagon will likely take tougher action against Iranian aggression in the Middle East. As I’ve noted, President Obama has largely ignored Iranian malevolence in states such as Lebanon and Iraq. That needs to be remedied, and quickly.

Third, Mattis will deter Iranian terrorism against America. That imperative is real. In 2011, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards — as Mattis himself explains — tried to murder the then-Saudi ambassador to the United States. The plan involved blowing up a Washington D.C. restaurant and everyone in it. He’s the incarnation of the First Marine Division motto, ‘No better friend, no worse enemy.’

Fourth, Mattis’s realism will be useful in helping the U.S. to confront Sunni extremism more effectively. As I’ve explained before, thanks to his supplication to Iran, President Obama has alienated America’s Sunni-Arab allies. Mattis, who is adored by the Sunni-Arab monarchies for his honest courage, offers the Trump administration a chance to renew those bonds. That means new potential for a Sunni-Arab crackdown on Sunni fundraising for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. It also means we might see more special forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

“Who knows? American red lines might even make a comeback.” slutter Rogan.

Breitbart har samlet 15 Matthis citater, hvor mange er skønne. Jeg vil dog trække et andet citat frem, hvor kampen mod islam og anden fjendskab, ikke blot skal overlades til alfahannerne

I think it’s very clear that this enemy has decided that the war, the real war for them, will be fought in the narrative, in the media. This is not a place where we’re going to take the enemy’s capital and run up our flag and drink their coffee and that sort of thing.

Politiken er Hitler-forskrækket over generaler i regeringen Trump, fordi Alfahanner ikke hører til i fredstid - men det er Politiken ikke hører efter, hvad der foregår uden for deres bombesluse. Vi er ikke i en fredstid.

Det er min overbevisning, at demokratier ikke kan kæmpe for sin frihed uden konsensus om en nødvendighed og hvem der er fjenden. Vietnamkrigen blev tabt i de amerikanske hjerter og  ikke på slagmarken. Vi danskere, der anerkender vores nationalisme, Danmark først kunne man kalde det, kan ikke nedkæmpe truslen fra islam, uden et konsensus bag os.

Og det betyder at vi er forpligtet til at nedbryde det narrativ, den fortælling, der dominerer medierne. Sammen med venstrefløjen og bureakraterne enabler de islams angreb på vores frihed og kultur ved at fortrænge realiteterne for det stor tavse flertal. Det er en kamp for definitionsretten og den frie debat, som alle os betahanner og -hunner, kan tage på alle niveauer.

Og fordi vi i den kamp har brug for friheden til at ytre os, reagerer bureaukraterne og venstrefløjen og medierne med allehånde forsøg på at sikre kontrol med ytringer og nyheder. Racismeparagraffer ikke blot opretholdes, men søges udvidet til forbud mod hadtale, hadprædikanter bliver løst defineret som både de der spreder had som de der advarer og nægtet indrejse, sociale medier indskrænker rammerne og venstrefløjen og dens medier opfinder nye begreber, som post-faktualitet til fake news for at retfærdiggøre et offentligt meningsmonopol.

Vi kan skal alle sammen kæmpe for den frihed, der er blevet os skænket. Og der er lyspunkter i den kamp, fra store sejre som Brexit og Trump til små sprækker i mediernes selvfølgelige forståelse af ofre og skurke i det store og modige arbejde For Frihed bedriver. Og vi vil vinde - yyyuge!

Begrebet post-faktualitet er venstrefløjens seneste offensiv mod dissens i offentligheden. Beskyldningerne mod alle nye og højredrejede medier for at sprede fake-news hviler på en antagelse om de etablerede medier ikke gør det samme. På Liveleak, Youtube og de sociale medier kunne vi alle konstatere det postfaktuelle i mediernes mange historier og kolporteringer om hvorledes der var tale om hele familier, udledsagede flygtningerbørn og/eller højt specialiseret arbejdskraft, især som læger og ingenører. Det var surrealistisk.

Vi burde ellers være godt vant når indvandring, åbne grænser og multikulturalitet stadigt beskrives som et gode og en økonomisk bæredygtig fremtid når virkeligheden er stik modsat. Vi kan se at de multietniske samfund ofte kollapser i borgerkrig og hvor umuligt det er at smide en herboende vaneforbryder hjem til den møgbunke han rejstre fra fordi de sekteriske forhold i snart sagt hele resten af verden gør at alle er forfulgt af alle.

Det er helt naturligt for medierne i samklang med venstrefløjen at kaste sig over det lille medie Den Korte Avis. Da en vært på en af Danmarks Radios ungdomskanaler opfordrede til boykot, rammede DR’s nyhedschef Naja Nielsen ganske rigtigt hovedproblemet ind, da hun i NEWS-magasinet Presselogen sagde “at hele indslaget er problematisk, for det har tonen af, at det er noget, som vi alle sammen mener.” Den pointe kan man roligt strække ud til en generel beskrivelse af medierne i Danmark og tærske langhalm på til køerne kommer ind med de nye kartofler.

At være direkte imod venstrefløjens dagsorden er så odiøst blandt medierne at man problematiserer at DKA er holdningsjournalistik, skønt Dagbladet Arbejderen får tifold i medistøtte og Modkraft det dobbelte. Det må man til Uriasposten for at få at vide og den får nada i støttekroner. Kim Møller skriver videre og rigtigt om reaktionerne på Dansk Folkepartis Kenneth Kristensen Berths nøgterne betragtninger om grænsekontrol

Alt imens statsstøttede dagblade fører kampagne mod uafhængige højrefløjsmedier, kører de nyhedshistorier der burde være omfattet af ‘fake news’-begrebet.

Mediestormen mod Kenneth Kristensen Berth er et godt eksempel, og det er værd at gengive professor Emeritus Uffe Østergaards ord, som de faldt i gårsdagens Reporterne på Radio24syv.

“Jeg er bange for at han er kommet til at begå den for en politiker, så ubehagelige ting, at sige sandheden. … det er ikke rart at høre på, men grænser kræver altså faktisk en magtanvendelse.“

“… det er ubehageligt, men det er altså det man logisk set siger, når man siger man vil have grænser og grænsebevogtninger.”

“Det ligger i vores almindelige offentlighed. Vi kan ikke lide at høre sandheden.”

Information havde en hel kavalkade af sandheder fra Dansk Folkeparti, som de rubricerede som kontroversielle. Som Morten Messerschmidt, der har sagt at “muslimer, der bekender sig til den islamiske ideologi, er tabere eller bliver tabere. De ønsker jo ikke en samfundsmodel, som kan skabe tålelige forhold for mennesker“. Kontroversielt for medierne fordi beviserne på det modsatte bare er så overvældende. Af samme grund bliver Krarups sammenstilling af hagekors og islamisk hovedbeklædning skræmmende, som medierne også skræmmes over Pia Kjæsgaards Kemal Atatürk citat “Der er kun én civilisation, og det er vores” og Martin Henriksens logiske påpegning af “at skilte på arabisk signalerer (..), at hvis man ikke gider lære dansk, så indretter Danmark sig efter dem – og ikke omvendt“.

Og Danmarks Radio syntes også Geert Wilders er vildt kontroversiel for at udtale at koranen er fascistisk, at man burde lade “hovedtørklæderne blafre i parken“, at “Der er absolut en sammenhæng mellem islam og kriminalitet” og at der er en kamp igang mellem os og muslimerne. På TV2 kan man endda gøre julehilsen til noget kontroversielt, hvis det falder ud af Trumps mund: “Trump med kontroversiel erklæring: - Nu må I sige ‘glædelig jul’ igen” Gys! Og Trump kan virkeligt godt lide julen.  Alt er kontroversielt når det kommer fra folk, der ikke er venstredrejede. Fordi “det er noget, som vi alle sammen mener”

Det er en af venstrefløjens metoder til at styre debatten og venstrefløjen synes at der er for meget fokus på islam. Men medierne fokuserer faktisk ikke så meget på islam, som islam bringer sig selv i fokus og i dag har islam haft en travl dag. I Tyrkiet har kurderne myrdet 38, deraf 30 betjente, i et kombineret angreb med en bilbombe og en selvmordsbomber. I Aden/Yemen har Islamisk Stat dræbt 48 soldater i et selvmordsangreb, da soldaterne skulle have løn udbetalt. I Egypten har terrorister (IS eller aQ) dræbt 25 i et angreb på en kirke…. og så har Islamisk Stat også lige erobret den syriske by Palmyra ved et overraskelsesangreb, og har i den forbindelse erobret bl.a. 30 af Assads kampvogne.

Venstrefløjens medier har siddet så længe på den offentlige mening at de ikke længere kan acceptere debat og ser dissens som kontroversielt og det kontroversielle er altid et skridt fra racisme, nazisme eller en eller anden metastaserende fobi. Som de presses af faldende tillid og spirende alternativer, gør de hvad de gør om ikke bedst så hvad de magter, og skruer op for defameringen af, ja alle efterhånden. Frank Gaffney skriver i Breitbart

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

(…)

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

Af en eller anden grund, skal disse udskammelser af meninger ‘vi foragter’ gentages i danske medier. Danmarks Radio spørger i en “slår Trump stadig konen” overskrift “Trump afviser at omstridt rådgiver er racist” og beretter

Demokrater, borgerrettighedsorganisationer som Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer og selv en række republikanere kritiserer Trump for at have valgt den stærkt højreorienterede Stephen Bannon som sin chefstrateg.

Kritikerne siger, at Trump dermed lukker en racist, antisemit og fortaler for hvidt overherredømme ind i Det Hvide Hus.

Bannon blev hentet ind i Trump-valgkampen sidst på sommeren fra det højreradikale Breitbart News. Det er et medie, der har fremmet alt-right-bevægelsen.

Breitbart News beskrives af amerikanske medier som eksempelvis radiostationen NPR for at være en løs gruppering af racister, nynazister, antisemitter og folk, der arbejder for hvidt overherredømme i USA.

Det er altså den yderste venstrefløj, der i sin nederlagsforbitrelse fremturer med beskyldningerne. Så lad os lige kontekstualisere lidt - det bliver vigtigt længere nede. Middle East Forum sammensatte en top 10 over “campaign contributions from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS” for 1015-16 sæsonen. Og ikke overraskende var der “nine Democrats, one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285), and no Republicans”

Hillary Clinton tops the list, raking in $41,165 from prominent Islamists. This includes $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirateson November 15, 2014.

For example, Mrs. Clinton has accepted $3,900 from former CAIR vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras, who has defended numerous Islamists in Ohio indicted – and later convicted – on terrorism charges.

Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250. Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

Og Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer (CAIR) er selvfølgelig ikke en borgeretsorganisation, men en islamisk pressionsgruppe med bånd til HAMAS, der, som alle muslimske organisationer, kun har til formål at drage omsorg for islamiske interesser, omsorg som at sikre at ordet ‘jihad’ ikke indgår i en negativ sammenhæng. Grundlæggeren af CAIR, Omar Ahmad, har sagt følgende om de amerikansk-muslimske relationer

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.“

Derfor var det også naturligt at CAIR drog omsorg for San Bernadino terroristens familie PLO-style, som det er naturligt for deres formand at ville styrte den amerikanske regering, som det var naturligt at de propaganderede for Ahmed the Clock Boy, som man betvivlede faldne amerikanske soldater deres ære…

Hvad angår radiostationen NPR, så skylder Danmarks Radio måske at fortælle at det er en offentligt finansieret radiokanal, blot så man ved, hvor man har den i det politiske landskab. Og fordi offentligt finansierede medier ikke behøver at repræsentere andre interesser end de politikere, der skaffer finansieringen, så bliver det nødvendigt med en Ombudsmand der officielt skal sikre institutionen mod at blive overrendt af lange marcher, men som i realiteten selv er marcheret ind i institutionens hjerte til sikring af den officielle fortælling. Og denne ombudsmand Elizabeth Jensen, var så bestyrtet over at Breitbarts Joel B Pollack i et live interview fik chancen for at forsvare Trump og Bannon fermt mod nazi-, og sårn’ beskyldninger, at hun foreslog aldrig at lave live interviews med folk med kontroversielle holdninger. Og hvad der er kontroversielt ved vi fra Danmarks Radios liste af anklagere mod Bannon/Trump er dissens fra venstrefløjens fortælling. Breitbart skriver

Pollak, who serves as Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large and In-house Counsel, defended its Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon from false and defamatory claims of antisemitism and “white nationalism.” He also turned the tables, pointing out that NPR has “racist programming,” including a story that called the 2016 election results “nostalgia for a whiter America.”

NPR listeners were apparently outraged that anyone from Breitbart News had been given an opportunity to defend the website and its chairman.

In her response, “Listeners: Two Recent Interviews Are ‘Normalizing Hate Speech’,” Jensen concluded that the live format had allowed Pollak to get the better of host Steve Inskeep.

She suggested that future interviews be taped: “In addition, in my opinion, these interviews should not be done live. Inskeep is an excellent live interviewer, but live interviews are difficult, especially when there is limited time. A little contextualizing never hurts.”

Jensen went on to argue that “contextualizing” had worked for a similar interview with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, as well as for an interview Nov. 17 with white nationalist Richard Spencer. (Pollak responded to the latter interview in an article Nov. 18 rejecting NPR’s attempt to link Bannon and Breitbart with white nationalism.)

(som en sidebemærkning så havde BBC, endnu et offentligt finansieret medie en overskrift der lød “The Trump resistance movement builds” og indholdet skuffede ikke overskriften) Venstrefløjen og dens medier er en selvforsynende fødekæde af defameringsmaskiner.

Sådan så Berlingske Tidendes, nu et par uger gamle kampagne ud og der medfulgte et interview med jordemoderen, der skulle uddybe nuanceringen af debatten. Er det en flygtning, islamist, eller jordemoder vi ser? Kasper Støvring spurgte på Facebook “Men hvad nu, hvis kvinden er alle tre ting? Det er da også en overraskende nuancering.”. For som det blev suppleret af flere, så er der ingen modsætning mellem islamisme, terrorisme og uddannelse og et eksempel blev hentet fra Uriasposten.

Men også et andet eksempel, som vi har været glade for på Monokultur, blev hentet frem. Douglas Murray beskrev nemlig for et par år siden, muslimen lidt mere nuanceret i forbindelse med nogle obligatoriske anti-israelske demonstrationer, han havde observeret i London, på baggrund af at Israel frækt igen-igen nægtede at lade sig ydmyge

I have watched them a bit in recent days, watched the contorted hatred on their faces as they scream at the embassy and then watched their friendly sociability as the headscarfed women are driven away by their menfolk, often with their children in tow — a family day outing in “diverse” modern London. Behind their smiles and the increasingly competent public relations that the pro-Hamas faction is managing in Britain, it is possible for some people to forget that what brings these people out is one simple thing: a hatred of the Jewish state and a desire to see it annihilated by the terrorists of Hamas or anyone else at hand.

Lene Kattrup havde mange gode indvendinger til dette stykke 80er propaganda, men jeg vil frem een, som ofte er fremdraget her på Monokultur, fordi det fremhæver den selvmodsigelse, der er indbygget i det multikulturelle narrativ

Overskriften (som er valgt af journalisten) er “Flygtning? Islamist? Jordemoder: »Selv om jeg ikke er streng, er jeg glad for mit tørklæde«.

Det synes jeg er en ”formindskende” og/eller misvisende omtale af hendes forhold til tørklædet og til den religion eller religiøse ideologi, som det islamiske tørklæde normalt er et symbol på, og som det sandsynligvis også repræsenterer for denne kvinde. For Soheila Azimi forklarer, at hvis hun havde skullet afføre sig det i arbejdstiden (men selvfølgelig kunne tage det på, straks hun fik fri), så ville hun have sagt sit job op. Dette fortæller os jo, at hun ikke kun er ” glad for tørklædet” som der står, og hun er jo så faktisk ”streng” på dette punkt. Det er en mulighed for, at hun bærer det for at vise, at hun går ind for sharialoven som lov. Lad læseren få lov til at tænke selv, ville jeg sige til journalisten og til Berlingske. Hvis journalisten var dygtig, kunne man jo have spurgt Soheila Azimi om det. Det ville have være klogt, men det tør journalisten måske ikke?

Nemlig. Der er ingen tvang i islam, men jeg skal have mit tørklæde på. Og hvad skal jeg mere…

For et par uger siden kunne man på siden Reel Ligestilling læse at “Objektiv viden er sexistisk”.

Når universiteter underviser de studerende med udgangspunkt i, at viden er noget en-gang-for-alle-fastslået, som det er de studerendes opgave at tilegne sig, diskrimineres kvinder og minoritetsgrupper.

Det fastslår Laura Parson i sin ph.d.-afhandling ‘Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis’. STEM er en forkortelse for Science, Technology, Engineering og Mathematics.

»STEM-pensaene i dette studie demonstrerede et syn på viden som noget, den studerende skulle tilegne sig, hvilket fremmer et syn på viden som noget uforanderligt. Dette forstærkes yderligere af brugen af biord, som underforstår vished, såsom »faktisk« og »det viser sig«, hvilke bruges i pensaene til at identificere information som faktuel og uden for diskussion«, skriver Parson i afhandlingen, som man kan læse et fyldigt uddrag af her.

Og således runger det akademiske Cthulhu i venstrefløjens hoveder. Her fra USA, hvor nogle negre med ‘afrikansk’ accent beskriver, hvorfor videnskab er hvidt og racistisk

Videnskaben er slem, bortset fra når den hævder at fortælle alt det venstrefløjen godt vil høre, såsom den øredøvende klimavidenskab, der helt unikt kan afgøres en gang for alle i et konsensus - videre debat er ødelæggende. Klimavidenskaben, som åbenbaret af FN og dens servile støtter, er hverken racistisk, sexistisk eller socialt uretfærdig. Tværtimod viser den at klimaet ødelægges af hvide gamle mænd og at det rammer fattige enlige farverige kvinder og deres handikappede børn i alle de dele af verden, hvor det ikke har været muligt at samle egentlige data til at bakke den besluttede viden op. Videnskab i klimagevanter er skruebrækker for allehånde interesseorganisationer og antivestlige ideologier til at tilrane sig magt og for stater og bureaukrater at inddrive flere skatter, så thumbs up for den!

Venstrefløjen baserer sit vræng på, hvad den kalder posfaktualitet, der er et ord for den snigende frygt den mærker af at tabe grebet om den dominerende fortælling. Venstrefløjen er postfaktualiteten; den tror på store menneskeskabte klimaforandringer når der ingen er at måle; hylder den multikulturelle model og kræver grænserne åbnet for alle de flygtninge den producerer; ser islam som progressiv; beundrede Berlinmuren, der holdt østtyskerne indespærret mens den nu fordømmer Israles sikkerhedsmur for at holde terroristerne ude…

Truth will out, som englænderne siger, men Obama appelerer efter lidt respit, som man kan læse på Breitbart

“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.

En CNN meningsmåling på videnskabelige præmisser havde Clinton som klar vinder af debatten mellem hende og Trump mandag nat, skriver Breitbart, der dog også tilføjer “Left out of that top-line figure: 58 percent of their sample “said they were supporting Clinton before the debate”. En fokusgruppe for samme CNN skulle tilsyneladende hjælpes til at holde det rette fokus

Det er som at overvære arabere til teoriprøve.

Det er jo ikke terror - der løb altså en gal jordaner rundt. Undskyld, jeg siger det. Nahed Hattar har jo tigget og bedt om at blive angrebet. Jeg har ikke ondt af den jordaner, der har gjort alt, hvad han kunne, for at provokere. Ham har jeg ikke for fem flade ører sympati for

Det burde Tidligere udenrigsminister Uffe Elleman Jensen vel sige, hvis han ville stive sig af med lidt konsistens. Tegningen herunder, blev begået af den jordanske satiretegner Nahed Hatter

Der er allerede sagt meget om Hattar, men det bedste blev sagt af David Wood, der fortæller om islams forhold til køn, sex og paradis

Nahed Hattar (???? ?????) was raised as a Christian in Jordan—though he considered himself an atheist. He was recently shot and killed by a Muslim imam for sharing a cartoon mocking the Islamic view of paradise. The cartoon features a jihadi in bed with two of his houris (the virgins Muslim men get to spend eternity deflowering in Jannah).

In the cartoon, Allah says: “Good evening, Abu Saleh. Do you need anything?” The jihadi replies: “Yes Lord, get me a glass of wine and tell Gabriel to bring me some cashews. After that, send me an immortal servant to clean the floor, and take the empty plates with you. Don’t forget to put a door on the tent so that you knock before you enter next time, Your Glory.”

Hattar was arrested for insulting Islam, even though he apologized and said that he was only making fun of ISIS. Following his arrest, he requested security to protect him, but his request was denied. He was subsequently shot to death outside the courthouse.

Westernized Muslims are now insisting that the cartoon Hattar shared has nothing to do with Islam, and that the view of paradise the cartoon mocks is the view of ISIS, not of Muhammad.

In this video, David Wood goes through Islam’s most trusted sources, to see if Muhammad’s view of paradise is different from that of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Hattar blev myrdet midt på dagen i demonstrativ offentlighed. Et signal til islamkritikere generelt mere end end en konkret straf af den ulykkelige tegner. Der er ingen sympati når i bliver slagtet, ikke for fem flade ører.

Man behøver ikke at være et geni for at tænke at de mange angreb fra ‘ensomme ulve’ er inspireret af den seneste palæstinensiske terrorbølge mod Israel. Men det er ikke, hvad man ser i medierne, der er kriminelt forsigtige med at præsentere udviklingen som den tager sig ud. Paul Joseph Watson giver en glimrende gennemgang

Barak Hussein Obama repræsenterer en ide om at man ikke blot kan påvirke virkeligheden, men ændre den til sit eget billede, ved at italesætte den anderledes. På Breitbart kan man se ‘White House press secretary’ Josh Earnest forsvare ideen om at forfølge en politik ud fra en forvrænget virkelighed overfor Fox News Martha MacCallum

MACCALLUM: You mentioned earlier today you believe it’s a narrative battle we’re fighting. I think that for people who have shrapnel in their shoulders this morning—they might have a hard time accepting that—that it is a narrative battle we’re fighting against ISIS. Explain what you meant by that?

EARNEST:  I meant very specifically, Martha, we’re taking fight to them on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The president has organized an international coalition—5,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last couple years. What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam. And to suggest that somehow we should treat Muslims differently or suspect them as terrorists just because of their religion…

MACCALLUM: Nobody is talking about that.

EARNEST: We certainly have heard that inflammatory rhetoric from Republicans.

MACCALLUM: We’re not talking about that here.

EARNEST: This is the context that I was asked the question about the ISIL narrative earlier today. it is important we don’t play into the narrative. Too many Republicans are willing to do…

MACCALLUM: This is the ISIS narrative. This is what they said in their recent publication. ISIS states that disbelievers should be slain wherever they may be. This includes the businessman riding to work in the taxi cab, young adults in engaged in sports activities in park, the old men waiting in line and buying a sandwich, striking terror into the hearts of all non-believers, Muslims and non-Muslims is the Muslim duty. So what people have a hard time with you know—you have to take them at their word they mean to do what they say because we see it happening here in the United States. So, it feels sometimes like the White House doesn’t like to make the connection between those two things. Is that wrong?

EARNEST:  Well I think we’ve been quite clear. The president has demonstrated, you don’t have to take my word for it. The president demonstrated seriousness, which he has taken this fight to ISIL.

Den forestilling har forplantet sig i efterretningstjenesterne. FBI havde en mistanke om at muslimen Omar Mateen skulle realisere sin muslimske tro, men stoppede efterforskningen efter 10 måneder fordi hans radikalisering så ud til at være et resultat af “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith”. Omar Mateen gik senere ind på en bøssebar i Orlando og myrdede 49 mennesker.

Den mistænkte for bomberne i New York og Jersey, Ahmad Rahami, har tidligere sagsøgt det lokale politi, som han hævdede diskriminerede og forfulgte ham ifølge Daily Mail.

Information har talt med  leder af University of Michigans Refugee and Asylum Law Program James C. Hathaway om hans bud på en model for en global omfordelingsmekanisme

Vi bør have et system for ’styret flygtningebeskyttelse’, hvor flygtninge bliver retfærdigt fordelt mellem lande, hvor der derfor ikke er incitament til at lukke grænser og behandle flygtninge dårligt for at skræmme dem væk,« forklarer han til Information.

Måden, professoren vil sikre sig det, er ved, at en flygtning – som for eksempel syriske ’Ahmed’ på illustrationen ovenfor – modsat i dag ikke nødvendigvis skal have permanent ophold i det land, hvor han ankommer og får asyl. Her søger han nemlig ikke asyl hos de statslige myndigheder, men hos en udvidet version af FN’s Flygtningeagentur, UNHCR.

Og opnår han flygtningestatus, vil han på sigt muligvis blive omfordelt og genhuset i et andet land. Det vil blandt andet forhindre, at modtagerlandene lukker grænser og presser flygtninge ud på farefulde ruter.

Så lad os hilse på syriske Ahmed, hvis situation altså illustreres i en tegneserie, som man virkeligt skal se for at tro den

Som man kan se bliver Ahmeds hus bombet og uden et hjem, må han flygte til grønnere egne. Hans forstående kernefamilie, en kvinde, en lille dreng og et spædbarn, vinker farvel til Ahmed. Ahmed ser tilbage på det hjem, hvor det nu synes umuligt for ham at leve - og vinker til sin familie, hans kone, hans lille søn og den lille ny. Der er ingen grund til at sidde lårene af hinanden, når hjemmet er udbombet, så afsted bliver der travet, en lysere fremtid lokker

»Hvis der ikke var nogen indvandringskonsekvenser for den stat, som flygtningen rejser mod – hvis det bare var et sted, hvor flygtningen kunne få adgang til et internationalt system – så ville staten ikke have nogen interesse i at forhindre hendes ankomst,« som James C. Hathaway formulerede det i et oplæg til et forum for EU’s agentur for fundamentale rettigheder i juni.

(…)

Ligesom Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen støtter også adjunkt ved Global Refugee Studies på Aalborg Universitet Martin Lemberg-Pedersen en omfordelingsmodel a la Hathaways.

»Kvoteordninger og internationale organer, der kan sætte sig ud over det nationale ræs mod bunden, er vejen frem. Jeg mener ikke selve modellen er urealistisk, der mangler bare politisk vilje,« siger han.

Hvis den enkelte stat ikke mærker konsekvenserne… De idealistiske herrer er altså helt med på at der er tale om konsekvenser for modtagerstaterne ved migration. Så det gælder om at lave et system, hvor alle opfører sig uansvarligt, fordi skønt man kommer til at mærke konsekvenser, så vil man ikke mærke konsekvenserne af sine EGNE handlinger. Et system af gensidig uansvarlighed uden ende.

Ahmed mærker heller ikke konsekvenserne af at flygte fra sin familie. Han flygter videre til Jordan, og “Det skal understreges, at flygtninges illegale grænsekrydsninger og ophold ikke må straffes. Det vil bl.a. ødelægge markedet for menneskesmuglere”. Modtagerlandende vil bl.a. blive ødelagt. I Jordan møder Ahmed så en repræsentant fra en udviddet version af FNs flygtningeagentur, hvorfra han modtager penge og vejledning i uddannelse og integration.

Ahmed skal blive i Jordan i 6 år. Hvis ikke Ahmed er vendt tilbage til sin familie, der nok efterhånden skulle være færdige med at bygge huset op igen, vil FNs flygtningeagentur genhuseham i et nyt modtagerland, afgjort af det internationale kvotesystem ud fra en fordelingsnøgle med parametre, som BNP/indb., befolkningens størrelse og Ahmeds oprindelsesregion.

Det ender lykkeligt for Ahmed, der med kufferten fuld af, hvad ved jeg, modtages med jubel fra venligboerne - eller er det den første bølge, der fejrer forstærkninger? Og familien? Hans kone, hans søn, som nok er i puberteten og det lille spædbarn, der nu venter på sin syvårs fødselsdag? Det skal man nok ikke bekymre sig om, Ahmed er stadig i den våbenføre alder og kan stifte en ny.

Den altid fremragende David Wood fortæller om islams gæld til hvad som helst, ikke mindst hedenskab, der faldt for Muhammeds Øre.

Obama sagde i sin Kairotale i 2009

It was Islam that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.

Med jævne mellemrum, skal islams anseelse have lidt kunstig åndedræt med et tilbageblik på historien. Tanken er, at hvis man kan finde et enkelt lyspunkt der, se er mørket en forbigående anomali.  Weekendavisen skrev i den tradition om “Islams gyldne alder” og indleder klassisk

Forskningen i den arabisk-islamiske verden nåede sit højdepunkt mellem det ottende og 12. århundrede, men siden gik den i stå. En Harvard-økonom forsøger at kaste lys over årsagerne.

Den moderne naturvidenskab blev udviklet i det kristne Europa, og i dag forbinder vi de store gennembrud med navne som Kopernikus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo og Newton. I mange århundreder forinden foregik der imidlertid en omfattende videnskabelig produktion i muslimsk dominerede lande især inden for fag som astronomi, optik, matematik og medicin.

Nogle af de store forskere her var Alhazen (965-1040), der især er kendt for studier i astronomi og optik, Avicenna (980-1037), hvis bøger om medicin blev brugt i mange århundreder, og al-Tusi (1201-1274), som udarbejdede en ny model for planeternes bevægelse.

I eftertiden er perioden ligefrem blevet omtalt som islams gyldne alder, som cirka varede fra det ottende til det 12. århundrede, og mange af de arabiske værker blev siden oversat til latin og kom derfor til at bidrage til den videnskabelige udvikling i Europa.

Fra det 13. århundrede gik det imidertid hurtigt tilbage for videnskaben i de arabiske og islamiske civilisationer, og talrige forskere har siden forsøgt at finde en forklaring på den overraskende udvikling.

Spørgsmålet om hvorvidt der var en omfattende videnskabelig produktion i den arabisk-islamiske verden eller om det var en omfattende videnskabelig produktion i den verden islam havde underlagt sig stilles ikke. Men eksterne faktorer, som korstog, kolonialisme og mongolsk invasion fejes af banen, da ingen af disse “grundlæggende ændrede på de islamiske strukturer” og “Den arabisk/islamiske civilisation var således relativt uforstyrret, indtil Napoleon invaderede Egypten i 1798″. Flasken peger på….

Men det er vi jo ikke så glade for, så vægtningen af ord bliver afgørende, hvis man skal have lidt positivt spin

Blandt de indre faktorer er ændringer i de interne magtforhold, især den såkaldt sunnimuslimske vækkelse, som indledtes i det 11. århundrede, hvor sunnimuslimer, deriblandt tyrkiske seldsjukker, overtog den politiske magt i store dele af Persien og Forasien. Det førte til, at en mere ortodoks udgave af islam blev fremherskende, hvor filosofi og videnskab blev nedprioriteret eller ligefrem betragtet med fjendtlighed, og hvor institutioner, der havde beskæftiget sig med forskning, blev erstattet af madrassaer med hovedvægt på studier af islam og sharia. Islamiske teologer promoverede det synspunkt, at hverken menneskelig fornuft eller logiske argumenter kunne være en kilde til nye indsigter.

En undtagelse var dele af astronomien, hvor det af religiøse hensyn var vigtigt at fastlægge Månekalenderen samt at kunne bestemme retningen til Mekka fra alle steder.

90% af verdens muslimer er sunnimuslimer, så når deres vækkelse angives som årsag til islams antividenskabelige indstilling, har man de facto sagt at islam er årsagen til islams formørkelse. Og det hjælper ikke på sagen at man glemmer at forklare, hvorfor også den shiamuslimske verden i Persien og Indien gik i stå.

Man glemmer også at en vækkelse ikke er en anomali, men derimod et udtryk for at man ikke har taget islam alvorligt nok, som skrifterne dikterer. De dikterede meget hurtigt, den konklusion at fortolkningens porte var lukkede og det betød at “ingen beslutninger om dogmatik der træffes i dag må stride mod hvad der var fastlagt på netop dette tidspunkt”, som min ven formulerede det. I islam er der ingen vej uden om; du kan studere koranen eller tabe hovedet.

Men det er svært, når man gerne vil hjælpe den dysfunktionelle islamiske verden med at forstå at den burde kunne andet og mere produktivt end ve mellem barbari og apati. Eneste løsning er at forskyde problemet

EN anden forklaring på den videnskabelige nedgang er en øget udbredelse af islamisk mystik med sufismen. For eksempel argumenterede den persiske teolog og sufi-mystiker Ghazzali (1058-1111) meget imod brugen af årsager som forklaring i for eksempel medicin og astronomi. Når en medicin virker på bestemte sygdomme, er det således ikke på grund af medicinens egenskaber, men alene fordi Allah ønsker, at den skal virke, og den virker derfor også kun, såfremt det er Allahs ønske.

En sådan afvisning af det empiriske grundlag er naturligvis ødelæggende for udviklingen af naturvidenskab, og Chaneys analyse viser også, at der sker en øget produktion af bøger om mystik i det 12. århundrede. Han mener dog, at den øgede udbredelse af sufisme snarere er et resultat af ændringerne i de religiøse magtforhold end en selvstændig årsag til nedgangen i den videnskabelige produktion.

Chaneys analyse støtter således teorien om, at når den arabisk-islamiske verden vendte sig fra videnskaben, så var det hovedsagelig et resultat af de religiøse lederes modvilje mod naturvidenskabelige studier og forbud mod teknologiske fremskridt som for eksempel bogtrykkerkunsten.

Det er Ghazzali og de få andre sufister, der er afskyet af sunnimuslimerne i øvrigt, der sammen med islamiske teologer bærer ansvaret for deres argumenter og udlæggelser af islam. Islam selv går fri. Teologer og sufister har ikke læst noget ud af teksterne, men har istedet, med en muslimsk frase, byttet om på ordene, eller i hvert fald bøjet islam efter sin vilje. Muslimerne har taget helt fejl og jo mere, jo længere de studerede. Det burde i sig selv kræve en voldsomt god forklaring.

Dogmet er at Allah skaber og opretholder alle begivenheder og fænomener og derfor giver det ikke mening at studere fænomener og begivenheder, men kun Allah, som han fremstår i islams skrifter. David Wood gav en fremragende forklaring på hvor frygteligt det er for muslimer at Allahs beslutninger er så arbitrære at selv ikke Muhammed, vidste sig sikker på at komme i det muslimske himmerige.

Det kan sikkert have skuffet Christian Braad Thomsen at historien om at Tyrkiet ville afskaffe den sexuelle lavalder viste sig at være en and. Historien gik lynhurtigt fra Kronen Zeitungs nyhedsbånd i Wiens Lufthavn til alverdens medier og politiske kapaciteter fra Margot Wallström til Özlem Cekic reagerede kraftigt (de var imod afskaffelse af den sexuelle lavalder). Og overalt på Facebook kunne man læse kommentarer som at afskaffelsen af den sexuelle lavalder skete for at efterkomme “Erdogans uuddannede og kulturelt primitive bagland”.

Men hvorfor antager folk, også fra det pæne segment, så let, at pædofili er normalt og endda ønskværdigt i Erdogans bagland? Javist, Erdogan er ligesom Putin, en mand der er i ekstremt bad standing i offentligheden. Mere end den gængse diktator, en mand det er (blevet) ukontroversielt at kritisere uden ellers at forholde til tyrkisk politik eller til Tyrkiet overhovedet. Og vi kender også hans bagland, de uuddannede fra landdistrikterne, uden dem vil Tyrkiet være så meget bedre og mere progressivt (så progressivt som Gaza, der grundlæggende heller ikke har landdistikter). Men hvorfor er tanken om udbredt pædofili så nærliggende, at alle over en bred karm ser deres fordomme bekræftet?

NSNBC motiverede deres hurtige kolportering af ‘nyheden’ om Tyrkiets afskaffelse af den sexuelle lavalder, med lidt baggrund, som jeg de fleste nok vil skrive under på

Statistics from 2013 showed that 853 women were murdered in the last four years;  15% of them were killed because they wanted to divorce, 66% were killed by their ex-husbands or boyfriends. 12.5% were killed by their husbands, even though they filed a complaint and were provided with protection by the state. Violence against women in Turkey is more prevalent in the countryside where girls more often are taken out of school at an earlier age and where child marriages are more common.

In October 2013 a study conducted by researchers a Gaziantep University revealed that one in every three marriages in Turkey is a child marriage. The marriage of Turkish child brides to older men has repeatedly led to fatal tragedies. Among the most known cases in 2014 alone, is the death of two so-called child brides.

In January 2014 one 14-year-old teenage girl died from “several” allegedly self-inflicted gunshot wounds in what was declared a suicide. Police investigations suggested that the girl may have been as young as ten or eleven years when she was married away to a significantly older man. In July 2014 the 15-year-old Seter Aslan succumbed to a gunshot wound in what was declared a suicide.

Det er en primitiv kultur, man stadig hænger fast i ude på landet, det er sikkert og vist og ganske ukontroversielt for selv pæne mennesker at påpege, når vi anskuer det gennem Erdogan, som prisme. Kultur kan man nemlig godt kritisere, hvis og kun hvis, det sker for at undgå at kritisere noget endnu mere sårbart. Noget, hvor vi instinktivt ved, selv helt oppe i nationens øverste lag af uddannede mennesker, ved har en skræmmende omgang med børn. Og vi ved jo godt, os alle sammen, hvilket mørke DE hæger om, ikke blot de uuddannde primitivoer oppe på højsletten. Træd varsomt broder Shamoun

First, we need to establish that Islam allows female children to be married and engaged in sex prior to their first menses (prepubescent). For that we turn to the Islamic source materials. Starting with the Quran:

If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement. God will ease the hardship of the man who fears him. 65:4, Dawood

Brother Sam Shamoun comments on this verse:

The surrounding context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran is telling Muslims to wait for a certain period of time before making the divorce final or deciding to forego it. The Quran exhorts men to wait a period of three months in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or haven’t even started their menstrual cycles! (Source)

Since Muslim men are to wait 3 months before divorcing a prepubescent child it means that they have been engaging in sex with those children.

Borrowing from Sam’s work (*) I quote three Islamic scholars commentary related to 65:4 and the subject of sex with prepubescent children:

Ibn Kathir writes regarding 65:4

<divorce them at their `Iddah>, “The `Iddah is made up of cleanliness and the menstrual period.” So he divorces her while it is clear that she is pregnant, or he does not due to having sex, or since he does not know if she is pregnant or not. This is why the scholars said that there are two types of divorce, one that conforms to the Sunnah and another innovated. The divorce that conforms to the Sunnah is one where the husband pronounces one divorce to his wife when she is not having her menses and without having had sexual intercourse with her after the menses ended. One could divorce his wife when it is clear that she is pregnant. As for the innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does not know if she became pregnant or not. There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces A YOUNG WIFE WHO HAS NOT BEGUN TO HAVE MENSES, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one’s wife before the marriage was consummated. (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari said regarding 65:4

The interpretation of the verse “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”. He said: The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.

Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142 (Source: Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
(Question #12708: Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?)

Regarding sex with prepubescent children, Abu-Ala’ Maududi states:

“Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

It is clear: Muslim men can engage in sex with prepubescent children!

Her er en trailer for Reis Çeliks prisvindende film Night of Silence, der lyder til at være en variation over Tusind og Een Nat (eller mareridt, om man vil)

Award Winner at Berlin Film Festival

In a remote Turkish village, an ancient blood feud between two families has finally been put to rest, and a marriage arranged to seal the union; a man just released from a life in prison has been pledged to a teenage girl he has never met.

It is their wedding night and there are customs and rituals to be observed. But fearful of their consummation, the bride distracts her broken husband with tales, rounding out the hours as dawn draws ever nearer. Events become ever stranger as the claustrophobic night finally reaches a shattering conclusion.

Lyrical and intense, Night of Silence (Lal Gece) is an unforgettable piece of cinema with two brilliant performances at its heart.

Det er spøjst, som muslimerne bruger de Olympiske Lege dette år til at promovere en ide om kvindefrigørelse overfor godtroende vesterlændinge. Amerikanerne stillede med den hijabkædte Ibtihaj Muhammad i sabelfægtning (ikke krumsabel dog og hun vandt bronze), der fortalte at hun følte sig utryg “all the time” ved at være muslim ‘hjemme’ i USA [En imam og hans assistent er til aften blevet likvideret i Queens, hvorfra Ibtihaj Muhammad bor]

“I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”

Vores øjeblik er muslimernes øjeblik, øjeblikket, hvor de præsenterer deres sag, som er islam, mens påstår at repræsentere hvad de kalder deres land, USA. Den bronzevindende atlet var rent faktisk tæt på at have den ære at bære Stars and Stripes ved åbningsceremonien, trods sin marginale sport. Og alligevel er USA hende imod, for alt er imod muslimerne. Og det er dette budskab, der skal masseres ind i den vestlige psyke.

Men det skal blive endnu mere plat. Den Olympiske Komite krævede ved forrige OL at Saudiarabien også stillede med kvindelige atleter, hvis ikke hele landet skulle udelukkes. Saudernes forfængelighed overvandt deres kvindehad, men de stillede også modbetingelser. Således skulle deres kvindelige judokæmper, der kun havde øvet denne disciplin i selvforsvar med sin far(host, host), have lov til at stille i hijab selv om det stred imod reglerne for sportens dresscode. Og hun skulle have lov til at optræde i det Sorte Bælte selv om hun højst kunne gøre sig fortjent til det Blå. Judoforbundet sagde først nej, men et kompromis blev fundet som der altid bliver fundet når det drejer sig om islamiske krav: Saudieren fik lov til at have hijab mod til gengæld også at få lov til at stille op i det Sorte Bælte.

Også en kvindelig saudisk 400 meter løber stillede op og selv om hun knap kunne løbe distancen blev hun behandlet som en stor helt for hendes brud på saudiske kønsroller. Og ikke et ord blev der nævnt om islam i de danske medier, næh, fænomenet var patriarkalsk kultur, der stadig var fremherskende i Saudiarabien. I år er der endnu flere hijabber med, der ikke kan vinde, knap nok konkurrere. Det er heller ikke meningen, de er med til ære for den vestlige verden, der åbenbart hungrer efter billeder af hvor frigjort man kan være når man aldrig kan optræde udenfor sin religiøse dresscode.

Og det ser så tåbeligt ud, som det lyder

Fremvisningen af den muslimske klædedragt på verdenscenen handler på ingen måde om at emancipere, eller anden form for empowermentshalløj, kvinden hjemme i muslimland. Det er alene rettet mod vesten, at bilde os ind at kvinden i den muslimske verden er lige så fri til at løbe som den vestlige kvinde. Ironien i at saudiske hijabber ikke må køre bil, er indtil videre helt tabt for medierne, der stiller indlysende tåbelige spørgsmål

Svaret er lige for. Den undertrykte er den der ikke kan skifte klædedragt efter forgodtbefindende. Men ikke for de sludrende klasser

Signe Vahlun, næstforkvinde i Dansk Kvindesamfund, er en af dem, der faktisk ser noget positivt i billedet af de to kvinder i nærkamp ved nettet. »Et fantastisk billede, som viser to engagerede sportsudøvere,« siger hun og fortsætter:

»For mig viser det diversitet og mangfoldighed blandt de kvinder, som deltager i OL. Jeg er faktisk ret begejstret for det og finder påstandene om undertrykkelse i overkanten.«

(…)

Hun hæfter sig ved, at reglen om, at spilledragten i beachvolley indtil OL i London skulle være en bikini, også kan ses som undertrykkelse.

»Det bryder dette billede med. Det viser, at begge dele er muligt,« siger Signe Vahlun.

(…)

Lidt på samme hold er Khaterah Parwani, der ud over at blande sig i debatten også arbejder for at hjælpe kvinder fri af vold, undertrykkelse og religiøs social kontrol i Exitcirklen.

(…)

»Det er svært at forestille sig kvinder kaste sig frådende ud i en debat, hvor de kræver sportsmænd iført noget bestemt tøj. Enten tangatrusser, lange bukser eller noget helt tredje. Jeg kan blive stiktosset over, at mænd i den grad blander sig. Det gjorde de jo også, da kravet om bikini til beachvolleykampe blev ophævet,« siger hun, der ikke vil tage konkret stilling til, hvem af de to kvinder der er mest undertrykt. Eller fri.

»Det giver jo ingen mening, for jeg kender dem ikke. Det kan jo være, at kvinden med meget tøj på føler sig bedst tilpas sådan, og at kvinden i badedragt hader det. Det kan også være omvendt, men vi aner det ikke, og undertrykkelse handler om at gøre noget mod sin vilje,« siger Khaterah Parwani.

Hjemme i muslimland kunne billedet se således ud

Men maskerne falder alligevel hos muslimerne, når det mindste pres melder sig. Den ægyptiske judokæmper Islam El Shahaby nægtede ikke blot at give hånd, men forlod helt sporten, efter at have tabt til en israeler, skrev Times of Israel

Some elements of the Egyptian media were furious Friday at the judoka for losing to an Israeli, Army Radio said. The outlets blamed Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi for El Shahaby’s appearance at the fight itself.

The 32-year-old Egyptian, a world championship medalist in 2010, had faced pressure on social media and from hardline Islamist groups in his homeland to withdraw from the match.

(…)

Messner said that the fact that the Egyptian actually turned up for the match signaled “a big improvement” in the Arab states’ attitude to Israeli athletes at the Olympics.

“In the past, it is not sure that a fight between those two athletes would have taken place. This is already a big improvement that Arabic countries accept to be opposed to Israel,” he said.

Islam lover muslimen herredømmet over den ydmygede jøde. At tabe til en jøde, der endda er herre i sit eget hus, Israel, er en smertelig kognitiv dissonans.

Express skriver at det venstreorienterede franske satiremagasin Charlie Hebdo igen har fået mange trusler fra trusselskulturen, grundet en forsidetegning

Le Parisien newspaper reported the magazine – which continues to make fun of religion – remains a top target for Islamic extremists and on Thursday formally filed a complaint against an unknown person after receiving a string of serious threats.

More than 60 disturbing messages, insults, and anti-Semitic remarks were posted on the magazine’s Facebook page, including one saying ‘You’re going to die!”. Another message warned of an imminent terrorist attack.

An inquiry has been launched and French police are currently investigating the “very threatening death threats” made against Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journalists.

Express beskriver Charlie Hebdos billede således

The man’s penis can be seen through his long beard, and the woman is totally naked except for her veil over her head and shoulders and a caption below reads: “The reform of Islam: Muslims, loosen up” or “Musulmans decoincez vous”

Men Express viser ikke billedet. I stedet viser de en del “Je suis Charlie” billeder - og det er jo også en ganske gratis solidaritetserklæring. Så her er en ægte

Som man kan se ved OL er sportstøj for stærk kost for de sarte muslimske sind. Nøgenhed, som ovenfor, er en direkte hån.

Der er ingen fred mulig med muslimerne, hvis man vil bevare friheden.

Eller slavesyndrom, men tanken er at hvide skal betale til negre selv om negre også holdt negre som slaver hjemme i Afrika. Og det er ikke noget at grine af: “We still feel that pain. We suffer discrimination, we suffer from racism…in every walk of life.” Jamen, så skal de da også ha’!

Faktisk var negre den foretrukne vare som negre i Afrika handlede i med og da europærerne kom til Afrika blev resultatet af dette kultursammenstød til en stor international eksportvare, hvad negrene i Afrika anså som ganske fair trade. Eller, der var allerede et arabisk marked før europærerne begyndte sine relationer til Afrika og det fortsatte efter europærerne havde fortrudt at lade sin økonomi basere sig på sort energi. I Frontpage Magazine kan man læse

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.”

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

Imens i Venezuela, prøver man nu om livegenskab kan redde den socialistiske drøm inden slaveriet bliver nødvendigt.

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!