Tider skifter, sæder hærdes

Som med Theresa Mays forvandling til en tilsyneladende ansvarlig politiker, har vindbøjtlen David Trads også lugtet at det er en dødssejler at sidde sammen med den etablerede presse og blive trukket rundt i ringen af Donald J Trump.

”I for lang tid har en lille gruppe i vores nations hovedstad høstet alle magtens fordele, mens folket har betalt det hele. Politikere berigede sig selv, mens arbejdspladserne forsvandt og fabrikkerne lukkede. Eliten beskyttede sig selv, men ikke borgerne i vores land.”

Lige der bag Trump, mens han talte, sad hele eliten:

Barack Obama og alle demokraterne – men også Paul Ryan og Mitch McConnell - de to republikanske ledere i Kongressen. For Trump er det ét fedt, om dem, der har siddet på flæsket, er fra højre eller venstre. De er den elite, han foragter. De er sumpen, der skal drænes.

”Deres sejre har ikke været jeres sejre; deres triumfer har ikke været jeres triumfer; og mens de festede i nationens hovedstad, har der ikke været meget at fejre for hårdt prøvede familier rundt i landet. Alt dette ændrer sig lige her og lige nu, for dette øjeblik er jeres øjeblik.”

Trumps frontalangreb var demonstrativt. Ikke en eneste gang rakte han hånden ud til forsoning. Han nævnte ikke ’samarbejde’ med et ord. Alt den sædvanlige snak om at ’samle Amerika’ og ’arbejde på tværs af partierne’ sprang han over. Han er reelt sin egen herre.

Det er vigtigt hele tiden at erindre sig, at Trumps sejr netop var ’hans sejr’. Først knuste han hele den republikanske elite, som alle til hobe foragtede ham. Så maste han den demokratiske elite. Til sammen smadrede han al politisk logik, ja, al logik.

Det er klare ord, meget bedre, end da han mente at Trump var værre end slem, at det hele ramlede på grund af Trump og at han derfor var bange som aldrig før og hans lidt mere litterære overskrift Donald Dag Nu. Vindbøjtlerne vender, højrefløjen vejrer morgenluft, venstrefløjen vånder sig, hvis ikke den regredierer. Præsenterer disse mennesker et ønskeligt alternativ?

venstreflc3b8jen

Ikke hvis man bekymrer sig om håndgribelige problemer og blot læner sig mod det fælles frem for at stræbe efter frihed. Men det gør den toneangivende del af venstrefløjen ikke. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” skrev Saul Alinsky i sin manual for radikale. Og venstrefløjen har virkeligt haft megen spas med at indtage gaden og intimidere sine modstandere, som når en fetichist(?) slår Richard Spencer for at sige sin mening. Men der bliver ingen kære mor de næste par år

Det viser sig iøvrigt, at limousinen, som venstreorienterede satte i brand efter at have skrevet “WE THE PEOPLE” med spraymaling, tilhørte et udledningsfirma, ejet af en muslimsk indvandrer. Samme ironi gjorde som da en venstrefløjsaktivist et par dage forinden skød en mand i maven, udenfor et arrangement med Milo Yiannopoulos under indtryk af at der var tale om en racist.

Tonen har ændret sig i debatten, manden på gaden har fået nok, selv Gavin McInnes der måske nok slås som en tøs, men i det mindste har han temperament. Røde voldsmænd ud med jer… Så venstrefløjen skal passe på, hvorledes den administrerer sin fortælling og med hvem den marcherer, som Bethan Mandel advarer om i det venstreorienterede Forward. Men det er ikke blot islamisten Linda Sasour og den muslimske subversive organisation CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), som de bør værge sig fra at pleje omgang og dele interesser med. Også de dejlige penge fra finansmanden George Soros, der tilgår allehånde organisationer, der er fjendligt indstillet overfor de Vestlige samfund

“Trumps sejr er et historisk nederlag til den ’djøficering’, den ’nødvendighedens politik’ og den ’sådan-er-det-jo-attitude’, som har styret ikke bare dansk politik, men også amerikansk og europæisk politik i årevis. Manualen for, hvad der kan lade sig gøre, skal skrives om.” skriver Trads. Og det kan vores defaitistiske regering begnde på

Pigen der råber hyrdehund

Fra Berlin til Bogota samledes feminister for at demonstrere mod at amerikanerne har valgt at indsætte en heteroseksuel mand som deres præsident. Bogota er lidt en sjælden by i, hvad der næsten er en liste over byer i USA, Australien og Europa. New York Times har dog samlet en flot billedserie, der viser en imponerende opbakning. Men synet bedrager, venstrefløjen tabte valget, de er ikke i flertal. Men de er gode til at gå på gaden.

trump-svarer-feministerne

Formanden for Concerned Women for America, en pro-life (anti-abort) organisation, Penny Nance havde på CNN bidt mærke i, at Women’s March on Washington ikke inkluderede kvindelige pro-life aktivister

“March for life, been going on for 43 years, will have about, 400,000, 500,000, next weekend,” she said. “[I] will need all of you back here to have the same conversation next weekend, because that [March for Life] is ignored on a regular basis. This is not new.”

“It’s not about women, it’s about liberalism” svarede CNNs analytiker Bakari Sellers. Og det er rigtigt, det handler om venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Og i den selvforståelse giver det god mening at skrue op for den identitetspolitik, der kostede Hillary Clinton valget. Her et billede fra Pajamas Media

womens-mach

En god ven sagde at der er noget “beroligende at se manglen på noget som helst relevant eller konkret kritiserbart hos Trump i de mange demonstrationers skiltning og grafik“, det er helt indforstået. Tag feministen Ashley Judds (ja, det er der åbenbart en feminist der hedder) opsang til folket

Negre er stadig slaver og stadig i lænker, men nu som indsatte i fængslerne, siger Judd og kvinder hujer i begejstring så højt at ingen kan høre om nogen indvender; Jamen, det giver jo ingen mening. Negerslaver arbejdede for at den hvide mand kunne blive rig, negrene i fængslerne er derimod en enorm udgift for den hvide mand.

Så Judd er fri til at føle Hitler i gaderne og inden nogen siger, ja de forbandede venstreradikale med deres politiske vold, understreger Judd at hun tænker på Trump; overskæg skiftet ud med en toupe. Trumps hår er nu hans eget, han klipper det endda selv. Hun er indigneret over at Scarlett Johanson ikke tjener endnu flere millioner på sine film, hendes løs er skåret af testosteronslebne knive, som også lønnen for latino- og negerkvinder er markant lavere end… hvide kvinder? Ikke helt, den hvide MANDS privilegerede datter.

Den muslimske kvinde i baggrunden er sharia og Hamas tilhænger og mange af arrangørerne bag Women’s March on Washington er sponseret af George Soros. Men her er arrangørernes egne ord, hvorfor de marcherer

En pige vil være tryg i skolen, en negermand er feminist, hvilket ikke er et skældsord ifølge en aldrene negerkvinde, mens to andre supplerer at deres liv har betydning førend en asiatisk kvinde peger på sin gravide mave og siger “And so does hers!”. Stop!

Var det ikke meningen at pro-life aktivister ikke måtte være med?

Men sådan fortsætter det. En udefinerbar person vil ikke defineres af et badeværelse. Diversitet er smuk, en kvinde er ud af en immigrantfamilie (altså ikke en indianer) og med gråd i stemmen kan ikke forstille sig, hvor hun ville være, hvis ikke hun havde fået den chance - at dømme efter hendes asiatiske træk sikkert ikke et sted, hvor man fik chancen for et frit valg med den risiko at ens favoritkandidat kan tabe. En kvinde i hijab mener USA handler om frihed, en lille hvid pige vil smadre glasloftet, en anden gør det for sine mødre - sejt, hun ikke er en hvid MANDS privilegerede datter! En kvinde vil marchere fremad og ikke tilbage og en vil have sin stemme hørt på den mest irriterende måde og en gammel negermand vil marchere fordi han ikke kan trække vejret.

Det kan jeg snart heller ikke. Mens kampen mod ethvert udtryk for maskulinitet antager mere hysteriske toner, står feminister i Tyskland og skriger Allahu Akbar, ikke for andet end at være i trods til deres beskyttere.  Der er intet andet end en forsværgelse af den hvide kristne mand og alle hans gerninger og alt hans væsen. Og der bliver hvidt sort og op bliver ned.

american-hijab

Gør det bedre

Jeg vil anbefale at man udstår at se nedenstående video (bare rolig, der er en sund modgift til slut på denne post). Den er på sin egen måde morsom.

Selv om du har sorte venner, kan du sagtens være racist og i Politiken forklarer en farmor til en 22 årigt barnebarn, hvorledes hun er blevet et bedre hvidt menneske da hun indså at hun var “så dum som de (…) dumme, uvidende, ubehøvlede mennesker, som man ikke behøver at tage sig af” og den smerte de forvolder. Farmoderens barnebarn, der “over sine hvide gener () også [har] nogle afrikanske” og “er derfor brun i huden og har dreadlocks” var nemlig kommet hjem fra USA, hvor sorte liv betyder noget, og blev i en række situationer konfronteret med racismen i Danmark

Situation 1:
Barnebarnet køber ind hos den lokale grønthandler, men kan ikke få lov at betale, før hun svarer på, hvordan hun kan have så langt hår, om det er hendes eget, hvilket betvivles.
Der røres ved håret, både med hænderne og kuglepennen. Herefter slipper hun væk. Hun slår beskrivelsen af sin oplevelse op på Facebook og giver klart udtryk for, at det hændte er et udslag af racisme.
Jeg læser hendes opslag og afviser racismeteorien, men mener, at det handler om dårlig opførsel og dårlig opdragelse.

Ja, mange tyrkere har sikkert ikke set en neger, men lige netop de grønthandlende tyrkere er blandt dem der ikke opfører sig dårligt.
I situation 2 spørger en “nydelig ældre bedstemor” det yngste barnebarn “om hun har fået sit hår i Afrika!“, hvilket gør barnebarnet “tydeligt rystet“. Ja, det var grusom blot at læse om det. Men det er kun indtil det rene Holocaust i situation 3

Min mands nevø og hans kone har været til kaffe og julebag, og da vi står i entréen og tager afsked, griber nevøen (som er over 60 år) fat i barnebarnets hår og siger: »Det er godt nok blevet langt, det er meget flottere end det der kunstige hår, nogle af de danske piger får sat på«.
Han har kendt pigen, siden hun var helt lille, og hans handling er bestemt kærligt og anerkendende ment, men jeg kan se, at hun stivner, og hun får fremstammet: »Rør aldrig mit hår«.
Hun går ind på sit værelse, vi vinker farvel, og jeg går i gang med forberedelserne til aftensmaden.

Det skal her siges at barnebarnet stadig er i live og i god behold - en af de få onkel-overlevende. Farmoderen forsøgte nemlig at forstå barnebarnet, der udsøgt trak “linjer til den tid, hvor afrikanere blev indfanget, bragt til Europa og vist frem som mærkværdigheder”

Det er det samme som, hvis du bliver taget på brysterne og bliver spurgt, om de er ægte. Håret er også en del af min krop. Ingen kan bare ud af det blå røre det eller tage fat i det. Du har aldrig prøvet det, farmor, du ved ikke, hvad det vil sige.
(…)
Hun siger: »Vi (underforstået mennesker med afrikanske gener) er nødt til at have hjælp fra den hvide del af befolkningen for at forklare alle dem, der overskrider grænserne, at det føles som at være degraderet til et dyr, når de bare går hen og befamler vores hår. Det svarer til, at man går hen og klapper en hund, men her spørger man jo ofte om lov hos ejeren, for måske bider den?«.

Først og fremmest, hvis du er farmor og bliver taget på brysterne og spurgt om de er ægte, så er din dag reddet. Og hvis man ikke er bange for at negre bider når man klapper deres ikke-gyldne hår er det måske netop fordi, man ikke ser dem som hunde? Med en tåre i mit øje, vender jeg mig istedet mod den ovenfor lovede modgift fra både Paul Joseph Watson og Gavin McInnes, begge i hopla

Uriasposten fortæller om en kampagne hvor “sorte amerikanere boykotter produkter produceret af hvide amerikanere” og fremkommer med “den ret så interessante oplysning, at initiativtageren for ‘We Buy Black’-bevægelsen er en imam tilknyttet ekstremistiske Nation of Islam”. Interessant bliver det også, hvorledes de vil holde deres imponerende mordrate kørende uden deres guns.

Postfaktualitet: Black Friday Matters

I danske medier gengives fra tid til anden påstanden om at sorte amerikanere er mere udsat for politiovergreb end hvide amerikanere. Det er sjældent et egentligt selvstændigt emne, men tages for givet når venstrefløjen og sorte race-baiters hærgen skal bortforklares (det er altid problematisk at blive opfattet som en bølle). Men der er intet belæg for den påstand, hvilket bekræftes i endnu en omfattende undersøgelse begået af to forskere ved College of William and Mary. National Review skriver at undersøgelsen endda viser at “white police officers may be less likely than their black counterparts to use deadly force against black suspects”

The Black Lives Matters movement has staked their claim on the assertion that police “hunt down” black Americans or systematically deprive them of life. Activists have charged that racism led to the deaths of Michael Brown, Philando Castile, and others, but Lott and Moody examined 1,333 more cases than are in the FBI data set and their findings show that white officers’ use of force is generally “race neutral.”

They gathered statistics that expand on the FBI data from the same period, incompleteness of which has limited previous studies, and they provide a more general picture than even Fryer, who studied eleven localities and drew conclusions about officers’ use of lethal force from Houston alone. Those surprised by Fryer’s findings should appreciate the efforts by Lott and Moody to provide data that is more generalizable for the entire country.

Additionally, the fact that body cameras do not appear to affect the use of force undercuts a key point that activists and the media often make, namely that body cameras will deter the current high levels of racial bias. Lott and Moody named body cameras as a “potential deterrent” of discriminatory violence, saying “When a shooting is recorded by a body cam, officers know that it will become a central focus of the public debate.” But their data did not show body cameras having any effect. Again, racism is not showing up as a serious factor in the data.

Racismen præmis for venstrefløjens racisme

Akademia, Diverse, Identitetspolitik, Postmodernisme, Race, Racisme, venstrefløjen — Drokles on November 28, 2016 at 1:13 am

Følgende amerikanske vox-pop understreger den underliggende racisme i den progressive antiracisme. For hvis man skal tolke ligestilling som ufavorabelt for negre må negrenes udgangspunkt antageligvis være ikke konkurrencedygtigt.

We asked liberal elites about voter ID laws and black people. Then we asked Harlem residents their thoughts on what they just heard. Crazy!

Basket of deplorables

Det var et rystende angreb på demokratiet, da Trump ikke ville forhåndsgodkende valgresultatet grundet de mange eksempler på svindel fra Demokraternes side. Nu protesterer venstrefløjsere over resultatet ALENE fordi det gik dem imod.

Kun venstrefløjen laver optøjer efter tabte valgkampe fordi den kun trives med kaos. John Perazzo skriver i Frontpage Magazinex

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

(…)

The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton’s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Medierne har mere travlt med at dyrke fortællingen om Trump tilhængernes amokløb på udsatte minoriteter. Og som Elizabeth Nolan Brown skriver på Reason, så er den fortælling falsk

But the narrative has been bolstered by a few high-profile incidents of alleged aggression in Trump’s America.

The first one to really go viral involved a Muslim female student at the University of Louisiana who claimed to have had her hijab ripped off and her wallet stolen the day after Trump’s election by two white men wearing Trump hats. But on Thursday, local police announced that the young woman had admitted she fabricated the story. “This incident is no longer under investigation,” the Lafayette Police Department said in a press release.

In another incident, this one in San Diego, a young Muslim woman’s purse and car were stolen by one white male and one Hispanic male. While the men allegedly made negative comments about Muslims, it seems car stealing was more their motivation than harassment or intimidation—which is obviously shitty, but not necessarily a Trump-inspired act of bigotry.

And an alleged incident of a gay man named Chris Ball getting beaten up by Trump supporters in Santa Monica on election night seems to have not happened the way it was initially recounted, if the incident even happened at all. The Santa Monica Police Department posted a message to Facebook Thursday saying that neither the department nor city officials had “received any information indicating this crime occurred in the City of Santa Monica” and “a check of local hospitals revealed there was no victim of any such incident admitted or treated.”

(…)

Other anti-Semitic imagery—such as “Sieg Heil 2016″ spray-painted on an abandoned store front in Philadelphia—may have been legit expressions of bigotry or may have been similar attempts at commentary on Trump’s election; it’s unclear because no one is taking credit for them. The bulk of racist graffiti incidents appear to have happened around middle- and high-schools, which doesn’t make their messages any less hurtful, I’m sure, but does suggest a phenomenon driven by mean and immature kids rather than rogue bands of serious neo-Nazis.

And while all sorts of horrible incidents are being reported on Twitter and Facebook… well, anyone can say anything on Twitter and Facebook. The bulk of these stories are “friend of a friend” told me types. But if men were really going around pulling knives on Muslim women on public buses in Trump’s name, there would at least be local or campus news reports of it. Same, too, for the alleged wave of transgender teen suicides which keep getting mentioned in media but for which no one can offer any evidence. (Update: more on the alleged suicides here.)

(…)

Update, November 12: Two more tales of race-based and Trump-inspired harassment have begun to unravel…

Imens foran Trump Tower, holder en bekymret borger et skilt med et sagtmodigt ønske

rape-melania

Hvem skal betale for minoriteterne?

“Who’s gonna pay for my kids?” råber en kvinde vredt til en hvid mand, der tæskes på åben gade af et par sorte yngre mænd. Den hvide mand, der også får sin bil stjålet i samme ombæring, bliver beskyldt for at have stemt på Donald Trump.

Donald Trump er en hadefuld, verdensfjern, sexistisk islamofob og jødehader” skrev Zenia Stampe, selv blottet for had, på sin Facebook væg. Jeg vil ikke fortabe mig i en diskussion om alle disse udsagn. Had er en følelse og jeg kender ikke The Donald godt nok til at udtale mig om Zenia har ret. Jeg synes også det er lige vel friskt nok at beskylde en mand, der har tjent mia. - og tro mig, Trump er rig. Jeg mener virkeligt, virkeligt rig, okay? - på noget så jordnært, som sine mange forskellige forretninger, for at være verdensfjern. Men jeg vil dvæle lidt ved modsætningerne i udtrykket “sexistisk islamofob” efter lige først at have anholdt beskyldningen om Trumps jødehad med et citat fra en alt andet end venlig artikel i det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine, hvor det hedder

Trump has an intimate familiarity with Jewish practice and Jewish life. His daughter, Ivanka, converted to Orthodox Judaism in 2009; if elected, Trump would be the first president to be the parent and grand-parent of observant Jews. Ivanka’s husband, real-estate magnate Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew and one of Trump’s top advisers. The Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer and general counsel are both observant Jews, and Trump has the support of perhaps the single most important political donor in the American Jewish world—Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Though he is a deeply repellent political figure to many American Jews, Trump can plausibly claim that Jews and Judaism are closer to the center of his life and work than they are for his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s favored Jews have a seemingly limitless confidence in their benefactor’s personal qualities. The Trump they know is decisive, serious, tolerant, and generous, and they’ve formed their impressions out of years or even decades of personal experience with the man. Despite this special access, their belief in Trump himself—which is often independent of any deep ideological kinship—helps demystify exactly why the real-estate developer, who is so blatantly and viscerally unpalatable to tens of millions of Americans, appeals to tens of millions of others.

The Trump Jews also hint at some of Trumpworld’s defining organizational tendencies. With the possible exception of Sheldon Adelson, every one of the major Trump Jews has known Trump for years, is personally friends with Trump, or is connected to his family through marriage. One of Trump’s Jews is known to be a registered Democrat. One of them was a leading Democratic donor who has a tortured history with one of Trump’s most dedicated surrogates.

Trump talte til amerikanerne som amerikanere, et hele, modsat Hillary, der hele tiden talte om allehånde minoriteter, som skulle tilgodeses. Hillarys beskrivelse af halvdelen af Trumps vælgere som ‘irredeemalbe’ og ‘deplorable’ (fortabte og begrædelige), som Obamas beskrivelse af mange amerikanerne som klyngende sig til deres bibel og skydevåben udkrystaliserer den pointe. Trump vil have det fælles og det kræver lige muligheder og det kræver overholdelse af samfundskontrakten, som er ens for alle borgere, der er frie til at vælge en identitet i privatlivet.

Hillary lover mange forskellige vælgergrupper at tilgodese deres behov og fremtiden står på et evigt ekspanderende vælgerkorps af minoriteter. Det er globaliseringen, det er hvad de unge vil have, det fortæller fokusgrupperne og det kommer væltende over grænsen. På sigt vil der ikke være grundlag for at være konservativ, andet end at leve isoleret i en udørk, fortabt med sin bibel og knugende sit skydevåben. Men problemet er, at man tilgodeser kun nogen på andres bekostning. Så hvor Trump vil tilgodese amerikanerne som et hele på bekostning af Wall Street og konkurrerende nationer, der udnytter de unfair aftaler, så tilgodeser Hillary sine mange minoriteter på bekostning af flertallet. Det kan Hillary kun gøre så længe flertallet er til at dræne for flere specielle rettigheder.

Efterhånden som flertallet, amerikanerne flest, eroderes via indvandring og metastaserende identitetspolitik skal minoriteterne tilgodeses på bekostning af hinanden og der bliver nu ikke længere tale om at tage fra de rige/mange for at give til de fattige/mange få, men om omfordeling af de resterende ressourcer. Og omfordeling slider på den gensidige loyalitet for alle var med da alle ville få. Og selv blandt de dele af flertallet, der holdt ved at dele ud af arven vil det akademiske spørgsmål, om det er appropriation at lære så meget af dem, trænge sig på. Det kulturmarxistiske paradigme vil bryde sammen under vægten af egne indre modsætninger. Og her er vi tilbage til det besynderlige “sexitiske islamofob”, for hvis man har et problem med sexisme og misogyne holdninger har man et problem med islam og så er man islamofob.

Problemet for Stampe, Hillary og venstrefløjen er at der ikke er noget, der kan samle minoriteternes interne modsætninger andet end had. De hader the Donald og Dansk Folkeparti og højrebølgen, den hvide mand, historien og den klare tanke og tankens ærlige sprog. Og det er hvad der kitter venstrefløjen sammen, had. De hader ikke at have noget at indvende mens der stadig er forpligtelser, så opfinder nye definitioner på sig selv og på undertrykkelse, som fritager dem deres forpligtelser. Så de hader majoriteten, der holder fast på den virkelighed ingen kommer udenom. De hader at tabe, men de ville gå til grunde hvis de vandt. Vi andre prøver at begrænse ødelæggelserne.

Berlingske Tidendes 80er propaganda

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…

Do it by the book

Denne video viser noget om, hvad vestlig kultur er i disse tider

Men den illustrerer også en forskel på sort og hvid kultur i USA. I 50′ernes USA var den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde lige så tilknyttede til arbejdsmarkedet, som deres hvide ditto. Den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde var også lige så tilknyttede til hinanden igennem ægteskab, som deres hvide ditto. Følgeligt havde de også det samme forhold til loven og var lige så distancerede fra fængsel, som deres hvide ditto.

I dag sidder den sorte mand meget i fængsel, primært for vold og mord mod andre sorte, selvom der også er en vis spil-over effekt på andre etniske grupper. Både den sorte mand og den sorte kvinde har ringe tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet. Og den sorte mand er fraværende som far. så det sorte barn vokser i høj grad op hos dets sorte promiskuøse enemor.

The broken black family, kalder man det i USA. Eller det vil sige, Demokraterne gør ikke, de taler om institutionaliseret racisme som skyld i det hele, et år fra slaveriet for 160 år siden, de hvides privilegium. Hvilket er ironisk, da alle de racistiske love blev opfundet og opretholdt urimeligt længe af selv samme parti Demokraterne.

Men videoen, skønt en urimelig sammenstilling i den kontekst, viser lidt om, hvad sort kultur og hvid kultur er. Den hvide er ganske vist idyliseret, men den hylder en produktivitet som er uadskillelig fra kreativitet. Livsglæde befriet fra drifter.

Negeren derimod… tjah, den nedbrudte sorte familie raser videre i hvad den opfatter som idyl - bitch. Og det bliver hørt af Treyvon Martin og The Gentle Giant og Obamas imaginære søn og Tyrone et-eller-andet og med det i ørerne gør de sorte teenagepige gravide og forlader dem, begår vold og hærværk, høje på det ene eller andet, kommer på kant med loven og kommer i fængsel eller bliver skudt og dræbt af politiet. Og pressen græder og Demokraterne taler om institutionaliseret racisme som skyld i det hele, et år fra slaveriet for 160 år siden, de hvides privilegium…

Hvorfor fører Hillary ikke med 50%?

Ifølge analyseinstituttet Rasmussen fører Trump med 5 procentpoint over Hillary. Andre analyseinstitutter har mere dødt løb eller Hillary i et snævert førersæde. Måske vil mange amerikanere ikke indrømme at de har tænkt sig at stemme på Trump på grund af en social stigmatisering, manden er jo Hitler. Trump fører en god kampagne, men meget har at gøre med Hillary Clinton selv, skriver Marc A Thiesen i Washington Post

She lied repeatedly about her emails. She lied when she said she had “turned over everything I was obligated to turn over” (FBI Director James Comey said the FBI “discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014”). She lied when she said there was “no classified material” in her private emails .?.?. that there was nothing “classified at the time” .?.?. and that there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails — all of which the FBI director said were untrue. And, to top it all off, she lied about her lies — declaring on national television that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people” — a claim The Post’s Fact Checker gave “Four Pinocchios.”

Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi. At 10:08 p.m. the night of the attack, she issued a statement that blamed the attack on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” with no mention of terrorism or al-Qaeda. But an hour later, at 11:12 p.m. she emailed her daughter, Chelsea: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.” The next day in a phone call with the Egyptian prime minister, Clinton said: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.” Yet two days later, as she welcomed the caskets of the fallen in Dover, Del., she blamed that attack on “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

She lied about a trip she made to Bosnia, claiming that she and her team arrived “under sniper fire,” skipped the arrival ceremony and “just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In fact, a video shows her being greeted on the tarmac by Bosnian officials and an 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, who read a poem in English and told Clinton, “There is peace now.”

She lied about her family history. In 2015, she said she could relate to illegal immigrants because “all my grandparents” immigrated to the United States. When BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski pointed out that three of Clinton’s four grandparents were born in the United States, a Clinton spokesman said “her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”

Ja, måske foretrækker vælgerne at Hillary råber, man kan altid prøve det, når alt andet ser ud til at kollapse om ørerne på en. Clinton Foundation ser også ud til at pakke sammen ifølge Politico, og fyrer mere end en snes medarbejdere. Imens er medierne på overarbejde for at forvrænge virkeligheden til Hillarys fordel. The Hill rapporterer at CNN opfinder Donald Trump udtalelser, til at forarges over. Når Trump taler om ‘profiling’ efter israelsk forbillede, tilsætter CNN ordet ‘race’, som i ‘racial profiling’

CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration and is running headlines reporting that the GOP presidential nominee spoke of using “racial profiling” to stop terrorism.

But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted shows that Trump never used the word “racial” in his comments to the network and only spoke of “profiling.”

“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”

Alligevel er der en ide om at valget ikke er uretfærdigt nok. En gæst hos den venstredrejede og islam-realistiske tv-værk Bill Maher, mente at medierne havde virket imod Hillary Clinton i strid med Konstitutionens ånd, skriver Breitbart

After Clinton’s struggles in the polls in Florida came up, Brooks said, “Yeah, but that’s not her fault. That’s because the media has forgotten what their constitutional duty is.”

He continued, “Well, the reason we have a free press, the whole reason it’s in the Constitution is to inform us, the electorate about what we’re voting on, and they’ve forgotten that. They think this is a circus. They think this is ‘dancing with the stars.’ And so, they have given Trump probably a trillion dollars’ worth of free press over the course of this campaign.”

Trump er ligeglad og har inviteret Gennifer Flowers, en af Bill Clintons tidligere udenomsægteskabelige affærer, til at overvære debatten fra ‘ringside’. Debatten skal afholdes stående, så vi krydser fingre for at Hillary er udhvilet og velmedicineret. For uanset, hvad der er gjort for at smæde Trump, virker amerikanerne mere og mere modstandsdygtige overfor mediernes bombardement.

Velfærdsdøden

Barak Hussein Obama har ikke nået at hele nationen på de otte år han har rumsteret i Det Hvide Hus og der er igen gang i den i USA fordi en mørklødet amerikaner er blevet skudt og dræbt af politiet. Men dyrkelsen af bitterhed i den sorte del af den amerikanske befolkning, er gødet af årtiers misregimente af ymyndiggørelse ved omfordeling. Når man belønner offergørelse og dårlig opførsel opstår der er marked for ofre med dårlig opførsel. John Perazzo skrev for et par måneder siden i Frontpage Magazine

When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’” said Johnson.

Thus began modern liberalism’s vicious and unrelenting assault on black Americans.

(…)

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe.

The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder. Regardless of race or ethnicity, the poverty rate for single parents with children is several times higher than the corresponding rate for married couples with children. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. For example, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to display emotional disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households. Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband- or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure. As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that were built into the welfare system. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Eddie Murphys oversete animationskomedie The PJ, om netop det omtalte ‘project’ i Detroit, gør det muligt at grine ad ulykken. Grinagrigt er det også at den ekstreme og racistiske sorte prædikant Louis Farrakhan har fået nok af Demokraternes misregimente af de sortes interesser, men mere forstandige mennesker blandt de sorte er også begyndt at tænke i et kursskifte. Denne video med sorte Trump støtter er fra marts måned og siden er der kommet flere sorte kritikere af Demokraterne til og flere sorte Trumpstøtter

Obama - “one of the truly great phonies of our time”

Thomas Sowel mindes i Town Hall en ‘phony’ student, en der kunne overbevise “almost anybody of almost anything — provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject, fra gamle dage og gør sig overvejelser over præsident Barak Hussein Obama

Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.

A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

Flere sorte amerikanere begynder at få sympati for Donald Trumps kandidatur som præsident. De er ikke tilfredse med at blive betragtet som stemmekvæg for demokraterne. Det har Hillary Clinton og Præsident Barak Hussein Obama sikkert bemærket, hvorfor præsidenten har taget fri fra sit arbejde med at lede landet for at føre valgkamp til fordel for Hillary. I en tale til det sorte kadaver i Washington sagde Obama bl.a

Now, we know, however, that what matters most for our community is not just the symbol, not just having an African American President. It’s having a President who’s going to do his or her darndest to make the right decisions, and fight the right fights. And think about the fights that we’ve waged together these past eight years.

(…)

You may have heard Hillary’s opponent in this election say that there’s never been a worse time to be a black person. I mean, he missed that whole civics lesson about slavery and Jim Crow and (applause) — but we’ve got a museum for him to visit. (Applause.) So he can tune in. We will educate him. (Applause.)

(…)

And when people — when across this country, in 2016, there are those who are still trying to deny people the right to vote, we’ve got to push back twice as hard. Right now, in multiple states, Republicans are actively and openly trying to prevent people from voting. Adding new barriers to registration. Cutting early voting. Closing polling places in predominantly minority communities. Refusing to send out absentee ballots. Kicking people off the rolls, often incorrectly.

This should be a national scandal. We were supposed to have already won that fight. (Applause.) We’re the only advanced democracy in the world that is actively discouraging people from voting. It’s a shame.

(…)

Meanwhile, some of the same folks who are trying to keep you from voting turn a blind eye when hundreds of thousands of people are killed by guns. (Applause.) Imposing voter ID restrictions so that a gun license can get you on the ballot, but a student ID can’t — apparently more afraid of a ballot than a bullet — no, our work is not done. (Applause.)

(…)

In fact, if you want to give Michelle and me a good sendoff — and that was a beautiful video — but don’t just watch us walk off into the sunset, now. Get people registered to vote. (Applause.) If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake. All the progress we’ve made is at stake in this election. (Applause.) My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. (Applause.) Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. (Applause.) Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. (Applause.) Ending mass incarceration — that’s on the ballot right now! (Applause.)

And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there’s another candidate whose defining principle, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we’ve done.

There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter. It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. (Applause.) You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote. (Applause.) And I’m going to be working as hard as I can these next seven weeks to make sure folks do. (Applause.)

“Now, we know, however, that what matters most for our community is not just the symbol, not just having an African American President” indleder Obama altså sin tale til andre sorte amerikanere, hvoraf de færreste er som Obama, nemlig delvis afrikaner. Man kunne sikkert få en masse spas ud af at hudflette hele ideen om at stemme efter hudfarven, men der er noget dobbelttydigt i Obamas brug af ordet legacy, arv. Arven er ‘deres’, de sorte amerikaneres, og hans egen henholdsvis og den sigter dels til, hvad sorte i USA har gennemgået i forne tider, med slaveri og Jim Crowe love og tvungen segregering og dels til hvad borgerretsbevægelsen har opnået af fremskridt og dels til, hvad han selv har opnået - HE built that!

Men Obama kan ikke snige sig ind, som om han har arvet andet fra det amerikanske slaveri, end hvad hans hvide mor har givet ham. Hans er som sagt fra Afrika, Kenya for at være mere præcis, så han har ikke været amerikansk slave. Derfor adskiller han sig som ægte african-american, fra det sorte kadaver, der blot er americans, negerfarvede eller ej. Men, som hans mor kunne være efterkommer af en hvid slaveejer er det lige så sandsynligt at hans far kunne være efterkommer af en arabisk slavehandler. Det kunne man jo mistænke, hvis man funderer over det meget lidt kenyanske i navnet Hussein - hvis ikke man blev rettet af en mere vidende ven, der kan fortælle at bedstefaderen tog navnet Hussein efter at have konverteret til kristendommen.

Det fik mig til at tænke på en lidt ældre artikel på Frontpage Magazine af David Horowitz

According to Obama “racism is still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: “Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul.” The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement – which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is “strongly supported” by 46% of Democrats according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Obama’s malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America - unique among the nations of the world - is not racism but the exact the opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by “progressives” because it didn’t take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the northern states within twenty years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the south as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America’s true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

“Progressive Racism,” which is volume 6 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of David Horowitz’s conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-6 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author

Åh, med hensyn til arv. Det var Demokraterne, der ikke blot forsvarede slaveriet, men endda krævede det genindført i de nordlige stater (for at sikre sig at slaver ikke blot kunne rende nordpå til friheden). Og Jim Crowe* var Demokrat og hans love blev båret igennem med Demokraternes stemmer.

Åh, med hensyn til Obamas medierede virkelighed, hvor virkeligheden skal ændres gennem italesættelse - ISIS kaldes ISIL og islam er ikke i krig med os og vi nævner ikke islamisk terror endsige muslimske terrorister - hørte De hvad “Hillary’s opponent in this election” sagde? Det er også ligemeget, for Hermoine Granger svarede “Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself!”

——————————-

* Og åh, med hensyn til nedladende at starte sine ‘åh’ indvendinger, til præsident Obama, for han moralske slinger i amerikansk historie, så var Jim Crow ikke demokrat, som jeg skrev. “Han” var slet ikke**.

** Jim Crow var et andet ord for n-ordet***, og Jim Crow lovene repræsenterede nogle love specielt rettet mod den del af den amerikanske demografi.

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Obamas medierede virkelighed

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.

Hillary falder i en kurv af begrædelige

deplorables

Hillary Clintons kollaps 11/9 til en mindehøjtidelighed for terrorangrebet på Twin Towers i 2001 ligner et søm i den nærmest bogstavelige ligkiste for hendes præsidentambitioner. Man kan argumentere for at det er en kedelig facon, hvorpå Trump ser ud til at vinde til november og det kan i så fald blive et problem at han ikke ville kunne legitimere sig med et positivt flertal af befolkningen i ryggen, når modkandidaten blot dejsede om, lige som det hele skulle til at starte for alvor.

Og det er faktisk ærgerligt for Trump havde allerede god vind i sejlende. Det var en bet, at det blev afsløret, at ledelsen hos Demokraterne havde undermineret hendes udfordrer til kandidaturet til præsident Bernie Sanders valgkamp. Hillarys karakter ville ikke kunne genrejses uanset hvor meget medier og kendisser taler hende op. Man stikker ikke sine egne i ryggen! Det hjalp hende ikke at argumentere for sin politik, da hun er fanget mellem en videreførelse eller et opgør med de seneste 8 år. Og det forspring hun havde fået foræret af Trumps små selvmål og den ekstremt ulige dækning i medierne forsvandt straks Trump tog sig lidt sammen. Når alle kortene er spillet af hænde, hvad så? Så sætter panikken ind i Clintons kampagne.

Offerkortet må trækkes af ærmet og modstanderen må dæmoniseres. Skytset blev først rettet imod “the Alt Right“, en udefinerbar konspiration af højrefløjsere og rigmænd (som hun har nurset før, og som Stephen Glass broderede videre på i Plotters), der kun kunne vække jubel hos de omvendte. Det var mere end lidt kedeligt, det afslørede også at hun ikke havde noget at sige. En tilhører sagdeI’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump“. Hillary kunne nu ikke længere beskylde Trump for at føre en negativ kampagne eller danse med konspirationsteorier.

Forleden afskar hun så sig selv muligheden for at kalde Trump uanstændig. I en tale til en samling kønsforvirrede angreb Hillary nemlig en stor del af vælgerbefolkningen med følgende ordvalg

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Det er aldrig godt at angribe en stor del af vælgernes etos. Begrædelige har alle venner og familie blandt de mange tvivlere, man søger at nå, som David P Goldman skriver i Asia Times

She apologized, to be sure, but no-one will believe her: she was chilling with her home audience and feeling the warmth, and she said exactly what she thinks. The “Clinton Cash” corruption scandals, the layers of lies about the email server, health problems, and all the other negatives that pile up against the former First Lady are small change compared to this apocalyptic moment of self-revelation.

You can’t win an American presidential election without the deplorables’ vote. Deplorables are America’s biggest minority. They might even be the American majority. They may or not be racist, homophobic and so forth, but they know they’re deplorable. Deplorable, and proud. They’re the median family whose real income has fallen deplorably by 5% in the past ten years,  the 35% of adult males who deplorably have dropped out of the labor force, the 40% of student debtors who deplorably aren’t making payments on their loans, the aging state and local government workers whose pension funds are $4 trillion short. They lead deplorable lives and expect that their kids’ lives will be even more deplorable than theirs.

Americans are by and large forgiving people. They’ll forgive Bill for cavorting with Monica “I did not have sex with that woman” Lewinsky in the Oval Office and imposing himself on any number of unwilling females. They might even forgive Hillary for losing tens of thousands of compromising emails on an illegal private server and then repeatedly lying about it in a way that insults the deplorable intelligence of the average voter. But the one thing you can’t do is spit on them and tell them it’s raining. They’ll never forgive you for that. They’re hurting, and they rankle at candidates who rub their faces in it.

Vloggen Sargon of Akkad har lavet denne glimrende gennemgang

Clintons støtter er faldet i forskellige lejre, skriver Vox, hvor nogle gav hende ret eller mente hun sagtens kunne gå hårdere til den for der er virkeligt mange flere begrædelige blandt Trumps tilhængere end blot halvdelen (og det er måske rigtigt, hvis man skal tro denne video, som jeg fandt hos Hodja), andre taget afstand eller forsøgt at nuancere

Writing at Slate, Ben Zimmer suggests that the “basket of deplorables” construction entered Clinton’s mind by way of analogy with the term “parade of horribles,” which, starting in the 1920s, “entered legal usage as a dismissive term for imagined concerns about a ruling’s negative effects.”

Eller, kunne man sige, hvis Clinton tænker som jurist, så kunne analogien også være til “basket case”. Den fortolkning lægger sig fint op af de mange formodninger blandt demokrater og Wall Street republikanere om, at Trump og hans tilhængere er et godt stykke fra de mentale koncepter. Men, skønt et grimt udtryk som “basket of deplorables” ser ud til at dominere debatten om hendes gode tone, så er det ikke, hvad der er mest interessant eller voldsomt ved hendes udtalelse, skriver Breitbart

ABC wrote up an article about her peculiar word-choice — “basket of deplorables” — but ignored the far more aggressive “irredeemable” description.

Clinton is a Methodist, and she knows that “everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and so she’s making, intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement,” said Kengor.

“Who is Hillary Clinton to say someone irredeemable? Jesus Christ didn’t even say it,” Kengor added.

When the Catholic Church criticized communists during the Cold War, it described them as “Satanic and  poisonous” but not irredeemable, Kengor said. “In Christianity, everybody who is alive and walking  on the planet can be redeemed,” he said.

Symbolically, getting exiled as a “irredeemable” is “worse than being exiled to Siberia [by the Soviet government] because you have the hope some day of being let out of Siberia … even in Siberia, hope didn’t die,” he said.

In September 2001, just after the 9/11 atrocity, Kengor said, George W. Bush was excoriated by Democrats for his hard-edged statement, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Liberals complained “‘How dare he use that kind of biblical language’ — but this is what Hillary is doing here,” he said.

But while Bush’s “with us” phrase assumed that enemies are human enough to choose to sides, Clinton’s “irredeemable” word denies that her political enemies have the human power of choice, he added. Bush “would never use ‘irredeemable’ … [because, for Christians] you can be a evildoer – and still repent and be redeemed,” Kengor said.

(…)

Clinton’s unprecedented use of the “irredeemable” term, said Kengor, “is not getting the attention that it should, maybe because in part, secular liberalism doesn’t really understand religious language … [irredeemable] is really worse than the word ‘deplorable.’”

“Everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and and she’s making — intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement… it really should get more attention than the ‘deplorable’ statements,” Kengor said.

Blottet for en selvstændig politik, moralsk overhøjhed, troværdighed og enhver aura af kompetence, skal Hillarys stærkt skrantende helbred gennemføre de sidste knap to måneders valgkamp tynget af skandaler, som løgnene om hendes helbred, hendes håndtering af angrebet på Benghazi, emailskandalen og Clinton Foundation skandalen. Men Goldmans ord; “Hillary is road kill”!

Information om Donald Trump

“Donald Trump er et røvhul” fortæller Jay Carson, en politisk konsulent på den populære TV serie House of Cards (den underlegne amerikanske version) til Information. Information er en verbos avis, så den har indlæg på indlæg om hvor stort et røvhul Donald Trump egentlig er, hvor kritikere kan lufte deres vrede uden at vi bliver klogere.

Det er Carsons opfattelse at medierne er medskyldige i at ingen forstår “at den republikanske præsidentkandidat, Donald Trump, er et forfærdeligt menneske og ude af stand til at lede et land” fordi samme medier overspillede deres kort, da de forsøgte at fortælle at Bill Clinton også var forfærdelig fordi han havde “haft en affære”.

»Der var ikke den fjerneste mulighed for, at en reality-tv-stjerne (Donald Trump var hovedpersonen i reality-programmet The Apprentice, red.) kunne blive præsidentkandidat i 2000 eller 2004 eller 2008. Det er gået den forkerte vej lige siden, og det er foruroligende og skræmmende.«

(…)

Hvor berømmelse og offentlig optræden betyder mere end ens hjerte og substans og ideer og overbevisninger. Det er derfor, at en fyr som Trump ender med at blive præsidentkandidat. Manden er et røvhul. Han er modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, han aner ikke, hvad han foretager sig, og han forstår ikke, hvordan den amerikanske regering fungerer – eller nogen som helst andre regeringer rundt om i verden. Han er den mest ukvalificerede kandidat til jobbet nogensinde, og han er et stort politisk partis kandidat. Det er bekymrende.«

Det handler om sex

Men hvordan er det dog gået så grueligt galt? Det har Jay Carson en teori om – det handler om sex – og den har han lånt fra bogen All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid, der er skrevet af hans gode ven og skrivemakker på flere filmprojekter, Matt Bai.

»Indtil valgkampen i 1988 havde man aldrig set en sexskandale i amerikansk politik,« siger Carson.

(…)

»Gennem historien er der mange eksempler på mennesker, der i krisetider har udnyttet folkets frygt. Nogle af verdenshistoriens værste mennesker brugte dårlige tider til at skabe frygt hos folk og udøve magt. Donald Trump befinder sig ikke langt fra det. Det er præcis, hvad han er i gang med.«

Dermed ikke være sagt, at man ikke skal forholde sig til de mange vrede og ulykkelige mennesker i USA. Mennesker, der har måttet gå fra hus og hjem og har mistet deres arbejde.

»Det er noget lort, og det er barsk, og det gør én vred,« siger Carson. Men der er to væsensforskellige måder at tage fat i den problemstilling på.

»Der er Donald Trump-måden, hvor man puster til ilden og prøver at skyde skylden på nogle andre, indvandrere eller sorte og brune mennesker eller ens nabo eller regeringen eller hvem som helst. Man taler til folks værste og mest basale instinkter.

Og så er der måden, som Bernie Sanders gjorde det på. Han sagde: ’Jeg hører jer. Jeg ved, at I er pissevrede. Jeg er også pissevred. Lad os ikke ødelægge ting eller tæve mennesker til politiske møder. Lad os tale om løsninger på det i stedet.’ Det er Hillary Clinton også god til. Hun har bare været i politik i så lang tid, at hendes kampagne ikke havde den samme vrede eller det samme momentum. Bernie var et frisk pust, og han virkede lige så pissesur som de mennesker, der er pissesure. Folk kunne se og høre det på ham. Han fortjener ros for ikke at omgøre det til frygt, had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi og alle de andre fucked up-ting, som Donald Trump gør.«

Fucked-up, det er hvad Trump er.  Et røvhul, modbydelig, ubehagelig, korrumperet, der ikke aner hvad han foretager sig andet end had, xenofobi, racisme og homofobi. Og nu nærmer vi os en perfekt storm, hvor Hi(tler)storien lurer, med krise og et folk, der må gå fra hus og hjem har en reel frygt kan udnyttes. Der er grund til vrede, men ikke til at tæve mennekser til politiske møder… åh, vent lige lidt, jeg syntes jeg læste noget lidt andet hos Bretibart

Pierson told The Kelly File (via rushlimbaugh.com):

If you go back to the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails, this is on the PowerPoint playbook on the messaging — slide number 6 — with the messaging theme number 1: Violence.  They were looking for an opportunity to pick up somewhere to continue this narrative that somehow Donald Trump is violent.

Here is the relevant slide, in full. Note the suggestion to tie Trump to “incidents of violence.”

demokrater-opfordrer-til-vold-mod-trump

The worst case of violence was outside a San Jose rally in early June, where Trump supporters were viciously beaten and chased through the streets by a left-wing mob. Despite the fact that the rioters carried out their brutality shamelessly, in full view of the mainstream media, some media outlets blamed Trump for the violence. One headline blared: “San Jose rally turns violent as Trump supporters clash with protesters.”

And for the left, that was precisely the point: creating violence is a no-lose strategy. If protesters can provoke Trump supporters to be violent, they embarrass Trump and cast him as a fascist. And if the protesters themselves are violent, voters will understand that a Trump victory will be met with violent mob resistance.

The left has recruited some Beltway Republicans — the NeverTrump faction — as a willing echo chamber for this meme. Mere hours before the San Jose riot, David French — then considering a third-party run for president to undermine Trump and give the election to Hillary Clinton — accused Trump of inciting violence.

Trump’s primary opponents, too, blamed Trump for the riot that closed down his Chicago rally in April — rather than blaming the organized left-wing groups that created the chaos.

All of that has helped the left establish the predicate for future spin, so that when Donald Trump cites the familiar refrain that gun owners will defend their rights, he is accused of wanting to assassinate Hillary Clinton, and large portions of the media — including conservative media — believe it.

Så, det er demokraterne der tæver politiske modstandere, ligesom brunskjorterne? Og den frygt og vrede, som amerikanerne er i deres gode ret til at have, er den ikke fremkommet efter 8 år med håb og forandring? Kunne journalisten ikke have undret sig blot en lille smule? Og hvad er det med sex der forhindrer gode politikere i at stille op? Ligger talentmassen blandt de promikuøse? Og is så fald, hvad siger det så om Trump, der har haft så mange at han praler med dem?

Amerikanerne elsker countrymisk og tilgiver altid en angrende synder. Sagen om Bill Clinton handlede ikke om at han havde haft en affære, men om at han som præsident bollede med praktikanter, mens han var præsident og derefter løj om det under ed, som han også forsøgte at hindre rettens gang. Skyldsspørgsmål blev afgjort ved afstemning i kongressen, og her havde demokraterne flertal.

Men det handler om sex for venstrefløjen, så Information har også talt med “forfatteren Frank Browning, hvis seneste bog om ’kønnenes skæbne’, The Fate of Gender, netop er udkommet”, der mener at Trumps succes er et udtryk for “en vrede og en nagfølelse”, der gennemsyrer de vestlige samfund på grund af “ændringer og forskydninger inden for autoritets- og magtforhold” og “kønsfluiditet”

Browning siger, at denne ’kønsrevolution’ leverer et afgørende bidrag til forklaringen på den genopblussede ??højreorienterede ekstremisme i Europa.

Og til forklaringen på, hvordan det kunne gå til, at en tidligere reality-tv-showmand og ejendomsmatador kunne mobilisere støtte til at blive republikansk præsidentkandidat i USA ved at fremsætte utallige racistiske, sexistiske og fremmedfjendske kommentarer.

»Vi kommer i de kommende år til at se flere af den slags bevægelser, som Trump har været eksponent for,« forudsiger Browning. »Og en stor del af forklaringen på dette skal søges i kønsspørgsmål.«

Browning pointerer, at der er sket en grundlæggende forskydning i retning af, at mænd i dag beklæder stadig færre magtpositioner i samfundet, hvilket slår om i både en vigende respekt over for mænd og i en såret selvfølelse hos mænd.

Samtidig har mennesker, der vil udforske og eksperimentere med deres kønsidentiteter, fået mulighed for at udfolde sig mere åbent – ikke mindst via de muligheder, som internettet giver for at skabe netværk og møde ligesindede.

Også Jonathan Hedegaard, ja, han er måske ikke amerikaner, men han er bosat i USA, og er digter, kunstner og debattør, giver sit besyv med i Information, i hvad han også kalder et cirkus og “et dårligt realityshow”. Også han taler om “indebrændte vrede amerikanere, som globaliseringen kun efterlod krummerne”, der derfor er til falds for “brød og cirkus”. Der er ingen egentlige argumenter, så her er kunstneriske højdepunkter om Trump og amerikanerne

Cirkusset bliver stadig mere absurd, som Trump gang på gang lufter sin utæmmede stupiditet og samtidig fremstår underligt urørlig.

(…) hans modbydelige udfald mod muslimer, mexicanere, handicappede, krigsveteraner, en død soldats efterladte, politiske modstandere og kvinder, til det forhold, at han har ført en politisk valgkamp, hvor reelle løsningsforslag har virket irrelevante – og det på et sprogligt niveau, der kunne ligne en 5.-klasse-elevs til forveksling.

(…)Efter opfordringen til vold mod sine politiske modstandere er Trump ganske vist kommet under pres.

(…)Trump spejler sin befolkning. (…) Hvis USA fortjener Trump, må der være tale om et samfund præget af historieløshed, overflade over substans, og et samfund, der er ved at miste evnen til at lytte og fordybe sig – værdier, der bliver væk i den endeløse strøm af information og underholdning og videoer af katte, der ter sig på morsomme måder.

Et samfund, hvor folk har for travlt med at fange Pokémons til for alvor at interessere sig for politik. Disse tendenser ser man i hele Vesten. Vores kulturer er plaget af historieløshed, præcis som Trump. Vi glemmer og tilgiver selv de værste udfald. (…) Kun et folk, der selv er historieløst, kan stemme for en mand, der flirter med ophævelsen af NATO’s musketered og åbent vil bryde internationale konventioner.

(…) Det er et sjovt eksperiment at vælge en gammel, forstyrret realitystjerne til præsident.

(…)Trump overhovedet kan slippe afsted med sin grænseoverskridende brutale retorik. En retorik, der bærer præg af det støjende, vulgære, brutale og hangen til konspiration.

Den slags retorik kan kun overleve i det politiske rum, fordi den er så langt ude, og i sin enfoldige forenklethed så mærkeligt let at relatere til. Den minder meget om værtshusretorik. Og selv om det er sjovt nok at høre på kværulanten på værtshuset i et par minutter, er der en grænse for, hvor længe man gider lægge øre til stædigt uvidende sludder af typen: Obama er ikke født i USA. Eller barnlige fingerknipsløsninger på seriøse udfordringer: Vi bygger en kæmpe mur. Eller militant sprog såsom: Spær den politiske modstander inde, eller skyd hende for forræderi (som en af Trumps støtter foreslog).

Analysen er altid simpel for venstrefløjen, blottet for indhold, fremstiller man sin fjende, som lidende af allehånde smålige følelser og mindreværdskomplekser og den skinbarlige virkelighed forsvinder. Den virkelighed at der bare er andre mennesker, som mener truslerne mod civilisationen, det fælles, friheden, er reelle. At der rent faktisk vælter allehånde mennesker, fra fejlslagne stater og kulturer over grænserne, som en mur med et effektiktivt grænsevæsen kunne holde ude. At Hillary rent faktisk har begået lovbrud der retfærdiggør en fængsling. At det var Hillarys kampagne, der fandt på at Obama ikke er amerikaner. Og Trump sætter ord på den reelle frygt de har, deres reelle vrede over et misregimente, ikke fra deres neuroser, men det de kan se.

Afsporing af alt reelt er selvfølgelig ikke noget Information har monopol på, det er blot venstrefløjen.

Se, han har en lille tissemand, og vi ved jo, hvorledes sådanne mennesker er, moral knytter sig til fysisk pragt.

Måske ser det lidt mere sort ud for Trump?

Mens medierne sviner Donald Trump, fortsætter han med at tale direkte til det amerikanske folkNational Review skriver

“I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen struggling in our country today who wants a different future,” Trump said Tuesday night in a sobering policy address near Milwaukee. “The Democratic party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.”

Trump then hammered his opponent.

“Hillary Clinton–backed policies are responsible for the problems in the inner cities today, and a vote for her is a vote for another generation of poverty, high crime, and lost opportunities,” Trump declared. “We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them.”

Trump noted who lords over most poor black neighborhoods.

“The Democratic party has run nearly every inner city in this country for 50 years, and run them into financial ruin,” Trump explained. “They’ve ruined the schools. They’ve driven out the jobs. They’ve tolerated a level of crime no American should consider acceptable.”

Obama Trump cited grim statistics on urban lawlessness: Violent crime up 17 percent in America’s 50 biggest cities in 2015. Homicides have climbed 50 percent in Washington, D.C., this year. In Baltimore, murders are up 60 percent.

Og han bliver hørt, Trumps upopularitet blandt sorte faldt så at hele 14,6% nu foretrækker ham, frem for Hillary. Det lyder ikke af meget, men det er en stigning fra en flukturation mellem 2,5% og 5,5%. Podcasteren Sonnie Johnson udtrykte det således ifølge Breitbart

Johnson said Trump’s speech targeted what “Democrats have done to the black community over the last sixty years,” and laid things out more plainly, and boldly, than previous Republicans have dared to attempt.

“To have it laid out, to have it addressed, to not have it skirted over, to not have it bathed in welfare talk, and poverty talk, but actually to have it, to inspire black people that America is your country, and you deserve to have the greatness and richness thereof in it – I was over the moon last night! Congratulations, Donald Trump! Thank you!” she declared.

SiriusXM host Matt Boyle pointed out that polls show Trump faring very poorly with black voters, but Johnson was confident his speech in Wisconsin would help him turn those numbers around, and even meet his goal of drawing a larger percentage of the black vote than previous GOP candidates.

“The emphasis is on the American people, and for once, you have a Republican candidate that went above and beyond to make sure that black people feel like they are included in that America,” she said. “You don’t have to convince black people that having money is better than being poor. You don’t have to convince them of that. All you have to do is inspire them, and they will do the rest.”

“And that is what Hillary needs to be scared to death of,” she continued. “You have a generation of young blacks that are inspired to take over the world, and now we have a Republican candidate that’s saying, not only will I be your voice, not only will I stand with you, but I will win. And that is something that the black community has not had, since they have let these progressives be in control of our cities. Just the thought of having a real fight in the inner cities of America, with a Republican candidate that gives a damn — Hillary Clinton better be shakin’ in her boots!”

“From the time of Abraham Lincoln to that of President Herbert Hoover the black vote was Republican” skriver Thomas Sowell i National Review. Selvom republikanerne ifølge Sowell næppe genvinder flertallet af sorte stemmer i løbet af det næste årti, så er det vigtigt at erodere demokraternes monopol over den vælgergruppe. Ikke blot på grund af de ekstra sorte stemmer, men fordi flere hvide måske vil stoppe med at anse Repubkanerne som racistisk. Lov og orden er et generelt ønske i befolkningen på tværs af demografien og uddannelse er et “slam-dunk issue for Republicans trying to appeal to black parents with school-age children, as distinguished from trying to appeal to all black voters, as if all blacks are the same”.

Someone on CNN said that if Trump were serious about wanting the black vote, he would address groups like the NAACP. That was in fact a big mistake that even President Reagan made.

Blacks voters are not the property of the NAACP, and they need to be addressed directly as individuals, over the heads of special-interest organizations that have led blacks into the blind alley of being a voting bloc that has been taken for granted far too long.

Et illustrativt eksempel hvor indgroet venstrefløjens tænkning med at adressere minoriter igennem udemokratiske interesse og pressionsgrupper. Skriv det bag øret Dyhr, når du vil give definitionsretten over muslimerne som gruppe til imamerne (Vi på Monokultur, vil have muslimerne til at rejse hjem, men hvis man endelig skal tage minoriteter alvorlig, kan det kun ske som individder). Sheriff David Clarke beskrev rammeforholdene for urolighederne i Milwaukee og hvor vigtigt lov og orden er, ikke mindst for de mest udsatte grupper i befolkningen

Clarke said, “Well, first of all, the social order in Milwaukee totally collapsed on Saturday night. When the social order collapses, tribal behavior takes over. When tribal behavior takes over, the law of the jungle replaces the rule of law and that’s why you end up with what you saw. Last night was a little better. Not good enough for me. I won’t be satisfied until these creeps crawl back into their holes so the good law abiding people who live in the Milwaukee ghettos can return to at least a calm quality of life.”

National Reviews Deroy Murdock er enig med Sowell, at vinde sorte stemmer er muligt og det afmonterer myten om at Republikanerne er racistisk

Trump should take this message to black churches, civic groups, and business associations and respectfully ask black Americans for their votes. All else being equal, if he convinces 15 percent of them, this election becomes a squeaker. If he scores 20 percent of black ballots, Trump trumps Clinton.

Nervous whites who see Trump meet black voters would find such images a comforting contrast to charges that Trump is a racist. Some will be sufficiently reassured and support him.

And Trump’s unyielding conservative critics — including Hillary Clinton’s enablers in the Never Trump crowd — might reevaluate a GOP nominee who finally expressed some “very difficult truths,” in Trump’s words, that other Republican standard bearers understood but were not brave enough to utter.

Trump er folkelig og med det hører også det vulgære. Om han er den rette mand på posten som præsident er svært at sige, men alternativet er bare garanteret værre. Demokraterne har, som venstrefløjen herhjemme, svigtet underklassen til fordel for fashionabel identitetspolitik. Man må håbe at tilstrækkeligt mange sorte smider de mentale lænker og stopper med at identificere sig som demokrater - og på sigt også med deres hudfarve.

En nedladenhed for langt

I ferien linkede jeg til Midnight’s Edges video, der glimrende gennemgik en strid mellem folkene bag den nye version af filmen Ghostbusters og dens produktionsselskab SONY Pictures, på den ene side og et nørdet miljø af film-, fantasyfans og v/bloggere på den anden. Denne nye Ghostbusters film var instrueret af instruktøren Paul Fieg, der i forskellige interviews havde udtrykt negative holdninger til det mandlige køn, fordi han angiveligt var blevet mobbet i sine drengeår for sine ‘fine træk’. Og den nye Ghostbustersfilms hovedroller var, i modsætning til den originale fra 80erne, måske derfor besat af 4 kvinder. Udtrykket i den fladpandede humor, som traileren viste, havde i hvert fald mere end en snert af girl power. Og man kan godt argumentere for, at det er op ad bakke, at hævde en feministisk pointe, når man ikke kan finde på bedre, end en bleg efterligning af drengenes 30 år gamle film.

Kort fortalt, kunne fansne ikke lide traileren til nyindspilningen af Ghostbusters og rakkede på forhånd filmen ned. Sony og folkene bag Ghostbusters forsøgte at redde deres meget bekostelige bud på en blockbuster fra dårlig foromtale og mobiliserede bl.a social justice warriors, personer og grupper optaget ud i det hysteriske af at indrette verden efter deres metastaserende identitetspolitik, til at udskamme de forhåndskritiske fans, som fysisk uattraktive, hjemmeboende sociale tabere med misogyne og racistiske tendenser. Den slags, der stemte på Trump, som skuespilleren Dan Akroyd mente.

Men showbusiness er hårdt og folk der spiser pop-corn er ikke interesseret i at skifte underholdning ud med moraliserende identitetspolitik pakket ind i generisk humor og CGI. . Politisk aktivisme, kunsterisk forfængelighed, forsmåede følelser og drømme om et indbringende franchise gik i selvsving og endte i krig med de selv samme mennesker, hvis holdninger man forsøgte at massere, mens man tog deres penge. Variety fortæller at Ghostbusters vil ende med at tabe 50 mill dollars og at der således ikke er udsigt til “sequels”.

Midnigt’s Edge, har fulgt op på, hvorledes det er gået Ghostbusters efter premieren og hvordan stridighederne (hvor Milo Yiannopoulos i øvrigt blev permant udelukket fra Twitter)

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters has been released, and moviegoers around the world now have the opportunity to judge what has arguably been the most controversial movie of the year for themselves. This however, did not cause the controversies that had been plaguing the production to stop.

In this video we will dig into the movies opening, the critical reception, the various controversies in the aftermath of the release, as well as its boxoffice and subsequent sequel prospects, now that the movie is increasingly being referred to as a flop.

Pressens kamp mod Trump

Det går ikke godt for Donald Trumps kampagne, der synker i meningsmålingerne, mens Hillary Clinton får stadigt mere vind i sejlene. Trumps aggressive stil, som vandt ham republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandidat fungerer ikke med samme succes, når de mange midtervælgeres hjerter skal vælges. Trumps har skudt sig meget i sine egne fødder med upræcise eller fejlagtige udsagn, et udbrud mod nogle forældre til en højt dekoreret soldat, faldet i kamp og rygter om en foruroligende villighed til at bruge atomvåben som en ufrivillighed ved at være omgivet af spædbørn. Er Trump alligevel den charlatan, som flere, inklusiv jeg selv, mistænker ham som?

Måske, men en del af forklaringen er også en amerikansk presse, der i en helt forrygende grad fører kampagne på vegne af Hillary. For ikke alt er som medierne Situationen med spædbarnet, der forstyrrede en tale og fik irriteret Trump ligner en grov fejlfortolkning af situationen og faderen til den dræbte soldat, der kæk viftede med en udgave af den amerikanske forfatning, mens han beskyldte Trump for ikke at kende endsige indholdet, viste sig at være en ivrig sharia tilhænger og samarbejdspartner med både Clinton Foundation og Saudiarabien. Justin Raimondo giver i Los Angeles Times et par eksempler fra sine lokale medier

My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.

To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?

The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?

The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.

Since last summer, Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate.

Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War.

Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.

Jeg faldt tilfældigvis over dette klip fra CNN, det støtter Hillary Clinton, som nogle venstreorienterede havde fremhævet fordi det efter deres mening, viste en Trump støtte blive sat eftertrykkeligt på plads. Det tror jeg de færreste neutrale seere vil mene, men det er en fin demonstration af uhæderligheden i de venstreorienterede medier. Corey Lewandowski, der blev fyret som leder af Trumps kampagne kommer underangreb i fra først CNNs faste politiske kommentator Angela Rye, tidligere leder af det sorte kadaver (ok, det var en undersættelse af the Congressional Black Caucus) og siden værten

Uhæderligheden består i at værten ikke vil vedkende sig det emne han selv bringer på banen. Og for at dække over pinligheden, da Lewandowski holder fast sit logiske spørgsmål, som værten kender og nægter at svare på, skal Lewandowski selvfølgelig afbrydes og råbes ad med fornærmende barnagtigheder. Det giver værten tid til at samle sig sammen til at beskylde Lewandowski for at være racist. Og det sker instinktivt og umiddelbart. “Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn’t work so instead it’s death by a thousand cuts” skriver Matthew Vadum i Breitbart og giver nogle eksempler på den forskel, hvormed pressen behandler Trump og Hillary

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton’s emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump’s statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation’s government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate’s path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. “Trump should be killing her on that point,” he said on the most recent installment of the “John Batchelor Show.”

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she’s destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum’s rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton’s lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman’s messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren’t asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate’s fall in December 2012 in which she suffered brain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don’t inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn’t held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

Hillary nu har faktisk holdt et pressemøde og det for journalister fra de sorte og latinske minoriteter. Dem takkede hun for deres gode arbejde for at hindre Trump i at føre en god kampagne

Clinton said, “Now I think journalists have a special responsibility to our democracy in a time like this. As Ida B. Wells once said, ‘People must know before they can act and there is no educator to compare to the press.’ Now many of you are showing the way.” (RELATED: No Whites Allowed, Clinton Speaks To Press For First Time In 260 Days)

“It’s a badge of honor when Jorge Ramos gets thrown out of press conference for challenging Donald Trump,” Clinton said, pausing for the applause from the journalists. (RELATED: Trump Kicks Out Univision’s Jorge Ramos At Press Conference But Later Lets Him Back In [VIDEO])

“Or when another news organization gets banned for reporting what he says. As Jorge said, ‘The best journalism happens when you take a stand. When you denounce injustice.’ So I hope you’ll keep calling it like you see it, keep holding all of us accountable.” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Emails Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])

“You know I have laid out all of these plans and I’m well aware that I have been sometimes made fun of for putting out these plans, about the economy and education and criminal justice reform and health care and gun safety measures and all the rest of it, but I do have this old fashioned idea, when you run for president, you ought to tell the voters of America what you would do as president.” (RELATED: Comey Confirms Hillary Clinton Lied To The Public About Her Emails [VIDEO])

“So, I am going to keep telling you what I would do because I want you to hold me accountable, press and citizens alike,” Clinton said. “Because the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been in our lifetimes. And we all have to do our part. So thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for inviting me to address you today.”

Godt man bor i Danmark

berlingske-om-trump

Nåh, ja. Det gør man jo.

Post traumatisk negersyndrom

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.

Kan Trump overvinde the pussy generation?

Donald Trump står som det bedste håb, for at stoppe den nedbrydning af Vestens frihedsforståelse, som Hillary Clinton ser ud til at ville forsætte i sporet efter Barak Hussein Obama. Men selv om han skulle vinde over Hillary, kan Donald Trump også sætte det hele over styr, som en anden Glistrup, hvis hans retorik viser sig kun at være fantasterier, som det konservative tidsskrift National Review slår til lyd for igen og igen. Her er lidt Trump kritik og perspektiv fra den mere afdæmpede og altid skarpe Thomas Sowel, som man kan læse i Townhall

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

Og efter en hurtig gennemgang af Obamas og Hillary Clintons forhold til magtudøvelse og ytringsfrihed (hvor muligheden for at kriminalisere skepsis til klimafortællingen afsøges konstant)(Dennis Prager kommer til lignende konklusioner) konkluderer Sowell

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

Russisk roulette indeholder muligheden for et positivt udkomme, så jeg krydser alligevel fingre for Donald Trump. Trump kan næppe frelse den Vestlig Verden, men han kan sætte en afgørende anden dagsorden ved at punktere den vestlige fortrængning af det ondes eksistens og blinde tro på at behandle sig ud af konfrontationer om nødvendigt ved selvopofrelse. Måske kan Trump fravriste venstrefløjen deres definitionsmagt over debatten, som Clint Eastwood fortæller Breitbart

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Clint Eastwood said in an interview with Esquire. “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

Eastwood specifically cited Trump’s comments criticizing a judge who was born to Mexican parents, but indicated he was tired of the media fueled controversy

“He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides,” he said “But everybody —the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

(…)

“I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps,” he said, calling Clinton “a tough voice to listen to for four years.”

Eastwood criticized political figures who were using their position to make money, citing “too much funny business on both sides of the aisle.”

“She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,” he said, referring to Clinton.

Som et eksempel kan vi se på Trumps svar til en journalist fra CNN om det fortstående besøg fra selveste Pave Francis. Transcribtionen er fra Washington Times fordi jeg ikke kan stave til særligt meget på engelsk

Mr. Cuomo asked what Mr. Trump would say if a translator said to him: “‘The pope believes that capitalism can be a real avenue to greed. It can be really toxic and corrupt.’ And he’s shaking his finger at you when he says it. What do you say in response to the pope?”

“I’d say ISIS wants to get you,” Mr. Trump said. “You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that — you know, that’s a dream of theirs to go into Italy, you do know that.”

Medierne ææælsker at sætte modsætninger op, men de hader at stille de relevante modsætninger op. Paven er moralsk uangribelig, Paven ser anderledes på lengesager fordi han aldrig har skulle tjene dem selv, så hvad har Trump at sige til sit forsvar? Intet, Trump hamrer istedet den relevante dagsorden igennem, islamisk terrorisme breder sig fra alle steder, og det er Paven og hans ligesindede der er i en tilstand af fortrængning. Så spørgsmålet er nu ikke længere hvad Trump har at sige til Paven, men om Paven har noget at sige til realiteterne. Dette, sammen med Brexit og et fornuftigt valg i Frankrig og andre steder kan sætte en helt anden dagsorden og give mod til retskafne politikere på at det nytter at tale de fine fornemmelser midt imod fordi folkedybet er større end den den definerende klasse som er et med mediernes verdensbillede.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress