Lidt antisemitisme til weekenden fra duetten Eno og Lykketoft

Antisemitisme, Diverse, FN, Historie, Israel, Muslimer, Politik, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

Tidligere udenrigsminister Mogen Lykketoft og nuværende  blev bedt om at tale imod antisemitisme og bashede derfor Israel

When Israel, the U.S. and Canada hosted a forum on anti-Semitism at the U.N, the General Assembly president, former Danish foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, spoke of Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians.

Musikeren og produceren Brian Eno, der støtter Boykot, Divest, Sanction bevægelsen imod Israels eksistens, fik kvababbelse, da det kom ham for øre, at en israelsk dansetrup dansede til hans musik, skriver Jewish Standard

In a letter to the dance company and its choreographer, Ohad Naharin, Eno said he was not aware until last week that Batsheva used his work.

“(T)hough in one way I’m flattered that you chose my music for your work, I’m afraid it creates a serious conflict for me,” he wrote.

“To my understanding, the Israeli Embassy (and therefore the Israeli government) will be sponsoring the upcoming performances, and, given that I’ve been supporting the BDS campaign for several years now, this is an unacceptable prospect for me.”

Eno condemned “the demolition of Palestinian homes and confiscation of Palestinian land” and the lack of “any attempt to limit settler activity in any way.”

“I am trying to understand the difficulties that must face any Israeli artist now – and in particular ones like yourselves who have shown some sympathy to the Palestinian cause,” he wrote. But the bottom line, Eno said in the letter, is “I don’t want my music to be licensed for any event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.”

Og det mindede en god ven om en tid, førend verdens 1,5 mia. muslimer blev regnet som et sårbart mindretal, hvor Brian Eno ikke var optaget af kampagner mod verdens 5 mio. israelere. I 1981 indspillede Eno, sammen med musikeren David Byrne, pladen “My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, der samplede tv-prædikanter, arabiske sangere m.m. Et af numrene var Qu’ran, der satte dyster musik til koranrecitation. Fedt nummer. De fik så en henvendelse fra British Council of Muslims, der førte til at nummeret blev erstattet med et andet på cd-udgaven.

Og et par gyldne ord fra Brian Eno

““I think we’re about ready for a new feeling to enter music. I think that will come from the Arabic world.””

““I’d love it if American kids were listening to Muslim music.””

Islams gyldne alder grundstødte på islam

Akademia, Arabere, Barak Hussein Obama, Diverse, Historie, Muslimer, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 9, 2016 at 10:46 am

Obama sagde i sin Kairotale i 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela revisited

Muren faldt i 89, Kina gik over til markedskræfter og tordnede derudaf. Kannibalisme i Nordkorea gjorde det lidt pinligt med den traditionelle Nordkoreabod på 1 maj og så videre derudaf, men der er stadig socialister og kommunister og marxister, endda i Folketinget. Så de kaster sig over alt muligt andet, som velfærd, der nu ikke længere er bestikkelse af proletariatet, multikultur, som de efterhånden selv er begyndt at smage lidt af, og klima, der som var de Jehovas Vidner, har skiltet med Jordens undergang dag ud og dag ind i mere end 20 år.

Så når der kommer et eksempel, der minder om de gode gamle dage, inden de blev afsløret, så kommer alle de klassiske drømme om et bedre samfund frem igen. Og hjernen falder ud. Jeg faldt over to artikler fra to venstreorienterede medier, det amerikanske Salon og det engelske Guardian. Begge er skrevet for 3 år siden, begge handler om Venezuela og begge er blevet ondt behandlet af tiden.

Tiden, ak ja. Venezuela er i dag i en desperat forfatning. The Atlantic fortalte for nogle måneder siden, hvorledes wc-papir var blevet en så stor en mangelvare at det kunne resultere i strejker, uroligheder brød ud når el-nettet svigtede og regeringens desperate forsøg på besparelser, ved at indføre to-dages arbejdsuger for offentligt ansatte

In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in line for hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.

“The real culprit is chavismo, the ruling philosophy named for Chavez and carried forward by Maduro, and its truly breathtaking propensity for mismanagement“. I New York times var der en mere detaljeret beskrivelse af forholdene på et hospital. Men det er nu, tilbage til dengang.

Guardians Mark Weisbrot forvanskede venstrefløjens kritikeres advarsler allerede i overskriften som lød “Sorry, Venezuela hater: this economy is not Greece” og fortsætte hoverende “How frustrating it has been for them to witness only two recessions”. At kritisere Hugo Chavez og hans indlysende skadelige dispositioner er at hade Venezuela. For venstrefløjen er dissens det samme som onde motiver.

Now Venezuela is facing economic problems that are warming the cockles of the haters’ hearts. We see the bad news every day: consumer prices up 49% over the last year; a black market where the dollar fetches seven times the official rate; shortages of consumer goods from milk to toilet paper; the economy slowing; central bank reserves falling. Will those who cried wolf for so long finally see their dreams come true?

Not likely. In the opposition’s analysis Venezuela is caught in an inflation-devaluation spiral, where rising prices domestically undermine confidence in the economy and currency, causing capital flight and driving up the black market price of the dollar. This adds to inflation, as does – in their theory – money creation by the government. And its price controls, nationalisations and other interventions have caused more structural problems. Hyperinflation, rising foreign debt and a balance-of-payments crisis will mark the end of this economic experiment.

But how can a government with more than $90bn in oil revenue end up with a balance-of-payments crisis? Well, the answer is: it can’t, and won’t.

Og så følger en argumentationrække, der viste sig skrupforkert.

In 2012 Venezuela had $93.6bn in oil revenues, and total imports in the economy were $59.3bn. The current account was in surplus to the tune of $11bn, or 2.9% of GDP. Interest payments on the public foreign debt, the most important measure of public indebtedness, were just $3.7bn. This government is not going to run out of dollars.

Så langt som Weisbrot har fat i de rigtige nøgletal, og “The numbers are available on the website of the World Bank, but almost no journalists have made the arduous journey through cyberspace to find and report them”, så meget har Chavez sat over styr på få år (Atlantics artikel ovenfor har sin analyse).

Salon Magazines David Sirota gik modigt skridtet videre på baggrund af Weisbrots artikel; “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle“.  Skønt Sirota kommer med indvendinger, som at Chavez økonomiske politik ikke var perfekt (men alligevel et mirakel?), at Chavez ikke var nogen helgen, selvom demokratiet havde det bedre med ham i spidsen, at der trods alt var problemer med menneskerettigheder og at Chavez styre “also coincided with a boom in violent crime” så skal man også ihukomme “America’s drone assaults, civil liberties abuses, and war on voting”.

“Chavez’s name became a decontextualized epithet”, “the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results.”

As evidenced by the treatment of everyone from Martin Luther King to Michael Moore to Oliver Stone to anyone else who dares question neoliberalism and economic imperialism, that punishment is all about marginalization [*]

Så meget en bøh-mand blev Chavez, at ingen løftede et øje da “the Bush administration tried to orchestrate a coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan leader.” Nu man taler om, hvorledes nogen bliver til et tilnavn, så skelnes der i Sirotas artikel, mellem hvad Bush administrationen gjorde af forbrydelser og hvad USA gør uden at Obama nævnes. Der er åbenbart er brug for en kontekstualisering for at forstå et uperfekt mirakel.

Men netop læren fra Chavez er væsentlig og skal ses fordomsfrit, “Chavez’s passing should prompt as much reflection on the individual iconoclast as on the overarching economic ideas he came to embody.”

For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-on nationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

Vi gør os alle illusioner og begår fejl. Men ved at erindre og erkende, hvad man troede var rigtigt, vokser man og bliver bedre og mere varsom med hovedkulds forelskelse og pludselig angst, når man konfronteres af nye udfordringer. Men når man har gjort en moral ud af sin illusion, så er der ingen vej tilbage, så holder man ved og begynder at akkumulere alle sine fejltagelser til banken sprækker af kognitiv dissonans.

Og det er hvad der gør så ondt i venstrefløjens hoveder lige nu.Intet de foretager sig på den store bane virker og deres insisteren på urealistiske og luftige ideer bliver mere desperat og aggressiv. Så når et lille korrupt land i Sydamerika får sig en socialistisk populist vælter alle drømmene op i dem, fordi en lille succes i en fjern afkrog kan vende hele billedet af total ideologisk og moralsk fiasko.

“Maybe now Chavez’s easily ridiculed bombast can no longer be used to distract from Venezuela’s record – and, thus, a more constructive, honest and critical economic conversation can finally begin.” sluttede David Sirota sin artikel og Chavez økonomiske mirakel for 3 år siden. Jeg skal ikke kunne sige om Sirota har lært at se mere ærligt og kritisk på virkeligheden, men venstrefløjen fortsætter deres evige jag efter illusioner.

* King blev skudt af et medlem af Ku Klux Klan for sin kamp for borgerrettigheder, mens More og Stone blev megarige og superstjerner ved at sprede konspirationsteoretiske løgne.

Dagen musikken fortsatte

68, Danmarks Radio, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Kunst og kultur, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 29, 2016 at 9:12 am

Joel Selvin mener i en ny bog at kunne kaste et bedre lys over omstændighederne omkring mordet på Meredith Hunter ved en Rolling Stones koncert i 1969, skriver Daily Mail. Det er historien om depravation, både Rolling Stones, især Mick Jaggers, men mest interessant også hippiebevægelsen. Og den fik mig til at tænke på en anden artikel, der husker tilbage på, hvorledes flower power endte i narko og ynk.

I 1969 var Rolling Stones stort set fallit, trods deres kommercielle succes, grundet de aftaler de havde med deres agent, som tog hele fortjenesten, fortæller Daily Mail. En turne på den amerikanske vestkyst, hvor bandet ikke var så fremtrædende, skulle rette op på det forhold og den sidste koncert, skulle være en åben og fri med deltagelse af andre at tidens toner, misundeligt inspireret af den foregående Woodstockkoncert, og den skulle tillige filmes.

Men forberedelserne til så stor en koncert var sjuskede. Man ombestemte sig en uge, før at koncerten skulle afholdes på Altamont Speedway ved San Fransisco, fremfor det mere velegnede Sears Point Raceway fordi Jagger mente det var for dyrt. Og fordi Jagger ikke kunne lide politiet, skulle Hells Angels stå for sikkerheden. Et andet band, The Grateful Dead havde gode erfaringer med de Hells Angels rockere, som de kendte, men dem Jagger hyrede for en masse bajere var anderledes

As a small team rushed to set up an inadequate, 4ft-high stage and a lighting system the day before the show, a toxic party began. Fans arriving ahead of the show tore down the neighbouring fences for firewood and sat around playing music, taking LSD, smoking joints and having sex.

Unknown to the complacent Stones, these were no longer the happy, innocent days of the Summer of Love. Some chemists had added the poison strychnine to their LSD recipe because it was said to extend the length of the trip. Some threw speed into the mix. Bad trips spread throughout the crowd at Altamont from the start, and many fell prey to acid-spiked drinks. The crucial detail of medical care had been put off until the last minute, leaving the site with eight doctors, four psychiatric doctors from UCSF hospital, and a Red Cross team who, mercifully, had turned up uninvited.

The Hells Angels, who were paid for their vague role as a disastrous informal security force with $500 of beer, left a bloody trail all day, riding their motorbikes through the crowd to the stage and beating men and women with pool cues.

These were not just the relatively civilised San Francisco Angels known to the Grateful Dead. As Altamont was on no one’s patch, the Angels came from an unstable mixture of chapters. Some of the bikers were frankly psychotic; many had something to prove.

A fat, naked Latino man was pummelled for dancing erratically and could later be seen covered in blood, his teeth missing. A naked woman dispensing hugs received similar treatment. The injured were littered backstage like wounded soldiers.

Angels crowded the stage, savagely knocking out singer Marty Balin of support band Jefferson Airplane while they played. One sat beside Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s Stephen Stills as he performed and stabbed him in the leg with a sharpened bicycle spoke every time Stills stepped forward to sing. Streams of blood soaked his trousers.

Even for the Stones, the signs were there from the beginning that this was not the peaceful hippy gathering Jagger had naively hoped for. Moments after their arrival by helicopter, a young man stepped into Jagger’s path and punched him in the face, knocking him down. ‘F*** you, Mick Jagger,’ he screamed. ‘I hate you!’

(…)

As they took to the stage, the Stones belatedly realised the situation had gone far beyond their control. Angels glowered at them from all around, and wouldn’t stop beating people in full view of the band.

Hunter, a black man with a white girlfriend, had attracted the attention of Angels all day. As the Stones went into Under My Thumb, Hunter was smashed in the face by a biker. He tried to scramble away into the audience, but four or five more Angels pounced on him.

He managed to get up and started to run away. Stumbling and out of breath, Hunter pulled a gun from his waistband.

In chilling scenes, The Maysles’ film, Gimme Shelter, captured the moment when 22-year-old Hells Angel Alan Passaro leapt through the air and plunged a hunting knife into Hunter’s neck. They tumbled to the ground together. Passaro kept stabbing the boy in the back. Several other Angels stamped on him. One stood on his head.

‘The hippies had no defense against this kind of ferocious savagery,’” kan man læse i en anden Daily Mail artikel om samme bog, men med flere gode billeder. Rolling Stones spillede videre og hippierne lyttede og trippede og fik bank. Man skulle virkeligt ikke have været der.

Meredith Hunters liv kunne være reddet, hvis ikke Rolling Stones havde insisteret på at bruge deres helikopter til at flyve hjem til hotellet, Hvor Jagger forsøgte at arrangere en trekant (af seksuel karakter forstås), i stedet for at få Hunter på hospitalet. 3 andre mennesker døde den dag; en druknede da han forsøgte at forcere et hegn ved en akvædukt og to blev kørt ned af en koncertgænger på et trip i en stjålen bil.

Jeg huskede som sagt en artikel fra The Atlantic, som via Joe Samberg, mindedes disse “hordes of kids who had been lured to California by utopian ideals and then settled into a life of sex, drugs, and lethargy”, som “by any middle-class standards, these people were living totally miserable lives.” i netop San Fransisco

There were two types of drug users on Telegraph Avenue. One group unapologetically shot heroin. The other group took mind-altering drugs but believed that opiates were a sinister way for The Man to keep poor people from climbing out of the ghetto. At first, some of the kids put up signs declaring, “No heroin dealers here.” Over time, Joe says, those signs came down and more and more people started using hard drugs. “All that stuff about consciousness was just sort of dropped.”

“You see these kids drinking Southern Comfort? Those two bottles appeared and disappeared in what couldn’t have been more than two minutes. These kids were 13, maybe 14. But they just consumed anything that would come their way.” (Joe Samberg)
Looking at Joe’s pictures, it’s clear how young some of those addicts were. One group of junior-high-aged girls, known as the Mini Mob, often showed up in Mickey Mouse t-shirts. “There were people there who had those young kids very much in their thrall,” says Joe. “They told them, ‘Listen, you don’t need to go to school. Everything you need to learn in life is right here on the street.’”

A lot had changed in Berkeley since 1964, when thousands of students—many of them wearing suits and ties—gathered at Sproul Plaza to champion civil rights and demand free speech. Campuses had been the sources of the counterculture’s boldest ideas, the places where young activists mobilized to fight segregation and the Vietnam War, taking classes in political theory and Eastern philosophy.

Now, college dropouts were congregating with misfits and runaways on the other side of Sather Gate. The outrage was still there, but the issues were murkier. While Joe was hanging out on Telegraph Avenue, his brother Paul published an anthology of underground newspaper diatribes called Fire! Among other things, the book ridiculed the whole idea of higher education:

College is a fantasy in the suburban mind of Mr. and Mrs. Work-Hard-Our-Life-Is-No-Fun-But-the-Kid-Will-Get-What-We-Can’t-Afford. The campus is a cultured nest egg where I-Don’t-Understand-He’s-Always-Been-a-Good-Boy and Oh-No-She’s-Not-That-Kind-of-Girl stroll hand in hand up the ladder to success, their tender heads floating in the lessons of the gentle professor. Only the kids never saw the professor. He was in his lab developing the new improved tear gas the kids are coughing under while the university president sits above it all.

Even at the time, though, Joe says he was “too sarcastic” to fully buy into the radical agenda. “The average person on the avenue was almost completely ignorant politically,” Joe says. “All they really cared about was drugs, drugs, drugs. They were nihilists and hedonists. They just supported anything that was against the establishment. There was no intellectual foundation. The spirit everyone had talked about—the feeling of love and new age and progressive politics—was dying a miserable death.”

f70318d511

Over time, Joe says he watched “mind-expanding” drugs give way to more and more heroin. “I never had the wherewithal to be a full-fledged drug addict,” says Joe. “I never had enough money. And I was never willing to sell my camera.” (Joe Samberg)

“That was my problem with the whole thing,” says Joe. “There’s no growth for people if they’re continuously on drugs. It started out with all this higher thinking—expanding your mind to become more conscious of what’s really going on in the universe. But once the drugs took over, all of those big ideas disappeared.”

The author of the Atlantic article, Mark Harris, reached a similar conclusion. He was a generation older than the Baby Boomers, but as a white New Yorker who wrote for Ebony and The Negro Digest, he was highly sympathetic to the youth activism of the 1960s. He just didn’t think the hippies, in particular, were bringing about any meaningful change. Drugs had stunted their emotional development, leaving them at the mercy of “their illusions, their unreason, their devil theories, their inexperience of life, and their failures of perception.” Instead of promoting brotherhood and equality, they’d taken over public spaces, picked all the flowers in Golden Gate Park, and refused to turn their music down to let their hardworking neighbors sleep. And as they begged for money and frequented free clinics, these children of the suburbs siphoned resources away from the urban locals who needed them most.

En tredie observation er at de mest ressourcestærke ideologer udlevede sig selv i en periode af deres liv og fortsatte derefter som iværksættere eller forfulgte seriøse karrierer. I deres kølvand efterlod de sig alle de dumme og svage, som de havde besnakket med deres løfter om frihed, virkelighedsflugt og ansvarsforskydning og som aldrig kom ud af deres misbrug.

Og der er jo ikke meget ved at have en dansk blog uden et dansk perspektiv, så her er Danmarks Radios dokumentar Christianias Børn: Skyggesiden af eventyret

Et slag i genderificeringen

Diverse, Historie, Kristendom, Ligestilling, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 28, 2016 at 9:10 am

En stor metaundersøgelse af menneskers seksuelle observans og opfattelse af køn gør op med nogle bærende dogmer båret frem af diverse bøssebevægelser.

In his article “Almost Everything the Media Tells You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong“, Dr. Ryan T. Anderson outlines some major conclusions about this report:

*The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

*Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

*Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery. The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’ As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

(…)

*In both males and females, significantly higher rates of homosexuality were found in participants who experienced childhood sexual abuse and in those with a risky childhood family environment.” (41% of non-heterosexual males and 42% of non-heterosexual females reported childhood family dysfunction)

(….)

*The report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”

David French tager sig en slapper fra sin anti-Trump kampagne og skriver på National Review

The LGBT Left’s narrative is the new nonsense. But in response to the new nonsense, there are sectors of American and European politics and culture that can’t kick away the old norms of marriage and gender fast enough, and they keep doing so in spite of the mountain of evidence that those who forsake the allegedly oppressive “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,” to quote Black Lives Matter, face far greater challenges than those hidebound bigots who stick faithfully to the heteronormative nightmare of traditional male-female marriage.

What’s even worse — what’s downright insane — is that some on Left want to end the debate. They want to keep selling their moral vision to the public without any competition. Here’s their vision, in a nutshell: Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and the resulting physical or emotional harm is either reasonably tolerable or can be alleviated through a combination of government programs and public re-education.

The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”

Vi har før henvist til den norske dokumentarserie Hjernevask, som faktisk er et gensyn værd.

Hillary ved vejs ende?

Der er sikkert et ord for det i spinddoktor vokabularet, når en kandidat er nået derhen i sin kampagne, at der ikke er mere at sige. Om det er desperation eller måske endda fallit ved jeg ikke, men Hillary Clinton har brugt et af hendes få valgmøder på “not talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter.” Istedet talte hun om the Alt Right, den bevægelse blandt republikanere, som Trump står i spidsen for og som er et rodsammen af alle venstredrejede demokraters sorger. Breitbart, Ku Klux Klan, konspirationsteoretikere, bøssehadere, misogyne antisemitter og racister og så videre.

Infowars Paul Joseph Watson var med røde øjne begejstret for opmærksomheden da dårlig omtale er bedre end ingen omtale og gjorde sig lystig over at Clinton beskyldte andre for konspirationsteoretiseren, mens hun selv plejede en forestilling om at hendes politisk opposition var betalt og styret af Vladimir Putin.

Charles Krauthammer var ikke sikker på det var en god ide for Hillarys kampagne at forlade sig helt på ad hominem, og mente specifikt at dette “slightly over the top”, især, da hun tilskrev Trump den tvivlsomme ære at mobning i skolerne angiveligt var i stigning. Og så er det jo altid svært at holde sig ren når man kaster med mudder

Politicians are always appearing on stages and welcoming people who have unsavory histories, and I would say that for Hillary, she should be a little bit careful since her support for Black Lives Matter — does she really want to be associated with a group that chants about killing cops? And nobody would accuse her of supporting that, but that is always a risk. So it is a cheap kind of political warfare. There are of course incidents — the Mexican judge story and all that, that even Paul Ryan had to admit was a form of classical racist speech. But I think this is the old story, I’m not sure if it is going to have an effect, and surely his calling her a bigot is not going to have a lot of effect either. I think we are at the bottom of the barrel of a race we knew would be down and dirty, and that is exactly where we are now.

Ah, ja, mudderkastning. Breitbart ihukom en venstredrejet artikel af ældre dato, der vånede sig over den racistiske tone, der bar Hillarys kampagne om at blive Demokraternes præsident kandidat  for 8 år siden, dengang modstanderen hed Barak Hussein Obama

In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary [won narrowly by Hillary Clinton] — a race in which Clinton had a 20-point lead only a few months ago — the racism and hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign were laid bare for all a nation to scorn.

Desperate and willing to do anything to win, the Clintons resorted to a naked form of racism aimed directly at white working-class voters in the rural portions of the state. Their message: Barack Obama cannot win because he’s black.

In the early stages of the campaign, it was Clinton’s cadre who kept playing the race card. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s co-chair, Billy Shaheen, accused Obama of being a drug dealer; then there was the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somali garb leaked to the press by Clinton’s staff.

In the aftermath of the South Carolina primary, former President Bill Clinton compared Obama’s victory to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. His message was clear: Obama was a marginal, black candidate.

[…]

To anyone who has followed the Clinton campaign closely, it is all too apparent that her top political strategists — reeling from losses from coast to coast and badly miscalculating the grassroots power of the Obama movement — made a tactical decision to go negative, as that would be the only way for Clinton to stop Obama and somehow allow her to steal the nomination.

And go negative they did — with a subtle yet consistent racism underscoring every turn.

Breitbart, supplerer med flere eksempler og et fact-check. Og for at det ikke skal være Breitbart det hele (tidligere Breitbart chef ) har den gode Jamie Glazov også en debat med Michael Cutler om hvorledes Hillary ikke gavner sortes interesser.

Og ifølge Breitbart, er der også en anti-Clinton bevægelse blandt Demokraterne, der mener at Hillary ikke gavner sin sag, ved at fremstå “unhinged”. Måske er hun blot uforståelig for hendes vælgere, der gerne vil høre hende “talking about jobs, the economy, trade deals, national security, or any of the issues that matter”

(2:16 I’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump”) Og selvfølgelig har Trump ikke noget imod niggere.

Eliten mod Donald Trump

J Robert Smith skriver i Townhall om, hvorledes eliten frygter Donald Trump

Elections aren’t about finalities, they’re about processes. They may be about departures. Case in point, the 2016 presidential contests, which feature Hillary and The Donald. If Trump wins, the process of the November election might start a departure in more than politics. It could be historic. It won’t be good, however, for the global elites inhabiting New York, DC, Boston, and San Francisco — or wherever else ivory towers, mahogany-paneled offices, pricey secured buildings, and gated communities are found. Trump’s election would have reverberations overseas, too, in London, Paris, Berlin — yes, wherever else ivory towers, et al, are found.

A Hillary victory means there won’t be a departure; merely a doubling-down by the elite, as they act with renewed zest to secure their interests — versus the national welfare. The Great Imposition — a war waged on average Americans — will continue with awful consequences.

Impose and divide – divide to conquer. Blacks against whites. (That’s moreMilwaukees.) Hispanics against Anglos. (That’s more illegals and all legalized). Poor against rich. (Lots more free sh*t.) Takers versus producers. (Lots more free sh*t.) Marginalize the working class. (Further cede manufacturing to the Chinese; shut down coal and domestic energy production, generally.) Demean the middle classes. (Who knuckle-drag their bibles, guns, and backwater values through life.)

The worldview among many of our elite is anti-nation — dare we say — anti-American, anti-law and order, anti-tradition, anti-faith (with exceptions carved out for Islam), anti-durable values and enduring truths, like marriage between a man and woman, and family, as defined by a man, woman, and children. The elite, so very cosmopolitan, have evolved past antique beliefs and ways.

The dangers are domestic and foreign. President Hillary and anti-nation elites would continue failed policies toward Islamic militants and insurgencies. They’d serve up more perverse rationalizations for why Islam doesn’t animate jihadists. More dangers in the offing with rogue nations Iran and North Korea. Mounting danger in Asia, with China, where the PRC is boldly militarizing the South China Sea.

All pose existential threats, to one degree or another. To the elite? Obstacles to the world they’ve created for themselves. Perhaps to be solved with appeasements, like tribute (it worked for the Romans — for a while.). Ransoms(monetary and otherwise). Accommodations. Retreats. Misdirection and outright lies.

Velhaveren George Soros er en aggressiv variation af den elite og det er især blevet tydeligt efter at hackere har lækket dokumenter fra Soros hedgefond Open Society Foundations. Her kan man (selvfølgelig) læse at Soros gennem sit Open Society gav $650,000 til “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”, og til anti-israelsk propaganda, og til at sværte islamkritikere, som David Horowitz som værende islamifober, og til at arbejde for yderligere indvandring til Europa. Men man læser ikke meget om det, skriver Investor’s Business Daily

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations’ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

(…)

Anyone with this much power and influence demands close media scrutiny. Particularly when he has extremely close ties to the would-be next president of the United States.

This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC, and a total of $25 million to support Democrats and their causes, according to Politico.

And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

How, indeed.

Ifølge USA Newsinsider advarer hacker-gruppen Anonymous om at venstrefløjen planlægger valgsvindel, for at sikre sig imod en eventuel sejr til Trump. Og det er ikke noget nyt, skriver Townhall.

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.

Børnekultur i Tyrkiet

Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Muslimer, Pressen, Tyrkiet, Uddannelse, islam, muhammed — Drokles on August 17, 2016 at 4:09 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brother Sam Shamoun comments on this verse:

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

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

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

Ibn Kathir writes regarding 65:4

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

Al-Tabari said regarding 65:4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Award Winner at Berlin Film Festival

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

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

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

Eliten mod folket

For en måned siden skrev Jim Edwards i Business Insider at det var på tide at erkende at Brexit ikke vil ske, for i praksis kan ingen melde sig ud af EU fordi omstillingen vil være uoverskuelig og økonomisk ødelæggende. Trods den indsigt skrev Henry Porter for nogle dage siden i Vanity Fair at de økonomiske tømmermænd efter det Brexit, der altså endnu ikke er en realitet og ifølge Edwards aldrig vil blive det, allerede er blevet endnu værre. Andrew Greice skrev dog i Independent at mantraet t Downing Street var “We’re all Brexiteers now.” og andet også ville være politisk selvmord.

Der sker noget i det vestlige sind i disse år og store valg skal træffes og hvor udsigten til de enorme konsekvenser allerede trækker splittelsen frem i befolkningerne. Og det er først og fremmest eliten mod resten. Brendan O’Neill skriver om reaktionen på Brexit i The Spectator

Why is everyone so chilled out about the threats to Brexit? Why isn’t there more public fury over the plotting of lords and academics and experts to stymie Brexit and thwart the will of 17.4m people? In all the years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when democracy has been treated with as much disgust, with as much naked, Victorian-era elitism, as it is being today. And yet we’re all bizarrely mellow. We’re going about our business as if everything is normal, as if the elites aren’t right now, this very minute, in revolt against the people. We need to wake up.

Every day brings fresh news of the revolt of the elite, of the march of the neo-reactionaries against the mandate of the masses. At the weekend it was revealed that Brexit might not happen until 2019, because David Davis and Liam Fox can’t get their departments in order, the amateurs. The lovers of the EU and loathers of the blob could barely contain their glee. March for Europe, a celeb-backed, media-cheered chattering-class outfit agitated by the throng and the dumb decision it made on 23 June, spied an opportunity to do over Brexit entirely. ‘[W]e can help delay Brexit further and ultimately defeat it altogether,’ it said yesterday. ‘We can win this.’

‘We can win this.’ The ‘we’ they’re talking about is a minority view,backed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Owen Jones and Jarvis Cocker, yes, but by only 10,000 people on Facebook. And the thing they think they can win is the overthrow of the largest democratic mandate in British history.

(…)

It has to stop. We’re witnessing an explicit use of power and influence to overthrow, or at least water down, the say of the people. It is an outrage. And it’s being made worse by the uselessness of Theresa May’s cabinet, whose constant pushing back of triggering Article 50 gives the impression that it’s a scary, difficult thing to do (which it isn’t) and in the process inflames the anti-democratic ambitions of the new elites. We need to get real, and fast. Not only is Brexit at stake — so is democracy itself. Earlier generations took to the streets to roar against less ugly elitist campaigns than the one we’re currently living through. So why aren’t we on the streets protesting? I’m serious. They might have money and titles and newspaper columns, but we have the masses on our side. Let’s remind them of that.

Og det gælder også i det amerikanske præsidentvalg, hvor Donald Trump udfordrer den sidende elite, personificeret i al sin korrupte glans af Hillary Clinton. Den politiske analytiker Pat Caddell fortæller her i en samtale med Breitbarts Stephen Bannon om, hvorledes medierne angriber Trump, som ingen anden kandidat er blevet angrebet før, for at beskytte den elite, som de selv er en del af.

“The issue here for [Trump], which is clear, is that this is a country in trouble. This is a country where the economy and foreign policy are in trouble. And she represents — for a country that sees, by vast majorities, that the political class in Washington is corrupt, and rigging the system for themselves, that has not yet come center place,” he said.

“What they’re trying to do is disqualify him from the Presidency. He needs to now go back to saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute, what kind of country do you want to continue to have? The one that is, inevitably, slowly before our eyes, declining and not succeeding? Or do you want to take a chance on making things better? I can help you make things better.’ He has not engaged that. The minute he engages, this election will change amazingly,” Caddell predicted.

“She is locked in to what she is,” he said of Clinton. “All she can do is put up barriers, or throw up arguments, against Trump. Trump is the independent variable in this equation. He is the one that can force those things that matter to people to the front. That is what a change election is about.”

Bannon suggested that “the general population doesn’t know this is a change election,” with so much attention focused on the clash of personalities, and Trump’s negative qualities. Caddell faulted Trump and his campaign for lacking the preparation and discipline to impose their own narrative.

(…)

Bannon advised Trump to prepare himself for even worse treatment from the press, if he should find a way to close his polling deficit against Clinton — an eventuality Bannon described as a “miracle,” while Caddell thought it was highly likely.

“He will close this gap. He will,” Caddell predicted. “And I’ll tell you, you’re right about the media. So, therefore, what do you do about that? You must take it to the level of notwhining about the media. It’s not about whining. It is about that they are playing a detailed role, and a conscious role, in terms of protecting the political class, because theyare the political class.”

He cited polling data that showed the American people have lost faith in the media, arguing that “two-thirds of them believe their level of objectivity and bias is as high as ever — they’re the lowest they’ve ever been, in Gallup.”

“They need to be challenged institutionally,” he said of the press. “Remember what they’re trying to do. They’re not trying just to knock Trump off. They need to suppress that which they have not been able to do all year, this rebellion out in the hinterlands, in both parties — whether it’s the Democrats’ revolt with Sanders, the Republican revolt with Trump — to suppress this instinct of the American people, to take control back of their country.”

That’s the issue: who runs America?”

Kun 11% af amerikanerne mener Hillary Clinton er til at stole på.

Olympisk propaganda i Hijab

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

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

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

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

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061039

Og det ser så tåbeligt ud, som det lyder

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061249

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-062117

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

Hjemme i muslimland kunne billedet se således ud

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-13-kl-0613401

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

Pressens kamp for Hillay

Forleden henviste jeg til eksempler på hvorledes mediernes dækning af det amerikanske præsidentvalg var skævvredet, således at Donald Trump fik en uretfærdig hård medfart,hvor citater blev fordrejet, historier opdigtet og problemer overdrevet. Howard Kurtz fortæller på Fox News, at fordrejninger for nogle journalister er en bevidst handling, et kald nærmest

But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.

Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for theNew York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.

But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.

By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side.

Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”

For at konpensere for denne ubalance dækker medierne derfor Hillary Clintons kampagne ligeså skævvredet men, for variationens skyld uden tvivl, til fordel for Hallarys kandidatur. Således bliver åbenlyse problemer og historier om korruption og kriminalitet negligeret eller ignoreret. Som at faderen til den muslimske terrorist, der myrdede 49 mennesker i Orlando, får lov at mænge sig på demokraternes valgmøder, helt tæt på Hillary Clinton.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-11-kl-063211

Kunne en far til en massemorder blive set tæt på Trump, ved et af hans valgmøder uden at det havde skabt overskrifter? Og det er ikke de eneste overskrifter, de amerikanske vælgere er gået glip af. Wayne Allyn Root har samlet nogle stykker, af hvilke her er et uddrag, for Breitbart

Let me list all the many shocking stories NBC News should be mentioning, if not covering extensively. Instead they won’t even admit these news stories and scandals exist.

  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and execution of an Iranian scientist helping the U.S. His name was prominently mentioned in Hillary’s hacked emails that undoubtedly ended up in the hands of our enemies. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and murder of Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens and those 3 American heroes at Benghazi. Hillary’s hacked emails gave up his location.
  • It appears I’m not the only one to think so. Hillary is now being sued by the parents of the dead Benghazi heroes for this gross negligence. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News. They did plenty of reporting about the one Muslim gold star father, but virtually zero coverage of the parents of dead Benghazi heroes. Donald had harsh words. Hillary lied to the parents’ faces with their children’s caskets lying nearby. Her actions may have led to their deaths. Still NBC says nothing.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails show the Clinton Foundation is one big extortion racket that involved “pay for play.” Those who donated to the infamous Clinton Foundation immediately got high-level access and contracts from Hillary’s State Department. Folks this is treason – pure and simple. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.

Can you even imagine if Donald Trump served in a presidential cabinet and sold out his access and government contracts in return for donations to his foundation? It would be the biggest news story in America. The FBI would be leading him away in handcuffs right now.

Det er alt sammen underordnet at The Donald ikke kan lide spædbørn.

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.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

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

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

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

omvendt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISIS wants to get you!

Balfour erklæringen er alle katastrofers moder

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

(…)

These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

Kommer det nye USA nu?

Man kunne tro at Donald Trump var arketypen, eller en lidt vulgær variant, af den amerikanske drøm, men i New Yorker kunne jeg læse at Obama mente at Trump er uamerikansk. Kristeligt Dagblad assisterede min bedagede forståelse det amerikanske og præsenterede “det nye USA der hepper på Hillary Clinton

Demokraternes præsidentkandidat skal samle et kludetæppe af mindretal for at vinde over Donald Trumps hvide vælgere ved USA’s valg i november

Det Demokratiske Partis nye ansigt er folk som Zak Davidson fra Columbia, Ohio. En hvid, veluddannet ateist på bare 22 år.

Det er 64-årige Norma Davenport, der har levet hele sit liv i et traditionelt afroamerikansk arbejderkvarter i Philadelphia.

Det er den homoseksuelle flådeveteran Ron Helms og hans jødiske veninde Joanne Goodwin fra Florida.

Og det er Sue Langley fra Virginia, der for 34 år siden immigrerede fra Thailand til USA med sine forældre.

Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud

At råbe “Intifada! Intifada!” og “Death to the USA!” mens man brænder israelske flag er i sandhed langt fra, hvad den negerlignende Steven W Trasher kalder “a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate” af Trump støtter. Trasher er bange for at de rabiate, svindende, vrede hvide vælgere er nok til at bringe Trump til Det Hvide Hus til november fordi Hillary ikke kan begejstre, “just watch Hillary Clinton being booed at her own party convention”. Den slags intern dissens får man ikke indtrykket af i medierne, især ikke de danske, men Townhall forsøgte at opgøre omfanget af udvandringen fra konventet, da Hillary blev nomineret

The level of media bias in reporting the Democratic National Convention is as high as I have ever seen outside of North Korea and the old Soviet bloc. The GOP convention was declared a disaster many times during its four-day run, but the DNC, reeling from revelations of the rigging of the primary contests, is getting far more benign descriptors, as the media avert their eyes from unpleasant realities.

Among the most unpleasant realities for Democrats and the media is the anger of Bernie supporters now that it is clear the campaign into which they threw their hearts and souls was fixed all along. Somehow, that anger must be minimized, trivialized, and eventually extinguished if Donald Trump is to be stopped. And in the eyes of the media, that threat is so overwhelming that no restraints whatsoever are justified in making the case against him as propagandists rather than honest observers and reporters.

So the focus last night at the DNC was “history being made,” (no Y chromosomes at the top of the ticket) and a soft focus look at Hillary’s record as a left wing activist using children as a front for demanding leftist policies and selected aspects of her personal relationship with Bill Clinton, the most popular living Democrat (if you ask Democrats).

As propaganda, it was skillful.

Godt dog at ISIS overhovedet blev nævnt for ifølge Breitbart blev det eller jihad eller terror slet ikke nævnt på konventets første dag. Til gengæld blev andendagen åbnet med af islamisten Sherman Jackson, der mener, om ikke sit, så hvad islam lærer ham om del af det nye USA der er homosexuelle, jøder etc. Man skal helst ikke nævne islam, ifølge Obama, ikke blot fordi det er “offensive to Muslims”, men “the kinds of rhetoric that we’ve heard too often, from Mr. Trump and others, is ultimately helping do ISIL’s work for us”. Omvendt med Hillary “She will stand up to ISIS”, som Martin O’Malley (ham er der spræl i) uambitiøst erklærede. Men at stå op imod ISIS er alt man tør på et demokratisk konvent, hvor al tale om faktisk at bekæmpe kalifatet fører til protester fra salen.

Jeg er ikke helt klar over hvorfor befollkningsudskiftning er blevet så salonfähig i medierne. Men det nye USA kommer måske til at vente four more years, da Trump fører i meningsmålingerne og Assange truer med at der er mere slim i røret.

Med jøden er det anderledes

Muslimer i Europa råber Allahu Akbar mens de stikker folk ned på gaden, kører dem ihjel eller hugger deres hoveder af. De har muslimer gjort længe i Israel

Men inden muslimernes opførsel blev så spektakulær at den ikke længere kunne skjules, skosede europærere Israel for ikke at være eftergivende nok. Når muslimer myrdede jøder var der jo nok en god grund til det - det er der jo altid. Mosaic Magazine mindede forleden om et af de mange europæiske hyklerier når det drejer sig om Israel

Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.

When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.

Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.

Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.

Der er nu ikke noget der ikke er for ‘galling’ for EU, som Evelyn Gordon skriver

Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.

The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.

(…)

Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.

And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation…  and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.

The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.

In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.

No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”

If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.

Det er bare anderledes med jøden. Tag denne formulering fra BBC, som fremhævet af Campaign Against Antisemitism

Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.

Før ramte terror mest jøder og blasfemikere, men nu rammer det uden at diskriminere. Hmm, måske der efterhånden er nogle europæere, der skylder Israel mere end en undskyldning.

Her er en tanke. Som muslimer fortsætter med at myrde europæere og som det politiske landskab nok (og forhåbentligvis) kommer til at ændre sig vil forståelsen for Israels problemer sandsynligvis udvikle sig i en mere solidarisk retning for den europæiske offentlighed. På Jerusalem Post kan man læse at Israels næste krig “will be far more brutal” end den seneste for 10 år siden. Hvis Israel til den tid ikke skal bekymre sig om europæernes fine fornemmelser til den tid, står Hezbollah til en giga røvfuld - just saying.

Daily Show manipulerer med virkeligheden

Jon Stewart var god til det, Trevor Noah er det ikke. Satire er svært fordi det er indhold og ikke blot en ironisk form. Men når man driver et dagligt satire-program bliver presset på at finde nok satirisk materiale oftest så stort at man alt for ofte presser det materiale man nu engang har ind i den opøvede ironiske form. Og dette bliver uhæderlighed.

Noget af det sjoveste er at udstille repræsentanter for sine idiosynkrasier så alle kan svælge i, hvor tåbelige og usammenhængende de er. Men det kræver at man finder dem. Hvis ikke man finder dem, men i stedet er så uheldig at rende ind i intelligente velovervejede mennesker lidende af en anden politisk observans end ens egen må man manipulere med sit offer. Ved det republikanske konvent faldt en medarbejder fra Breitbart over en sådan manipulation i sin skabelse

A crew from The Daily Show — which plunged in the ratings after Trevor Noah took over as host— set up outside the event and approached people as they left the party, asking them for interviews.

At 12:30 a.m., Pollak was leaving the party when The Daily Show approached. “I was on the phone anyway,” Pollak recalled, “so I ignored them, but then I saw them pulling someone aside, so I stopped to watch.” The Breitbart senior editor-at-large ended his call, and turned on his video camera.

The Daily Show didn’t like that. Their attempt to stop Pollak wasn’t funny, and included physical intimidation and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.

“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.

“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.

“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”

(…)

The actions of the thugs from The Daily Show are shocking, and they rip the lid off the real purpose off the show: political propaganda disguised as entertainment. They weren’t trying to hide their “jokes” but were trying to keep their dwindling viewership from seeing how they make the sausage.

It’s as ugly as (insert politically incorrect Leslie Jones joke here) — and it’s no laughing matter.

Men metoden er ikke ny og den er ikke opfundet at Trevor Noah. Daily Shows Jon Stewart var dygtigere end Noah, men han kunne også lyve om virkeligheden for at passe sin ironiske form og lefle for sine tilhængeres idiosynkrasier. Og Stewart er et rimeligt præcist udtryk for hvorledes en stor del af venstrefløjen ræsonnerer, undvigende virkeligheden uden at stå til regnskab, som Daniel Greenfield skrev i Frontpage Magazine

It was Bush’s victory that took a flailing cable show hosted by an irritating little standup comedian with more neurotic tics than a flea-bitten Woody Allen and turned him into the voice of liberalism. Stewart’s nervous smirk and his passive aggressive mockery became the zeitgeist of urban Democrats nervously responding to Bush’s popularity and the rise of American patriotism after September 11.

The Democratic Party was out of ideas. The politicians who would become some of Bush’s most fevered critics were still following the president’s cues. A newly serious America was confronting a world war.

Stewart’s disingenuousness, veering from ironic detachment to self-righteous hectoring, undermined real sincerity with fake sincerity. The Daily Show’s audience of hipster yuppies cheered their newfound faith in sincere cynicism while the calculated ironic distance of his comedy kept him safe from critics. Even while he attacked the media’s dishonesty, his own routine was the most dishonest of them all.

His fake news was real news, biased and spun with punch lines. It was fake news that was real and just as fake as the rest of the news. The truth was that the lie was still a lie.

What Stewart offered a party dragged down by a morose Gore and Kerry was the promise of cool. Their former figurehead had started out playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show only to decay into a bloated red-faced mess. With towers burning and wars rising, Stewart was to be their bridge to a cooler and younger 21st century that an aging Democratic Party no longer seemed able to grapple with.

Jon Stewart didn’t actually have cool, but he could offer it up inversely by way of mockery. Like a school paper’s drama critic, he might not be cool, but by railing against others, he could deny coolness to them.

(…)

What Stewart offered Democrats was an evasive viewpoint without accountability. And nothing quite appeals to the cowardly instincts of a political hack like being able to take a political position without being held accountable for it. But it was Obama who truly embraced politics without accountability, transforming every issue into a joke or referencing it back to his own biography.

While he may have come out on the stage with a unique personal story, what kept Obama competitive was his skill at refracting everything through layers of irony and self-awareness. His approach was to borrow Stewart’s own routine without any of its ambiguity. Stewart’s pretense of triangulation became Obama’s obsession with turning his radical left-wing politics into an imaginary middle ground.

Stewart and Obama had come out of a political movement trying to respond to September 11 without having the first idea how to do so. Stewart’s comedy paved the way for minimizing the threat while inflating the absurdity of those trying to fight it. It is an approach that Obama continues to embrace.

(…)

Generation X cynicism fused with millennial brand awareness to create a political monster who might not be able to lie to the people all the time, but who cynically made the existence of his lies irrelevant.

Stewart’s Daily Show had offered an antidote to the Bush era of patriotism, sincerity and decency. Its antidote was passive aggressive ridicule and political satire as sincerity. After the Bush era ended, Stewart and his fellow comedians had little left to do except take on the job of defending Obama, while occasionally critiquing him. They had become the official court jesters of the Democratic Party.

Et eksempel. Under Israels seneste krig med terror-regimet Hamas i Gazastriben latterliggjorde Stewart Israel for ikke at beskytte fjendens civilbefolkning helt lige så meget som sin egen civilbefolkning. Som David Horovitz beskrev i Times of Israel

Stewart: “Both sides are engaging in aerial bombardment, but one side appears to be bomb-better-at it. (Studio laughter at the wordplay.) Most Hamas rockets are neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome technology, and Israeli citizens can even now download a warning app. (Cut to clip of Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer explaining how Israelis can know where and when they’re being attacked.) So Israelis seem to have a high-tech, smart-phone alert system.”

Let me see if I understand the point he’s making here: Having falsely implied that Israel is as keen on killing as Hamas is, Stewart now seems to be criticizing Israel for not being as vulnerable as Hamas would like it to be to those Hamas rockets that are sent to kill us. He seems to be bashing us for having those tech smarts. It’s a bad thing that we developed a unique, astonishing Iron Dome missile defense system, without which hundreds of us would be dead? It’s a bad thing that we developed an app to warn us that the rockets designed to kill our citizens are heading this way?

Stewart: “How are the Gazans notified? (Cut to a clip explaining that Israel carries out “a small mortar explosion” on the roof of a building that is to be bombed “which serves as an Israeli warning of an upcoming airstrike.” Back to Stewart.) “Hmmm. So the Israeli military warns Gaza residents of imminent bombing (pause for comedic effect), with a smaller warning bombing! (Laughter). An amuse-boom, if you will.” (Studio laughter, clapping, cheering.)

What’s my problem with that bit (once I’ve registered the witty play on amuse-bouche). Oh, where to start? Stewart fails to explain which buildings in Gaza are being targeted: This is not the mirror image of Hamas’s arbitrary rocket attacks on any and every Israeli target. These are Israeli airstrikes on Gaza homes where Israel says terror chiefs live, where weaponry is stored, from where rockets are fired.

Furthermore, whereas Hamas, out to kill, does not generally warn Israel of imminent rocket attacks (thus rendering every missile fired at Israel from Gaza “a crime against humanity,” according to the Palestinian Authority’s own UN representative), Israel, trying not to kill noncombatants, fires that warning mortar shell to alert civilians — even though it knows this is more than likely to lead to the terrorist fleeing. Would Stewart rather Israel not warn Gazans that, in its efforts to prevent rocket fire on its civilians, it is about to strike back?

Mark Levin luftede dengang også sin harme over Stewarts manipulerede virkelighed.

Trumps sammenhængende tale

Donald Trump fører ifølge CNN i meningsmålingerne over Hillary Clinton. Der skal tages det forbehold at Trump har fået ekstra opmærksomhed som han blev kåret til Republikanernes præsidentkandidat på der republikanske konvent. Nu er det så Hillarys tur til at højne opmærksomheden om sit kandidatur, men hun skal tage højde for en opmærksomhed der indtil videre er centreret om hvorledes Demokraterne har modarbejdet Bernie Sanders den anden kandidat til Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i en blanding af almindelig Clintonsk korruption og generel venstreorienteret antisemitisme (og så er der den almindelige dyrkelse af race-deling). Hillary har allerede ansat Demokraternes skandaleombruste partiformand til (forsat?) at lede hendes kampagne.

Og man kan håbe at Trump ender med nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Muligvis er han en charlatan og muligvis vil han være en katastrofe, men i forhold til alternativet, så har vi brug for en mand der kan sige sandheder. Om terror-angrebene mod Frankrig - og man kan inkludere alle europæiske lande i denne ligning - siger Trump

- Det er deres egen skyld, fordi de i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium, siger han.

Det gør ondt at læse og nogle er faldet over ham for at bebrejde ofrene. Men det er desværre sandheden. Hvis ikke man værger for sig inviterer man problemerne ind i sit land. Man kan meget vel beskylde “eliten” eller “venstrefløjen” eller “venligboerne” eller “politikerne”, men alt i alt har de europæiske nationalstater, og de er jo summen der indeholder elite, folk og fjolser, ikke taget var på sig selv. Det er tid til at se virkeligheden i øjnene.

- De er blevet kompromitteret af terrorisme. Her er, hvad jeg vil gøre: Ekstremt grundige undersøgelser. Det er et hårdt ord. Ekstreme undersøgelser. Vi skal stille hårde krav. Hvis en person ikke kan bevise det, de skal kunne bevise, kommer de ikke ind i det her land, siger Trump, der dog ikke besvarer mere uddybende spørgsmål om hans model for undersøgelserne.

(…)

- Folk blev så vrede, da jeg brugte ordet muslim. Uh, man må ikke sige muslim. Og det er okay, for nu taler jeg om territorier i stedet for muslimer, siger han.

Det er en helt anden indstilling end den europæiske, der klart spejler sig i crooked Hillary. Jean-Claude Juncker “the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump”, skriver Breitbart. Tro mod sit formål ræsonnerer formande at uanset omkostningerne er åbne grænser et gode

Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

(…)

Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

Det verdensfjerne udsyn, renset for de grimme realiteter gennemsyrer både ekspertise, medier og myndigheder. Her sad jeg med kaffen og læste en ganske almindelig artikel på Danmarks Radio om noget af det seneste terror

Der er åbenlyst ingen sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland. Men for mange tyskere føles det som terror, selv når det ikke er det, siger DR’s Tyskland-korrespondent Michael Reiter.

- Det giver en følelse af, at man ikke kan gå ud i det offentlige rum uden at blive ramt af et eller andet forfærdeligt til hver en tid, siger Michael Reiter og tilføjer, at utrygheden kommer til udtryk på de sociale medier, i de tyske avisers ledere og hos dem, han taler med.

- Der en udpræget følelse af, at verden er at lave. Sådan var det allerede efter i fredags, hvor tyskerne oplevede blodbad nummer to på en uge.

Angreb gavner højrefløjen

De voldomme begivenheder kan meget vel give den islam- og indvandringskritiske tyske højrefløj ekstra vind i sejlene, vurderer Michael Reiter. For alle gerningsmænd har anden etnisk baggrund end tysk.

- For det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschland er det vand på møllen, når der er tale om terror. For det bekræfter dem og deres vælgere i deres meget heftige kritik af kansler Merkels flygtningepolitik, siger Michael Reiter.

Det er altså kun for det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschlands vælgere at der er en sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland alle begået af indvandrere og at denne sammenhæng har at gøre med Merkels flygtningepolitik, hvor man “i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium”. Det borger jo ikke godt for det samlede elektorat.

Skæggede mænd lavede tumult på nøgenbaderstrand” var en overskrift på Ekstrabladet, der i artiklen gav et lille hint ved at disse skæggede mænd “beskrives som værende ’sydlandske’ og som værende omkring 25 år gamle.” Som Møller på Uriasposten spekulerer i “kunne det godt være et efterspil til en fugtig kongres for kristen-arabiske julemænd, men nej”. Møllers sarkasme er desværre sørgelig præcis, hvis man læser de svenske medier, hvor det i ægte Camusks ånd er solen der var skyldig i de mange voldtægter. Midt i al det gejl kan man ikke fortænke den almindelige borger i at miste sin sunde fornuft

forkert-gc3a6t

Myndighederne i både Tyskland og Frankrig har haft travlt med at dække over problemets omfang og essens.

Der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem muslimsk indvandring og terror og vold. Trumps tale er sammenhængende, mens europærernes, med et engelsk udtryk er unhinged.

Obama: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant Death to America does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe”

Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.

Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

(…)

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.

Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.

Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress