Rystede og chokerede, men fortsætter kursen

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

Andre lader sig ikke ryste så let

muslimsk-kvinde-krydser-sin-tros-spor

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

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

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

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

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

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

muslimske-reaktioner

screenshot-fra-arabisk-livestreaming-af-terror

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

Alfa-hannerne skaber bekymring og stress

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

img_00121

Og hans stab klar til krig

img_00211

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

På med vanten?

England, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on August 13, 2016 at 11:26 am

Den gode blog Hodja har fundet en fin film, der påstår at Solen om føje år vil bevæge sig ind i en passiv periode, vi senest så ved Maunders Minimum (1645 - 1715)

Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately. The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to supress the new findings.

James Delingpole sætter sine penge, hvor hans fingre er, skriver han på Breitbart

The Maunder Minimum occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age, a period of feeble summers and bitingly cold winters, war, pestilence and famine. It wasn’t all bad: rivers like the Thames in London froze so thickly they could accommodate Ice Fairs; and it’s said that the slow tree growth induced by the cold gave the wood in Stradivarius violins their special timbre. On the whole, though, a descent into a new mini Ice Age would be massively debilitating both to the global economy and people’s living standards. Since the Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the Nineteenth century, we have all got used to the comforts and agricultural advantages (such as being able to grow wheat in more northerly latitudes) of living through a period of global warming. A second Little Ice Age will come as a very nasty shock.

That shock will be felt most especially by the world’s climate alarmist Establishment, whose scientists and learned institutions have staked their reputation on the idea that CO2, not solar activity, is the prime driver of climate and that the planet is on a warming trend not a cooling one.

This explains  why when Professor Zharkova first released her findings last year, various climate alarmists went behind her back to the Royal Astronomical Society to try to persuade them to withdraw the press release.

(…)

Meteorologist Paul Dorian of Vencore Weather has also predicted an imminent solar minimum as the world finds itself in the weakest solar cycle for more than a century.

Evans is so confident of the imminent cooling that he’s helping set up a hedge fund specifically geared to betting against global warming. I’ve written about this before at Breitbart. It’s called Cool Futures and I am – technically speaking – a hedge fund manager because I bought a share in it. You can too if you go to their website.

Lad os håbe at vi er CO2 polstrede nok til at vi undgår de værste fimbulvintre.

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.

Finter, frygt og arbejdsdeling

Frederik Stjernfelt skriver fjernt fra positionalisterne om troendes diversificerede tilknytning til deres tro og religion

Der er tale om en art arbejdsdeling: Man har hellige mænd til at drive institutionen og udvikle teologien, man har almindelige troende til at udgøre dens skattegrundlag, og man har aggressive unge mænd til at tage sig af sammenstødene med de vantro og de konkurrerende konfessioner.

Og så er der dem, der luller os i søvn, ved at foregive at terroransatster er dagligdag. Som sagen med Alisiv Ceran, den unge studerende, der blev forvekslet med en terrorist fordi han opførte sig besynderligt. Eller hr. Tara, med det uskyldige fornavn Jihad, der pludselig ville overvære et Trykkefrihedsarrangement i skyggen mordforsøget på Trykkefrihedsselskabets daværende formand Lars Hedegaard. Eller tag dette eksempel fra Daily Mail

A Muslim teacher called Islam was told to remove a hoodie with his name on it because a barman said it was upsetting customers.

Humiliated Nurul Islam, 32, had arrived to meet fellow teachers at a local pub when the man told him his top was ‘offending people’ after last week’s Nice atrocity.

84 people killed were in a terror attack in the French city, with a further 303 injured.

Nurul, a father-of-three who is not practising, refused and has now reported the incident to police who are investigating it as a possible hate crime.

Ja, ikke? Det var bare hans navn og hans navn må han da vel bære på sin hættetrøje når han skulle have sig en muslimsk kæp i øret. Det ville jo være lige så normalt som hvis man hed, åh skal vi sige Adolf Hitler og besøgte synagogen. Så næste gang de ser noget uhyrligt, så antag venligst at det er helt naturligt eller risiker et sagsanlæg og udskamning som racist. David Wood forklarer her, hvorfor man ikke skal dølle sig i søvn ved ideen om de mange fordrukne muslimer, som ellers foregiver at være sækulariserede og integrerede (og det er en dyster advarsel om hvor umuligt det er at integrere muslimer ind i liberale samfund)

Økonomisk kaos på vej efter Brexit - bare ikke for Storbritannien

Brexit, Diverse, EU, England, Euro, Forår?, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 10, 2016 at 4:27 am

I Storbritannien ser det sort ud for den forrådte ungdom

Og hvordan er perspektiverne så for det forjættede EU?

The IMF did warn of economic chaos in the event of a Leave victory and has urged for a “smooth transition” for post-EU Britain.

The international organisation said: “The euro area is at a critical juncture. Muddling through is increasingly untenable.

“Unless collective problems are solved, the euro area is likely to suffer repeated bouts of economic and political instability leading to crises of confidence and economic setbacks.”

In the damning statement, it said the migrant crisis could even spell the end of free movement and warned that other countries in the bloc could want their own referendums following the Brexit vote.

A Nobel Prize winning economist even said that Europe may have to “abandon the euro”.

The economist, Professor Christopher Pissarides, has said that the uncertainty would reduce investment and hit job creation.

His warnings came as:

* French bank Societe Generale analyst warned Italy and France could quit the single currency EU

* Rating agency Moody’s said the future of the entire EU was at risk

* Banks across Europe came under increasing stress

* The world’s biggest hotel group predicted that the fall in the pound would lead to a tourist boom for the UK.

But the IMF has also said that the outlook would be even worse if there are long, drawn-out negotiations between the UK and the EU.

Super, altså business as usual. Imens ser Storbritannien mod nye horisonter

Xing Houyan, from the state supported Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, claimed the “situation in Western Europe will push China and the UK to make a trade treaty”.

Former Waitrose boss Lord Price claimed the two nations working together could “create a second Elizabethan golden age” while speaking at the Honk Kong chamber of commerce.

He said: “I’m optimistic about the future: particularly in helping create a second Elizabethan Golden Age.

“The first Golden Age was based on peace, prosperity, new trading markets and a flourishing of the arts.

“There’s also a prospect for striking new deals with Canada, New Zealand and Australia which could form the beginning of a Commonwealth trading pact.”

Ak ja, Storbritannien, isoleret sammen med resten af Verden.

Seeberg tilpasser sig Brexit

Gitte Seeberg er en af de emotionelle EU-tilhængere. Her, næsten to uger efter Brexit, er hun stadig i chokfasen og har svært ved at udtrykke en sammenhængende tanke.

Man kan vist med rette spørge sig selv, hvad i alverden det er for en verden, vi lever i i øjeblikket. Vælgerne i UK sagde ja til at forlade Unionen.

Ja, hvad i alverden er det for en verden, hvor nogle ikke vil være med i EU? Det er crazy. I samme ånd kaldes danskernes nej til at ophæve de retlige forbehold - de forbehold, der var betingelsen for at ændre vores nej til Unionen til et ja mindre end et år senere - for en “fuldstændig vanvittig disposition”. Men det er sammenbruddet i Seebergs logik, som fortjener lidt opmærksomhed

Camerons populisme har bragt landet ud i en dyb krise. Og dermed også EU.

Ved hun at hun skriver at det er UK, der dermed er den store i det forhold? Ikke det bedste forsvar, men selv om hun sikkert ikke vil indrømme det, er det den antagelse, der ligger bag hendes ræsonnement - og hendes emotioner. For hvorfor hidse sig op over at et land har kastet sig ud i en svær situation, hvis ikke man er den berørte part? “Egentlig kan man ind i mellem fristes til at give fanden i de englændere.” skriver Seeberg, før hun tvinges til at indrømme “Men desværre er UK jo rigtigt vigtig for os alle”.

UK er en stærk militær nation. Stort NATO land og vigtig spiller, ikke mindst i forhold til USA. USA og UK er mere enige end USA og Frankrig eller Tyskland. Den tætte relation gavner også os andre i EU ikke mindst, da både USA og UK gør det stærkt på terrorbekæmpelse.

Så Brexit er altså mest EUs tab. Mens englænderne har givet fanden i EU har Seeberg ikke samme luksus til at give fanden i englænderne. Og hvad er perspektivet?

For hvor går samarbejdet i EU hen, hvis vi får Marine Le Pen som ny fransk præsident i Frankrig? Ellers hvis en nationalist vinder omvalget i Østrig til præsidentposten? Måske lige suppleret af Donald Trump som præsident i USA. Ingen i Europa vil klappe af dette.

Måske nogen i Europa alligevel vil klappe. De såkaldt populistiske bevægelser er jo folkelige, og så meget de får magt, så mange klapper. Men som Seeberg blander sine sorger sammen, bliver den kommende amerikanske præsident til EUs problemer. Ak ja, et forsvar for en konstruktion, der hverken tåler dissens eller amerikanske præsidenter. Men der løber flere soger på i disse tider og de er hjemlige

På vores egen hjemmebane fører landets store aviser kampagne for at få Danmarks nye nynationalistiske parti i Folketinget. Partiet er mod skat, mod udlændinge og mod EU og sikkert rigtig meget mere. Taler til globaliseringsangste. Aldrig har så ukendte kandidater fået så meget spalteplads. Udfordringer er der nok af.

Seeberg har ret i, at medierne ikke giver Nye Borgerlige samme fjendtlige behandling, som var Dansk Folkepartis skæbne de første ti år. Her kunne man med jævne mellemrum se og høre diverse eksperter prøve at patologisere partiets vælgere, stille sig det spørgsmål, hvorfor nogen kunne finde på at stemme på dem. Allerede dengang vidste man ikke, hvad i alverden det var for en verden vi levede i. De samme spørgsmål stillede de undrende medier også til eksperter om EU-skeptikerne i 1992 og 93. De var sikkert bange for udviklingen, at det gik for stærkt, de havde ikke den fornødne uddannelse og det dertil hørende udsyn. Verden var global og det fordrede en snæver europæisk union, det kunne alle da forstå. Blot ikke i provinsen, hvor førtidspensionisten drikker bloktilskuddet op.

Jo, nye borgerlige er blevet behandlet med en hvis fascination og nysgerrighed af medier, der sanser at der sker noget i folkedybet, som det for nuværende kan være mere spændende at følge end bekrige. Men medierne har aldrig ført kampagne for et parti som de gjorde det for Ny Alliance. Ukritisk godtog de Seebergs nok-er-nok floskel og så det som et sandt folkeligt opgør med de pauvre masser, der havde stjålet sig en ufortjent opmærksomhed. Altså lige indtil partiet brændte sammen et par måneder efter under vægten af sine egne populistiske selvmodsigelser, personlige stridigheder og inkompetence. Men kendte, det var de.

Og intet ser ud til at have ændret sig i synet på folkedybet. Det er folk, der blot er imod sikkert rigtigt meget, globaliseringsangste og ukendte som de er. At de vil kunne danne flertal, vil ingen klappe ad, ingen værd at regne med i hvert fald. Seebergs tilpasningsreaktion kan meget vel overskride de 6 måneder.

Brexit og tonen

Der tales altid om emotioner, når man skal forklare EU-skepsis. Men som det er blevet demonstreret så tydeligt af reaktionerne på Brexit, så løber emotionerne af med EU-tilhængerne

Milton Friedman forewarned in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” Whereas “the argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument.” “The argument for individualism” and freedom, on the other hand, “is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

Margrethe Aukens emotionelle reaktion på Nigel Farages afgang som formand for sit parti UKIP vidner om at EU vækker de ikke så sofistikerede og subtile emotioner

margrete-auken-om-farage

Satyajit Das beskriver i Independent nogle flere reaktioner fra det angelsaksiske overdrev

The EU is circling the wagons, painting Britain as a reluctant European, and seeks to punish her to dissuade other nations from similar actions. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s tart summary reflects this view: “It’s not an amicable divorce, but it never really was a close love affair anyway”.

The intellectual response is framed by cognitive dissonance. Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, lamented the fact that the referendum outcome was the result of a complex question being reduced to “absurd simplicity”.

Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University, saw it as “Russian roulette for republics”. He complained that the simple majority of those who voted (36 per cent of eligible voters voted for leaving) was an absurdly low bar – although that level is significantly higher than the average winning vote proportion in recent US presidential elections, for example. Such a significant decision, he said, should not be made without appropriate checks and balance.

And in an editorial for Business Insider, American columnist Josh Barro termed the decision “a tantrum”. British voters had made “a bad choice”. It was an “error of direct democracy”. Such important decisions should not be decided by voters but left to “informed” elected officials.

For those who believe they are born to rule, democracy should be for those who meet some standard set by them with the proviso that the vote coincides with what they think ought to happen. For this group, the Brexit vote signals the need to limit democracy to ensure that important decisions are left to self-certified experts.

I National Review har David French talt med en EU fortaler, der ikke forfalder til emotionerne og som giver en dyster strukturel beskrivelse af EU

It was a system that worked remarkably well for the international upper class. Men and women dedicated to commerce enjoyed unprecedented access to international markets. Activists dedicated to social justice could engineer their societies without ever truly facing the accountability of the ballot box. The logic of the system was self-proving. It would triumph through the sheer force of its virtue.

Unable to grasp the extent to which the new international order had endured and prospered not so much through its self-evident goodness but through the protection of American arms, it proved completely incapable of meeting the challenge when America chose to retreat. Vladimir Putin wanted no part of a system that sidelined Russia and viewed it as just one more economic and bureaucratic entity in a global superstate and decided to exert raw power to shape the world. He put boots on the ground in Crimea, and he dared the world to move him. He exerted his will in Syria, and he dared the world to stop him.

In response, John Kerry actually said, “You just don’t, in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.” It’s a comment that would be hilarious if it weren’t so impotent. Putin did as he liked, and “history” had nothing to say about it.

Det er den kølige analyse af EU. Man kan anse EU som at gode, når alt tages i betragtning, men indvendingerne imod det træge bureakrati og dets grundlæggende svigt. Men ‘er’ og ‘bør’ forveksles for venstrefløjens elite, med dens kollektivisme og flyvske idealer, hvor diffuse de så måtte være. Peter Hitchens leverer en fejende beskrivelse, af en elite uden nytte eller opfattelse af forpligtelse

The part of the referendum campaign that has angered me most is this: the suggestion, repeatedly made by pro-EU persons, that there is something narrow, mean and small-minded about wanting to live in an independent country that makes its own laws and controls its own borders.

I can think of no other country where the elite are so hostile to their own nation, and so contemptuous of it.

I have spent many years trying to work out why this is. I think it is because Britain – the great, free, gentle country it once was and might be again – disproves all their theories.

Most of our governing class, especially in the media, politics and the law, is still enslaved by 1960s ideals that have been discredited everywhere they have been tried.

These are themselves modified versions of the communist notions that first took hold here in the 1930s. But the things they claim to want – personal liberty, freedom of conscience, clean government, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, a compassionate state, a safety net through which none can fall, and a ladder that all can climb – existed here without any of these airy dogmas.

How annoying that an ancient monarchy, encrusted with tradition, Christian in nature, enforced by hanging judges in red robes, had come so much closer to an ideal society than Trotsky or Castro ever did or ever could.

The contradiction made the radicals’ brains fizz and sputter. How could this be? If it was so, they were wrong. Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth. Two and two must be made to make five, if it suits them.

So, rather than allow their hearts to lift at the sight of such a success as Britain was, and ashamed to be patriots, they set out to destroy the living proof that they were wrong.

(…)

They declared themselves ‘Europeans’. They regarded this as superior to their own country. ‘How modern! How efficient!’ they trilled. I have heard them do it. They did not notice that the EU was also a secretive, distant and unresponsive monolith, hostile or indifferent to the freedoms we had so carefully created and so doggedly preserved.

They failed to see that its ‘parliament’ does not even have an opposition, that its executive is accountable to nobody. They inherited jury trial, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights – the greatest guarantees of human freedom on the planet – and they traded in this solid gold for the worthless paper currency of human rights.

If they win on Thursday, the process of abolishing Britain will be complete. If they lose, as I hope they do and still think they will, there is a faint, slender chance that we may get our country back one day.

Som bekendt vandt de ikke og bitterheden luftes stadig. Måske fordi de frygter at festen er forbi. Hvis EU falder fra hinanden, som følge af en dominoeffekt udløst af Brexit, mister denne moralske overklasse et væsentligt våben mod en rationel og nødvendig politik, nemlig henvisning til den højere orden, som EU repræsenterer. Javist, FN og diverse konventioner vil stadig eksistere, men der vil ikke længere være en EU justits eller en fortælling om en europæisk offentlighed hvori et land kan blive paria. Pludselig vil vi kunne gennemføre Dansk Folkeparti og Nye Borgerliges forslag, hvis vi lyster.

På et mere prosaisk plan er der selvfølgelig også en frygt for at festen med overflødige jobs ender.

Det er de gamles skyld

Brexit, Demografi, Diverse, England, Forår?, Satire, Uddannelse — Drokles on July 1, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Der er mange ungdomsreaktioner på Brexit, hvor unge studerende på venstrefløjen efter et kort liv, hvor de har bidraget med intet mod at få alt forærende, reagerer med vrede mod ikke at blive regeret af eurokrater

Brexit er et generationstyveri

Det er overvældende så mange mærkværdige reaktioner på Brexit, der fortjener en kommentar. Hvis EU var en almindelig sund konstruktion af samarbejde, ville unionens repræsentanter reagere med en form for vemodighed over at briterne ikke syntes det var godt nok. De ville sige tak for denne gang, bytte telefonnumre og sørge for at holde kontakten så meget som det nu synes at være til fælles bedste. Med et sundt og givtigt samarbejde ville de fortsætte den gode form, nu uden briterne, og se frem til den samme gyldne fremtid, som de hele tiden kunne. I stedet reagerer de med vrede, bitterhed og trusler om altings ende. Kurserne rasler ned og økonomierne er usikre, 3. Verdenkrig står måske for døren og klimaet, hvad med det?

I en glimrende argumentation op til valget, sagde Daniel Hannan vittigt at stemme for EU fordi man holdt af Europa var som at støtte FIFA fordi man kunne lide fodbold. Engelske Guardian forstår som typisk eksponent ikke den slags skelnen mellem skæg og snot og den forstår ikke at uenighed kan være ærlig og uden sinistre bagtanker. Dissens er bagstræberisk og den skriver harmdirrende om et intergenerationelt tyveri

This generational gap is among the many parallels between Brexit and climate change. A 2014 poll found that 74% of Americans under the age of 30 support government policies to cut carbon pollution, as compared to just 58% of respondents over the age of 40, and 52% over the age of 65.

Tilsvarende undersøgelser viser at kendskabet til holocaust er langt mere fremtrædende blandt ældre generationer end yngre (og helt grelt havde det set ud, hvis ikke Spielberg havde givet lidt substans til popkornene). Klimabenægtere, betegnes dissidenter fra den herskende ortodoksi og der henvises til for længst afviste undersøgelser, som de famøse 97% enighed blandt forskere (og embedsmænd og aktivister) der

Guardian tikker bokse af for hvor loyale mennesker er for vedtagne fortællinger og her er ungdommen blot bedre fordi den godtager fortællingen om EU som Europa og fredens projekt og fremskridt og fællesskab, som også fortællingen om menneskets katastrofale påvirkning af klimaet på en nederen måde. De ældre generationer roses modsat ikke for deres selvstændige tankegang og deres store modstandsevne mod en vedvarende strøm af ensidig mediedækning. De ældres erfaring og deres ræsonnementers kvalitet underkendes helt og aldeles som et moralsk og intellektuelt svigt.

The problem is of course that younger generations will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make today for much longer than older generations. Older generations in developed countries prospered as a result of the burning of fossil fuels for seemingly cheap energy.

Ja, hvad har de gamle nogensinde gjort for de unge, bortset fra alt? Det er fri fantasi, og en ondsindet en af slagsen, at de ældre generationer handler mere egoistisk end de yngre. Enhver kan spørge sig selv om man regner sin egen dømmekraft, evne til at ræsonnere eller viden som stærkere end den var for år tilbage. Og de fleste der får børn og lærer at betale egne regninger, tenderer også til at se samfundet i en større helhed end den tåkrummende veksling mellem flyvske idealer og og militant egoisme, der præger den venstredrejede ungdom over det meste af den vestlige verden,

Guardian har samlet nogle videoreaktioner fra nogle unge mennesker der lufter deres frustrationer. De er ikke de mest opsigtsvækkende, men det er hvad Guardian mener er valide indvendinger fra en generation de forrige. Så vi giver flygtigt ordet til de unge mennesker, hvis liv allerede ligger i ruiner, berøvet som de er for enhver meningsfuld fremtid

“We are europeans! We’re citizens of the world.” indleder den anden pige med selvmodsigende selvretfærdighed. Enten er de europæere eller også er de verdensborgere. Hvis man kan anse sig som begge dele, kan man også se sig som brite og verdensborger. Og nej, det er rigtigt at de 16-17 årige ikke blev spurgt, som heller ikke de 5 årige. For det er som at høre børn mere end verdensborgere, når harmen får luft. Som fyren lige efter, der spørger, hvorfor andre generationer skal have indflydelse på hans fremtid. Eller den unge mand, der er bange for LGBT personers fremtid, eller hende der er sur over at universiteterne er blevet dyrere, eller hende der ser verden som en 24 årig kvinde eller hende hvis generation er DØMT til en usikker fremtid af 90 årige (der allerede havde bekæmpet Hitlers visioner for et samlet Europa) fordi verden er global (England kan nu lave handelsaftaler med BRIC landene) til den sidste fyr, der udlægger en pro-EU stemme som medfølelse og progression, hvilket implicit de gamle røvhuller har stemt imod, egoistiske og regressive som de er.

Der er dog en som kerer sig om sygehusvæsenet som nu vil blive underfinansieret som følge af alle de økonomiske ulykker som et Brexit vil trække med sig, men her kan man berolige med at markedet allerede har overstået sit umiddelbare hysteri.

Men hvornår blev det ansigtsløse bureaukrati af big business og big regulation og lukket heteronormativ hegemon EU, til alle ungdommens drømme og visioners moder? De plejede at være noget med regnbuer, tolerance, multikultur og indtil for nyligt opgør med big government og big business i allehånde eat the rich metastaser udskudt fra Occupy Wall Street. Så stor var vreden at selv når disse ansigtsløse fjender mødtes for at redde klimaet skulle byens smadres i afmægtig vrede over at blive taget alvorligt. Breitbart har været til en pro-EU demonstration, der tro mod venstrefløjens røde tråd var anti-altmuligt

They chanted: “EU, We Love You”, “EU Forever”, “Love Not Hate”, “Racists Out, Migrants In”, “Say it Loud, Say it Clear, Refugees are Welcome Here”, and, “Who’s Future? Our Future!”

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-07-01-kl-112356

EU er det nye sort.

De økonomiske konsekvenser af Brexit

Demografi, EU, England, Euro, Fascisme, Forår?, Historie, Politik, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 26, 2016 at 3:41 am

Michael Caine talte for et Brexit, fordi han ikke mente at det var sundt at blive dikteret af en proxy-regering af “faceless civil servants”, der ikke stod til regnskab. Og han fortsatte at selv om risikoen for at fejle som selvstændig var til stede, så var det blot en mulighed for at prøve igen, “get better, work harder, try harder and then you’ll be a succes!”

Larry Kudlow skriver i National Review at EU har mere brug for United Kingdom end omvendt

The EU’s tax and regulatory policies, climate-change and welfare spending, and free immigration even in wartime are gradually ruining Europe. That’s why I believe Brexit is good for British freedom, political autonomy, and the survival of democratic capitalism.

The business elites told British voters that leaving the EU would lead to economic catastrophe. Well, in England, Main Street defeated the establishment elites by sending a populist message.

And there need be no economic catastrophe. The EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. The London Stock Exchange is one of the most powerful financial centers in the world. Frankfurt will never replace it.

Trade is the key to the economic outlook in Britain and the EU. Many corporate chieftains joined large bank CEOs and the fearmongering IMF to suggest that the EU will deal harshly with Britain if it leaves and stop all trade. That’s mutually assured destruction — MAD. A tariff-driven trade war would destroy both power centers.

Not only does the EU need Britain’s financial capabilities, Britain itself is major importer of EU goods and services. If sanity prevails, there’s no reason why the EU and Britain can’t hammer out a free-trade agreement in the two years allotted by the Lisbon Treaty.

And if the EU wants to go with MAD, the whole set up will burn in flames.

American Thinker sætter de første tal på at EU har mere brug for United Kingdom end omvendt

The economic lesson emerging from the Brexit vote is consistent with what those who favored the Leave campaign long suspected: continental Europe needed the U.K. far more than the U.K. needed Europe.

The globalist dominoes will ideally begin to fall after Brexit as other leading nations realize they have unwisely hitched their economic wagons to parasites for the past several decades (see, e.g., the U.S.-Mexico relationship in NAFTA).

The Brexit hysterifiers almost uniformly predicted that it would be a Black Friday indeed for the U.K. if they voted to leave, and the other members of the EU promised to punish Britain if it chose a divorce.

Looks as though it was Britain that had the last laugh on the day after Brexit. It wasn’t the British markets that took the real hit. That was borne by the continental Europeans:

- The FTSE 100 finished down 3.1%

- Germany’s Dax dropped 6.8%

- France’s Cac closed 8.0% lower

- Spain’s Ibex ended down 12.4%

- Italy’s FTSE MIB fell 12.5%

- In Greece, the Athens market lost 13.4%

Og de store økonomier har heller ikke været sene til at indlede handelsaftaler med United Kingdom, skriver Sunday Express. That’s what it’s all about!

Nigel Farage havde advaret

Demografi, EU, England, Euro, Folkevandring, Forår?, Historie, Indvandring, Tyrkiet, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 23, 2016 at 4:53 am

Det bliver tæt, ifølge meningsmålingerne. Englænderne forlader EU, fortæller Express, Mens Mandag Morgen mener at at de bliver i suppedasen. Hvis englænderne bukker under for frygten, skal de ikke sige de ikke var advaret. Denne hyldest til Nigel Farage illustrerer, hvor tydelige tegnene på EUs sammenbrud har været

Hvis man de seneste par år har hørt Farage skose EUs kommisærer, parlamentarikere og apologeter husker man også, den hån de udviste overfor hans præcise advarsler, som rygere der afviser lægens advarsler mens de grinende hoster blod op.

2 historikere og en sandsiger om Brexit

Diverse, EU, England, Forår?, Historie, Indvandring, Racisme, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 22, 2016 at 4:52 am

Historikeren Anthony Beevor advarer i Guardian, at et Brexit kan gøre England til det mest foragtede land, ikke bare i Europa, fordi alliancer uagtet hvad man end måtte mene om EU er skøbeligt og svære at opbygge, sårbare som de er for mistillid og foragt. Ikke desto mindre giver han en lektion i den gustne historie bag EUs ideologiske arkitekt Jean Monnet

IT was Monnet who, while based in London in the dark days of June 1940, working on the integration of the British and French arms industries, came up with the suggestion of an Anglo-French union to continue resistance to Hitler. The idea excited both Charles de Gaulle and Winston Churchill, but was crushed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, who described the plan as a “marriage to a corpse”, since France was about to surrender. It was Monnet, now in the US at the behest of the British government and acting as an adviser to Franklin D Roosevelt, who persuaded the president to turn the US into the “arsenal of democracy” and to introduce the “victory plan” for the mass production of armaments to defeat Nazi Germany. And it was Monnet who, in 1943, ensured De Gaulle’s ascent to power as head of the French government in exile in Algiers, despite Roosevelt’s opposition.

That August of 1943, Monnet also decided that European states would be so enfeebled after the war that they must unite into a federation. And yet theMonnet plan, which he expounded in 1945, proposed the French takeover ofRuhr coal production to rebuild France at the expense of Germany. De Gaulle supported the idea fervently, but then resigned because the infighting of French politics failed to live up to his own impossible dream that the country’s conflicting views would become unified under his leadership.

On 2 January 1946, just before his departure, De Gaulle appointed Monnet to head the Commissariat Général du Plan. This was to provide centralised planning writ large. Monnet brought in almost the whole team from the Délégation Générale à l’Equipement National, even though it had been created by the collaborationist Vichy regime. These bright young “technocrates” from the top schools of the French administration had worked on projects to modernise France within the “new European order” of the Third Reich. After the war they were the very same people who were to run the European Coal and Steel Community, headed of course by Monnet, and then in 1958, the European Economic Community. Thus the top cadres of the European bureaucracy were not merely elitist from the start, they had little patience for democratic consultation. They knew best what was needed.

(…)

So why this current existential threat to the EU project? The principal insoluble problem comes from the disastrous decision to accelerate unification through a common currency across countries and economies that were fundamentally incompatible. The European currency unit, or ecu, in 1979 was the first step towards the dream of full unification, and would eventually turn into the euro. To prepare for the new system, currencies were to be stabilised within the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). This meant that individual countries would lose all flexibility since they could not allow their currency to rise or fall beyond narrow parameters. (This was what led to Norman Lamont’s humiliation on Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992, when Britain had to pull out of the ERM.)

The principal insoluble problem comes from the disastrous decision to accelerate unification through a common currency

Optimism following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war encouraged more detailed planning. Exchange controls were abolished in 1990. The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 established economic and monetary union as a formal objective. By 1998 the European Central Bank had been established, and on 1 January 2002, euro notes and coins replaced existing currencies in 11 countries. But during the whole of this preparatory period, intense discussions had been held behind closed doors between central bankers and political leaders. Private doubts about the system’s potential weaknesses were dismissed as a failure to believe in the great project. The idea that a united Europe would be economically and politically powerful enough to overcome any problem assumed unwisely that all countries had the same interests.

Et land skal kunne bestemme sin egen skæbne. “Brexit isn’t nostalgia. It’s ambition“, formoder historikeren Tim Stanley i Telegraph, fordi “it gives us the chance to start over again, to write a new chapter in our country’s history

The Remainers say that the EU has brought peace to Europe. What kind of half-baked history is that? It was the bomb that brought an uneasy peace to Europe until 1989. In the 1990s there was the bloodbath of Yugoslavia, which the EU did nothing about. And now the EU flirts with Ukraine and talks about creating its own army. This is dangerous fantasy, like children playing with matches.

(…)

Get back to the basics. What does the EU offer? Does it deliver?

Remainers say we should give up some of our democratic accountability in exchange for access to the single market and, they claim, greater economic stability. Leavers say the deal is a bad one. We lose too much democracy in exchange for access to a declining market and a political union that is fraught with risk.

Let’s not talk about the past but the future: the EU is planning to create a unitary state. Its leaders have said as much – higher taxes, an army, greater authority for the bank are all on the table. The EU has decided that only faster integration will see it through the present crisis. They might be correct: what the EU wants to be it can only be if it is effectively one country. But that is not in Britain’s national interest, something we’ve signalled by remaining outside the Eurozone.

So we can either ride this train as far as the driver wants to go or we can jump off now. A so-called leap in the dark actually gives us back control of our policy making. It’s a vote for democracy, a vote to say: “We govern, we are in charge.” We can make the choice of whether to take more or less migrants; we can write new trade agreements and we can reaffirm our strategic interests in the developing world.

Tidligere på året forklarede skuespillere Michael Caine med en statsmands logik, hvorfor han vil stemme for Brexit (i dette klip er der inkluderet hans syn på ‘den sorte boykot’ af Oscar uddelingerne)

Stemmer englænderne sig ud til friheden?

Briterne ser for alvor ud til at forlade EU, skriver Zero Hedge

The headlines go from bad to worse for the UK and EU establishment as yet another new poll this weekend, by Opinium, shows “Brexit” leading by a remarkable 19 points (52% chose to leave the EU against 33% choosing to keep the status quo). This result comes after 2 polls Friday night showing a 10-point lead for “leave” which sparked anxiety across markets. This surge in “leave” probability comes despite an additional 1.5 million voters having registered this week (which many expected to increase “remain” support). Further anger towards EU was exposed when former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith warned that seven new prisons will need to be built in the UK by 2030 to cope with the rising number of migrant criminals (presumedly due to ’staying’ in the EU). With market anxiety rising, as One River’s CIO notes, if Brexit happens, gold will soar.

Apropos EUs opløsning er der et stort folkeligt pres på at forlade EU i både Holland og Frankrig og det er et mønster, der spreder sig i hele Unionen, skriver Søren Kern for Gatestone Institute

Public opposition to the European Union is growing in all key member states, according to a new survey of voters in ten EU countries.

Public disaffection with the EU is being fueled by the bloc’s mishandling of the refugee and debt crises, according to the survey, which interviewed voters in Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

The 17-page report, “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit,” was published by the Pew Research Center on June 7, just two weeks before the June 23 referendum on whether Britain will become the first country to leave the European Union (Brexit blends the words Britain and exit).

(…)

Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

On May 31, the European Union, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. Critics say the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe because the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

On May 24, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, vowedto use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. Under powers granted to the European Commission in 2014, Juncker can trigger a “rule of law alert” for countries that depart from “the common constitutional traditions of all member states.” Rather than accepting the will of the people at the voting booth, Juncker can impose sanctions to address “systemic deficiencies” in EU member states.

On May 4, Juncker warned that EU countries that failed to “show solidarity” by refusing take in migrants would face a fine of €250,000 ($285,000) per migrant.

On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats. According to the plan, the 28 EU member states would have a “legally binding duty to share information.”

(…)

In a recent interview with Le Monde, Juncker said that if Britons voted to leave the EU, they would be treated as “deserters”:

“I am sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms. If the British should say ‘No’ — which I hope they do not — then life in the EU will not go on as before. The United Kingdom will be regarded as a third country and will have its fur stroked the wrong way (caresser dans le sens du poil). If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences. It is not a threat but our relations will no longer be what they are today.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, Giles Merritt, director of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels, summed it up this way:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform. They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do.”

Men nogle danser videre. Helle Thorning Schmidt mener, med de mange Kinnock-millioner i banken, at Europa sagtens kan tage en million flygtninge fra syrien fordi “disse mennesker flygter fra den mest forfærdelige krig, vi nogensinde har set i vores baggård“. Selv om det var sandt (Ifølge Syrian Observatory for Human Rights er halvdelen af de dræbte mig bekendt Assad-tro kombattanter. Der er også Saddams gasning af kurderne i 1988 er huske på. GIAs kampagne af halshugninger og lemlæstelser af hele landsbyer op gennem 90erne. Åh ja, kolonikrigen i Algeriet i 50erne og den græske borgerkrig i slutningen af 40erne) så har vi intet at gøre med med den baggård. Den må passe sig selv og sine udlevede grusomheder. Imens vil vi andre ud af EU og dens korrupte elites fordeling af importerede elendigheder.

Brexit vender kåberne

Dansk Folkeparti, Demografi, Diverse, EU, England, Euro, Forår?, Ytringsfrihed, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 8, 2016 at 10:36 am

De fleste politikere flyder, som alle andre karrieremagere, stolt med strømmen. For eller imod EU handler om, hvad der er opportunt, hvorfor både højre og venstre side af salen mener at det er godt med fælles løsninger i EU regi, så meget endda, at ægte national selvstændighed kun kan opnås gennem kommissionens diktater. Så hvad sker der med dette konsensus når stemningen vender, som vi ser i England? De hurtige med rettidigt omhu, orienterer sig forsigtigt mod nye tider. Som Altinget citerer Syed Kamall, “britisk konservativ og leder af den EU-skeptiske ECR-gruppe i Parlamentet, som også tæller Dansk Folkeparti”

De fleste i leave-lejren ønsker faktisk ikke at forlade EU. De ønsker en ny afstemning baseret på bedre betingelser“,

En ængstelig kampagne fra den front, med andre ord. Hjertet ikke rigtig med, mere frygt for at stå på den forkerte side af en folkestemning. Økonomen Nouriel Roubini advarede om at et Brexit kunne starte en kædereaktion af uafhængighedsbevægelser i Europa, der kunne betyde enden for EU

“It would create a huge amount of uncertainty, about not just Britain but the future of the European Union,” Roubini said of a British exit, or Brexit, from the bloc. If Britons vote to leave the EU in the public referendum scheduled for June, Roubini told Bloomberg, “you could have the beginning of the end of the European Union.”

Roubini, who earned the moniker Dr. Doom for his accurate prediction of the 2008 financial crisis, said a Brexit would catalyze other breakaway movements across Europe. Scottish separatists would gain momentum in their desire to leave the U.K., while the Catalan independence movement would press harder to split from Spain, the New York University economist predicted. A long-feared Greek exit, or Grexit, could soon follow.

But even less restive states could be spurred to action, Roubini said, including nations like Sweden that are members of the EU but do not participate in the eurozone monetary union.

(…)

Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, has indicated that even though the U.K. doesn’t use the euro, the country’s exit could destabilize the eurozone. A Brexit “would have implications of a systemic nature, and these would not be positive for the European monetary union,” Draghi said earlier this year.

Og økonomen Jim Mellon advarer englænderne mod at blive ombord og ““sinking with the European ship.””

Mr. Mellon — referred to be some as ‘Britain’s answer to Warren Buffett’ — has concluded from his assessment of the current economic climate that Britain is “better off outside the European Union in a comfortably appointed lifeboat in the English Channel, as the Euro Titanic sinks to the bottom of the ocean.”

The reason Mr. Mellon’s assessment is worth listening to is because he was one of the few economists to forecast the most recent economic recession, correctly predicting that the U.S. housing crisis would be the “trigger” for that in his book ‘Wake Up!: Survive and Prosper in the Coming Economic Turmoil’.

Mr. Mellon sets out what he says are the clear reasons for the impending collapse. France and Italy are in “debt traps,” meaning the are not able to grow their way out of evermore expanding debts.

Meanwhile, structural reforms are not available to a French government prevented from employing such measures by striking workers, and in Italy the banks are in “perilous trouble”, as reported previously by Breitbart London. For these reasons, Mr. Mellon says:

“France and Italy are probably going to be the key factors in the implosion of the Eurozone.”

Mr. Mellon concedes that “most people don’t talk about it,” but adds “most people didn’t talk about the coming U.S. housing crisis in 2006.”

He gives it about three to five years before a “big problem in the bond markets in Europe” which will lead to the collapse of the euro and a “continent-wide depression.” Merely being outside the Eurozone will not be enough to shield us from harm at that time, Mr. Mellon says, as:

“For sure, we will be invited or forced to join in a bailout no matter what the various treaties and so forth say.”

Evidencing this he cites the examples of the Greek and Irish bailouts, and extra money paid into the EU despite Prime Minister Cameron’s pledge that such payments would be made “over his dead body.” He states that “we can’t believe anything that Cameron and Osborne say about their future actions in regard to solidarity with Europe if France and Italy go bust” — something he believes is “a certainty”.

Mr. Mellon does identify a potential for rejoining a “genuinely reformed European Union post that event”, but he sees the UK as being “better off” outside the EU.

Concluding with his “bottom line message as a businessman, as an economist, as someone who has got a good record in forecasting” he reiterates that staying in the EU will leave us in “deep trouble” and “sinking with the European ship.”

Jeg kan anbefale Brexit - The Movie, hvis man på nogen måde har kunnet overse den, eller som en variation Paul Joseph Watson - hvis man kan holde hans anmassende facon ud. Men Nigel Farage fortjener

Fredens projekt

Demografi, Diverse, EU, England, Erdogan, Fascisme, Historie, Indvandring, Multikultur, Muslimer, Terror, Tyskland — Drokles on May 13, 2016 at 4:49 am

Selv som teenager købte jeg ikke postulatet om EF, siden EU, som fredens garant i Europa. Jeg forstod, selv med mit ringe kendskab til den store verden, at politikerne optrådte som kvaksalere, betlende slangeolie mod alle dårligdomme. Både Den Kolde Krig og den stille observation at demokratier ikke havde præcedens for at gå i flæsket på hinanden var indlysende argumenter for mit unge sind, som blæste ideen om en unions fortræffeligheder og et par handelsaftalers mirakelvirkning væk. Jeg har aldrig fået en EF/EU tilhænger til at forklare præcis hvad det er for en krig, som EU har forhindret. Kul- og Stål unionen skulle hindre endnu en tysk-fransk konflikt og da den var en fransk opfindelse måtte man mene at det var tyskerne man burde stoppe. Så hvem var den næste Hitler? Adenauer? Erhard? Kiesinger? Brandt? Smith? Kohl? Hvilke af disse gale hunde blev holdt i skak af Unionen?

Så indlysende var den indsigt for mig at den er blevet siddende så fast i alle årene at jeg end ikke gad overveje at læse Kasper Støvrings sikkert glimrende bog Fortællingen om Fredens Europa - Georg Metz kunne ikke lide den, så den må være ret god - fordi det er anstrengende at blive bekræftet i egne forestillinger. Og påstanden om EUs fredskabende egenskaber er da også på retræte, måske især efter EU hovent paraderede sin impotens overfor Rusland, mens det æggede Ukraine. Og så var der jo Jugoslavien i 90′erne. Men herhjemme er ikke i England, der står overfor at skulle bestemme sig om de overhovedet vil være medlem af, hvad der i stigende grad ligner en taberklub. Og med en mistillidserklæring fra vælgerne truende i horisonten, bliver systemets mænd endnu mere stålsatte på at benytte de metoder der ikke virker, blot mere intenst. I dette tilfælde argumentet om EU som fredens projekt, hvor premierminister David Cameron direkte advarede om at et Brexit ville kaste Europa ud i krig.

I Guardian kaldte Simon Jenkins Camerons historieskrivning for “rubbish” og “Project Fear gone mad” og mindede om Camerons forgænger Salisbury, der navngav sin politik “splendid isolation”

The best thing that happened to medieval England was its defeat in the hundred years war and the end of English ambitions on the continent of Europe. The best thing to happen in the 16th century was Henry VIII’s rejection of the pan-European papacy. The wisest policy of his daughter, Elizabeth I, was an isolationism so rigid that she rejected one continental suitor after another. Britain fought off all attempts by France and Spain to restore European Catholicism, and accepted a Dutch and a German monarch strictly on the basis of British parliamentary sovereignty.

Cameron’s 18th-century predecessor was Robert Walpole, author of Walpole’s Peace. Its meticulous isolation from Europe’s conflicts brought Britain a golden age of enlightenment and industrial revolution. In 1734, Walpole could proudly tell the Queen: “Madam there are 50,000 men slain this year in Europe, and not one an Englishman.”

Even William Pitt’s creation of a British empire was based on staying explicitly aloof from the seven years’ war on the continent of Europe. Later, while Horatio Nelson’s victories were essential to British interests, the Waterloo campaign could hardly, on David Cameron’s terms, have been avoided by earlier intervention. Nor did Napoleon Bonaparte pose a serious threat to Britain.

I Telegraph mindede Nigel Jones ligeledes om en af Camerons konservative forgængere, nemlig Pitt the Younger, der som argument for at stå imod Napoleons tyranni sagde at det var englands rolle atSave Europe by her example”. Og et Brexit kunne meget vel være et eksempel med en domino-effekt indikerer meningsmålinger. Som kontrast beskrev han Camerons horistont med Goebbels diktum om at folk vil tro en løgn, blot den er stor nok. For mens EUs grundlæggere “distrusted democracy, which they believed had brought dictators and demagogues to power, and determined that their project would create a post-democratic new order, imposed by stealth step by step on their blissfully ignorant populations” peger Jones på at unioner ser ud til at kollapse, nogengange endda i et kaos af krig.

The history of EU-style multinational federations imposed by an elite from above in Europe is not a happy one. From the frayed patchworks of the  Holy Roman and Hapsburg Austrian Empires, down to the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they have invariably ended in bloody chaos, and then the peace and quiet of the graveyard.

Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.

Gorbachev was speaking before the long arm of EU meddling reached as far as Ukraine, causing that vast country to split in two and threaten  war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia – a slow-burn crisis that may yet erupt once more into open conflict.

Back in the 1990s, the total failure of EU diplomacy helped speed former Yugoslavia into a brutal ethnic civil war. A fragile peace was finally imposed on those troubled lands not by the EU, but by Nato bombs and arm twisting backed by the Atlantic alliance’s  military muscle.

Og Oberst Richard Kemp var Telegraph endnu mere konkret i hvorledes EU ville underminere freden

A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate to which the EU is openly committed. It would also provide an excuse for struggling economies to slash defence budgets. Few nations take defence seriously enough to spend even the 2 per cent of GDP required by Nato, a shortcoming criticised by President Obama in Germany last month. An EU army will see these nations cut back even further, cynically pretending that defences are strengthened even as forces and capabilities are merged and downsized.

(…)

As well as depleted strength and capability, the aggregated European forces will beemasculated by a lack of political will. After Iraq and Afghanistan the West is paralysed, with governments terrified of committing ground forces to any conflict. An EU command structure, fraught with divergent and opposing policy agendas, will turn paralysis into rigor mortis. Look at the EU’s long track record of vacillation, timidity and inaction on the Balkans, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, the immigration crisis and the Islamic State.

None of our enemies is going to take an EU army seriously. Its creation would undermine one of the most critical virtues of a strong and credible defence: deterring an aggressor from action they might be forced to regret.

Og i Breitbart perspektiverede samme Kemp

The EU failed to prevent the migration crisis that threatens to overwhelm many European cities and the housing, welfare, health, and education services paid for by the hard work of citizens who have been allowed no say.

The EU failed to deploy effective naval forces along the North African coast to prevent illegal immigration across the Mediterranean. Such action, used to great effect by Australia, would not only have prevented the landing of countless unregulated immigrants on our shores but would also have saved thousands of lives and sent a firm message to both immigrants and traffickers.

It was self-doubt and a desire to expunge the sins of the past rather than strong and principled leadership that led Europe’s most powerful politician unilaterally to invite in migrants from the corners of the earth, to transform German cities and to assault and rape German girls. A policy that opened the doors of Europe to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants, including many young men of fighting age who abandoned their families and their countries; and closed the doors to genuine refugees.

Timorous EU countries failed to take military action against Assad’s regime in Syria when he crossed the chemical weapons ‘red line’. Action that could have ended his reign of terror and prevented the intervention of Russia and Iran that has solidified his position and exacerbated the migrant crisis.

Fearful EU members failed even to contemplate setting up protected safe havens in Syria, where millions of beleaguered people could have taken refuge without the need to move to other countries. This would have required boots on the ground but, terrified by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, few if any EU states are prepared to countenance that. Physical danger was not their only fear; they were also afraid to act without United Nations authorization, which would have been vetoed by Russia.

Now, bullied and blackmailed by President Erdogan, the EU is now allowing visa free access to Europe for 70 million Turks and is well on the way to admitting Turkey to full EU membership. Not only will this push back the borders of the EU to Iran, Iraq and Syria, but it will also lead to yet another massive population shift in Europe, without consultation further transforming the way of life of its citizens.

This is the peace and security provided by the EU today.

EU som fredens projekt er en løgn ingen længere gider høre. Kun de mest desperate gider fortsat fortælle den. England forlader EU, EU falder fra hinanden - med lidt held.

brexit

Imamer og ørefigner

TV2 har lavet en dansk pendant til de engelske Undercover Mosque og Undercover Mosque - The Return, Moskeerne bag sløret. Kim Møllers Document.dk gennemgik essensen

Det blev ikke udpenslet, men de problematiske moskéer var de største, og mellem linjerne kom det frem, at det på ingen måde drejede sig om at et mindretal af herboende muslimer fra flere arabiske lande og Somalia. Det blev fortalt, at 80 procent af kvinder fra disse lande ikke var i arbejde, hvad til dels blev forklaret med islams holdning til kvinders ageren i det offentlige rum.

Og Kasper Støvring mindede om de sørgelige tal

Er det kun et lille mindretal, der støtter det? Det er tvivlsomt, hvis vi ser på den mest omfattende undersøgelse, der er lavet om europæiske muslimer, WZB-undersøgelsen. Her mener 75 procent af alle muslimer, at der kun findes én sand udlægning af Koranen, og 65 procent mener, at religiøse lov skal stå over sekulære love. I en undersøgelse fra sidste år, lavet af Wilke for Jyllands-Posten, så man en stigende tendens til islamisering blandt muslimer i Danmark. I 2006 mente 62 procent af danske muslimer, at Koranens anvisninger skal følges fuldt ud. Det tal er vokset til 77 procent i dag. Undersøgelsen viste også, at 50 procent beder mere end fem gange dagligt. Ved en tilsvarende måling i 2006 var det tal blot 37 procent, og andelen der ønsker, at kvinder skal være tilslørede i det offentlige rum, er vokset fra 28 procent til 42.

Ah ja, skjulte optagelser fra en moske sætter fokus på enkelte imamer og deres misforståede udlægning af islam - i hvert fald for vores politiske systems opfattelse. Venstres integrations- og udlændingeordfører Marcus Knuth “personlige reaktion er, at man bør rive moskéen ned og udvise imamerne“, skriver TV2. Og Konservative vil sammen med SF have en decideret dansk imamuddannelse, “et opgør med de selvbestaltede imamer, der kommer med grundlæggende anderledes samfundssyn end det, vi har i Danmark“, som integrationsordfører for Socialistisk Folkeparti Jacob Mark formulerede det ifølge Jyllands-Posten. Det er for socialister ikke et dansk samfundssyn vi har i Danmark, blot et samfundssyn i Danmark - og nu har vi altså et samfundssyn til. Alligevel “væmmes” Jacob Mark faktisk over de sydlandske

Som udgangspunkt er jeg villig til at gå ret langt for at få erstattet de radikale imamer, som får lov til at prædike i danske moskeer. Så hvis det handler om at finansiere de moskeer, der ikke har råd til sin egen imam, så synes jeg, det er det værd

Selvom vi kun har et samfundssyn i Danmark, så har vi dog noget, der er dansk, nemlig danske moskeer. Og de danske moskeer er af svingende kvalitet med hensyn til det i øjeblikket tilstedeværende samfundssynd, så vi må støtte de mindst ringe mod overmagten. Møller fangede pointen i at “de problematiske moskéer var de største“, største, som i mest populære, læggende sig mest op ad mainstream, mest på linie med muslimer flest, givende mest mening for en troende muslim, i størst overensstemmelse med islams væsen - sådan set ud fra et muslimsk perspektiv. TV2 citerede endvidere Venstres forrige integrations- og udlændingeordfører, den senere skatteminister Karsten Lauritzen, der sidste år ikke mente at man “løser problemet i Grimhøj ved at lukke lokalerne og jævne bygningen med jorden“, førend han fortsatte med en tom indsigt

For det er de mennesker, der prædiker og har deres daglige gang og holdninger, der er problemet. Dem bekæmper vi bedst ved at tage en debat omkring det og udfordre dem i offentligheden i stedet for at drive dem under jorden

Ja, absurditeterne bor i hjerterne og ikke i murstenene, men det er ikke et imamproblem at imamerne kender islam og prædiker for menigheden. Venstre er regeringen og trods deres bravaller vil ingen imam blive hældt ud af landet for at fortælle om islam, som ingen muslim vil blive stoppet ved grænsen. Og hvorfor også det da “vi har selv lukket den fanatiske imam, Oussama El-Saadi ind” som konstitueret præst i Stenstrup-Lunde pastorat Maria Høgh skriver i Berlingske Tidende

Og hvad gør vi så ved det? Ja, vi kunne begynde med at opgive troen på det gode i mennesket. Trangen til retfærdighed og godhed i mennesket er med Tom Kristensens udtryk »asiatisk i vælde«. Det er ikke bare en uskyldig og naiv tro – den er farlig for nationen, fordi trangen til godhed også bliver politisk.

Men politikerne vil ikke opgive illusionen. Vil de ikke se i øjnene, hvad vi har lukket ind i landet siden 1983? Skal det ikke snarere handle om inddæmningspolitik i stedet for integrationspolitik?

Hvis nogen bliver godt integreret i Danmark, er det ikke alene på grund af en eller anden politisk pakkeløsning, men fordi det enkelte menneske selv tager ansvar og gør op med sine patriarkalske familiemønstre og den islamiske ideologi. Selvfølgelig skal Grimhøj-moskeen lukkes, som Naser Khader straks udtalte søndag aften. Men hvad så?

Oussama El-Saadi kan vi vel smide ud af landet, men er problemet så løst? Nej, det ændrer ikke på islams DNA, og enhver muslim har frihed til at tro på ideologien. Det ændrer ikke på, at verden har brug for en reformation af islam. Eller, må Danmark en dag i nødværge tage skridt, som strider mod alt det, vi som et demokratisk folk er opdraget med?

Tja – forhåbentlig ikke. Men her til morgen (mandag) har SFs Özlem Cekic heldigvis løst problemet: »Så uddan for hulen imamerne i Danmark!« skriver hun på Facebook. Det vil sige, at småfuglene selv skal udruge gøgeungen frivilligt? Men det skal de vel med vores store tolerance have lov til?

Og Jaleh Tavakoli kalder imamernes opfordring til forældre om at tæske deres børn ind i islam for hadforbrydelser og opfordringer til racistisk vold. Hun mente at højrefløjen burde stoppe deres “symbolpolitik” og “spil for galleriet

Og hvorfor egentligt så al den larm, for de ting, der har været fremme om Grimhøjsmoskeen, er da islamisk teologi - som langt de fleste moskeer, også i Danmark, kan skrive under på.

(…)

Kære politi, retsvæsen og politikere, fortæl mig venligst, hvorfor imamer og islamister ikke retsforfølges for at tale for faktisk at bekrige jøder, dræbe for apostasi og blasfemi, og deltage i hellig krig?

Det er utilgiveligt, at imamer og islamister uden nogen konsekvenser kan fortsætte med at true og opfordre til vold, for det foregår, det findes på nettet, i lukkede kredse og i moskeerne.

(…)

En politisk kamp der strækker sig fra integration, til asylpolitik, til sikkerhedspolitik, til ulandsbistand, og til de militære konflikter, som vi deltager i.

I kan starte med i stedet at afskaffe de paragraffer, som tjener som appeasement, i en tid hvor fascismen truer os på ytringsfriheden, og det gælder både blasfemi- og racismeparagraffen.

(…)

Samtidigt ved jeg, at en del imamer på tværs af organisationer har valgt ikke at udtale sig. For teologisk er de på trods af uenigheder, enige om pisk, straffen for apostasi, blasfemi og stening med mere, så det siger jo sig selv.

Måske man kunne tæske islams væsen ind i vore politikere, som muslimerne skal tæske det ind i deres børn? Imens i Rusland har nogen hyret en barnepige med hijab

Det var et sidespring. Og apropos sidespring, Bettina Heltberg mente i Politiken, at kunne “se på Marie Krarups bittert nedadbøjede mundvige, at hun i Guds navn har fået mange små relevante ørefigner i sin opvækst“. “Hendes ansigt er bittert, træk for træk ligner hun sin far. Han var berygtet for at slå sine døtre…” skrev hun oplysende. At det er en løgn kommer ikke i vejen for Politikens faste klummeskriver, der selv levede med rygterne om sin tidligere mand, Svend Aukens udenomsægteskablige eskapader - ‘Lange Svend’ var altid dobbelttydigt. Men gad vide, hvad hvad Heltberg ser i muslimers ansigter?

- Frygt Allah, brødre og søstre, lær jeres børn Salah (at bede red.). Det er obligatorisk for jer at lære dem at bede, fra de er syv år. Og endda at slå dem, hvis de ikke laver Salah, når de er 10 år, siger imamen på de skjulte optagelser.

Og som Møller skriver i sit referat; “Vold var et gennemgående tema” i skabelsen af gode muslimer. Man hører det hele tiden.

Fri Debat uden ideologisk dagsorden

dsc02726

Fri Debats konference lørdag 6/2 stillede spørgsmålet, hvordan det er “kommet dertil, at blasfemi i dag betragtes som en sinister ideologi i kunst- og litteraturlivet, mens tavshed om den religiøse terror og tvang fremstår som progressiv blandt kunstnere og forfattere?” Til at besvare det spørgsmål havde man indbudt et panel bestående af færøske Heini i Skorini fra King’s College, Dennis Meyhoff Brink fra Københavns universitet og kunstnerne Lars Vilks fra Sverige og norske Thomas Knarvik til en næsten fyldt fællessal på Christiansborg.

I sin korte indledning sagde Henrik Dahl fra Liberal Alliance, at historien vil bedømme denne generation af politikere på hvor resolut de er i stand til at forsvare det liberale samfund. Som emnets alvor således blev placeret i historien var Niels Ivar Larsen manden for at motivere sin nylige afgang fra Lars Vilks Selskabet og positionere Fri Debat i “landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister”. Fri debat var nemlig den mest principfaste forsvarer af ytringsfriheden uden ‘men’, blottet for ideologiske dagsordner og påstande om ytringsfrihed som noget kulturelt betinget.

Et principfast forsvar for ytringsfriheden kræver altså at man ikke lader sig præge af kulturalistiske dagsordner når man diskuterer blasfemi, censur og selvcensur blandt kunstnere. Men ikke nok med det, det kræver også et sikkerhedsapparat med snifferhunde og politifolk med maskinpistoler kunne man erfare og det er ikke fordi man frygter alle kulturelle repræsentanter lige meget. Mangel på proportioner giver åbenbart den bedste position i landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister.

Dennis Meyhoff Brink, der er ekstern lektor ved institut for kunst og kulturvidenskab, foretog i sit oplæg en analogi mellem det kristne Europas udvikling fra Oplysningen og et tilsvarende perspektiv for den islamiske verden. Europa var kendetegnet ved at have den ubestrideligt højeste grad af religionskritik og satire i nogen civilisation og det var da også i Europa demokratiet opstod og trivedes. Årsagensforbindelsen var klar; Oplysningens blasfemiske satire udhulede, som dryp på en sten, med et Webersk udtryk, den fortryllede verden og tog frygten fra folk. Med frygtens fald fulgte også æresfrygten for præsten, der nu kunne latterliggøres, ikke blot som repræsentant for kirkens hykleri, men for religionen i sig selv.

Lars Vilks forklarede derefter hvorledes opfattelsen af geniet fordrede at kunstneren selv blev den skabende og gennemgik en række blasfemiske kunstværker; film af bl.a Lois Bunuel og Ken Russel og billeder som Piss Christ. Netop Piss Christ er trukket meget ind i debatten om religiøs krænkelse og islam for skønt nogle dybere lag i værket - at selve værket er et fotografi af en installation af et krucifiks nedsænket i glas urin - så blev der ikke taget hensyn til kristnes krænkede følelser, som man er vant til, når emnet er udfordring af islam.

Den norske kunstner Knarviks første forelæser på kunstakademiet var netop Lars Vilks. Knarvik viste endnu flere billeder end sin ‘læremester’ og mange han selv havde kreeret, som han fortalte om, hvorledes han var blevet engageret i kampen om ytringsfrihed og blasfemi, og hvorledes det havde påvirket hans kunstneriske retning. Knarvik er, som de øvrige panelister, ingen skimlet konservativ kulturkæmper. Han har f.eks blandt andet bygget et kulturcenter for massaikvinder og skabt en forfatterpersona, en muslimsk teenagepige under navnet Miss Supression Figther. For ham er mange muslimer de største ofre for de jihadister, der har taget deres religion som gidsel og gjort den største karikatur af Muhammed.

Men han har også overhørt skrigene fra en pige, der blev omskåret og bevidnet hvorledes kvinderne, der forestod omskæringen, kom ud af hytten og smed det omskårne ud til naturen. Og hans interesse for islam, som en trussel mod ytringsfriheden, blev vakt da han hørte den norske statsminister undskylde for alverden, at den norske avis Dagbladet havde trykt Muhammedtegninger.

Knarvik udgav på 10-årsdagen for offentliggørelsen af Jyllands-Postens Muhammedtegninger en mere end 100 sider lang samling af blasfemiske tegninger rettet mod alle religioner. Et norsk forlag havde i første omgang trykt den i 2.500 eksemplarer og den lå klar på en europalle, da forlaget blev ængsteligt ved udsigten til endnu en Muhammedkrise og makulerede hele oplaget. Bogen er i stedet udkommet på Kåre Bluitgens forlag.

Men det var den første oplægsholder, Heine i Skorini, der leverede det mest almeninteressante oplæg, da han perspektiverede den islamiske trussel historisk. Han fortalte først om en Muhammedkrise i 1925, der blev udløst da den engelske morgenavis The Star havde trykt en tegning, hvor den tids legendariske cricketspiller Jack Hobbs ragede op som en kæmpe blandt andre historiske skikkelser, som Julius Cæsar, Columbus og så selvfølgelig muslimernes profet Muhammed. Muslimske organisationer protesterede højlydt og der var demonstrationer i Calcutta. Ingen døde dog, men episoden demonstrerede at ideen om at en nyopfunden islamisme adskilt fra en ægte, om ikke tolerant, så afdæmpet, islam ikke holder.

i Skorini fortalte hvorledes OIC (organisationen af islamiske lande), gennem FN har arbejdet målrettet på at gøre blasfemi til en krænkelse af menneskerettighederne. OIC ser den islamiske verden være under pres både udefra, ikke mindst fra Vesten, og indefra. I Kairo deklarationen fra 1990 hedder det således at formålet bl.a er ”cleanse our societys of moral laxity deviation” og dens artikel 22 slår fast at ytringsfriheden (og alt andet i øvrigt) skal underlægges den muslimske sharia lovgivning.

Bastante religiøse krav til en sekulær organisation, som FN er ikke effektivt og i 1999 skiftede organisationen taktik til en sekulær argumentation. Nu brugte man i stedet FNs egne artikler, som artikel 29, der betoner ansvar over frihed og artikel 22 om hadtale, til at få ytringsfriheden underlagt sharia. For OIC var religionskrænkelse, som grundlæggende blot betød krænkelse af islam jvf sharia-kravet ovenfor, en krænkelse af menneskerettigheder på linje med racisme, intolerance, islamofobi og ekstremisme. OICs nye argumentation var derfor også på linje med den vestlige venstrefløjs tankegang og det skabte en naturlig alliance af parallelinteresser.

Netop det sidste punkt, at se blasfemi som ekstremisme, er forklaringen på, hvorfor muslimske landes fordømmelser af islamisk terror, som Saudiarabiens fordømmelse af angrebet på Charlie Hebdo, altid ledsages af fordømmelser af ekstremisme i al almindelighed. De myrdede, som redaktionen på Charlie Hebdo, er nemlig lige så ekstreme i deres brug af ytringsfriheden, som deres mordere. Og det er en retorik som man hører ikke blot fra venstrefløjen men fra vestlige ledere.

Det var en journalist fra information, der stillede det første spørgsmål til panelet, om forskellen på satirens antiklerikale, politiske angreb og kunstens ikonografiske behandling af det blasfemiske, førend to tilhørere ville vide, hvad Saudiarabiens betydning for FNs Råd for Menneskerettigheder og OICs fremtid som Saudiarabiens økonomiske situation ser drastisk anderledes ud med de faldende oliepriser. Saudiarabien sponserer OIC og organiserer dagsordenen på de indre linjer, mens det er Pakistan der tegner organisationen i FN.  Skorini svarede at det dels udstiller FN for hvad det er, en samling af de regimer og regeringer i verden, der nu engang er og at Saudiarabiens betydning for OIC ikke vil ændre sig de første mange år, dertil er rollerne for satte. Og så svarede Vilks og Knarvik meget pædagogisk at satire er meget bundet i en konkret debat i tid og sted, mens kunst ikke søger et konkret politisk budskab og kan værdsættes ud over tid.

Først herefter var der en tilhører, der ville have svar på konferencens spørgsmål, nemlig, hvorfor kunstnere, og alle os andre såmænd, var mere optaget af selvkritik end af religionskritik, selv når vi blev konfronteret med en trussel. Spørgsmålet kom næsten bag på panelet, der dog hver for sig svarede at det traditionelt var lettere og moralsk mere acceptabelt at levere angreb på værdier inden for egen kulturkreds end at kritisere, hvad man kunne opfatte som udsatte minoriteter med kulturelt betingede problemer. Det handlede, med udgangspunkt i eksemplet Carsten Jensens jævnlig tirader, om hvem der havde ret til at kritisere andre. Og det var en god pointe, for ingen vil jo mistænkes for at have en ideologisk dagsorden.

Og det var der også en tilhører der heller ikke ville og mindede Meyhoff Brink om at satire ikke kun var forbeholdt vesten og fortalte om en irakisk ateistisk bevægelse der bedrev en ganske giftig satire. Desværre blev denne bevægelse slået hårdt ned beklagede han og besvarede således sit eget spørgsmål, inden islameksperten Tina Magaard tog ordet og sagde at hun faktisk havde skrevet om blasfemisk satire i den muslimske verden ikke mindst Iran. Det var Magaards pointe at netop Muhammed satire var et inkluderende redskab i integrationen i vores selvkritiske kultur og at man skulle vise skolebørn muhammedtegninger fra den muslimske verden, der almindeligvis var langt grovere end de tegninger Jyllands-Posten udgav.

Og så var det, at det sidste spørgsmål kom fra en tilhører, der ville høre panelet, hvorledes det ville se ud med ytringsfriheden om føje tid i et stadigt mindre demokratisk Europa “og med en stadig mere islamisk indflydelse”. Det er svært at holde en hel konference om “religiøs terror og tvang” og “blasfemi” uden at komme ind på noget ‘kulturelt betinget’, ideologisk dagsorden eller ej. Inden det skulle besvares syntes Meyhoff Brink at det var på sin plads med et fejlcitat og sagde “Jeg synes også det er racistisk når Hedegaard siger at ‘alle muslimske mænd, onkler og fædre, voldtager deres døtre…”. Men ytringsfrihedens fremtidsudsigter i et mere et mindre demokratisk og mere islamificeret Europa var et svært spørgsmål at forholde sig til på falderebet af konferencen, sagde Ivar Larsen og gav ordet til i Skorini.

Forholdene i Danmark var ikke nær så dårlige som i England, forklarede i Skorini og sagde at han selv måtte forberede sig ganske anderledes når han holdt foredrag i London end i Danmark. Og det var ikke blot kønsopdelte arrangementer, men også sikkerhedsproblemer fordi så mange kunne blive stødt og emnets indhold. Men han mindede om at de islamistiske grupper udgjorde en meget lille og ikke repræsentativ minoritet blandt de muslimske studerende, men realiteterne var deusagtet at det var svært for ham at bevare en optisme. Og med den kedelige udsigt var konferencen slut.

Uagtet hvor urepræsentative og lille en minoritet islamister udgør på campus, kan man alligevel konkludere, hvad i Skorini og Fri Debat helst vil tøve med, at jo flere kulturelt betingede muslimer vi ser på campus og i vores land, jo mere vil det være islamisternes dagsorden vi vil leve under. Men dyster som fremtiden ser ud kan man glæde sig over at vi i Danmark har et levende landskab af ytringsfrihedsaktivister med hele tre virile selskaber i Fri Debat, Trykkefrihedsselskabet og Lars Vilks Komiteen. At det til tider bærer lidt præg af positionering og nok også en snert af intern personrivalisering er en lille detalje og måske blot et bidrag til at holde konkurrencen skarp og landskabet frodigt. Fri Debats arrangement var så velafholdt og oplysende, som man er kommet til at forvente det i Danmark - men desværre med et tilhørende sikkerhedsopbud, selv for de, der ikke vil vedkende sig en ideologisk dagsorden.

Artikel skrevet for Document.dk

Shia mod sunni

Saudi-arabien har til Irans store fortrydelse henrettet en shiamuslimsk imam. Diplomatiske forbindelser er sløjfet og truslerne om hævn hænger stadigt tykkere i luften. Sunni mod Shia med Saudiarabien og Iran hovedaktørerne i dette seneste kapitel i denne snart 1.400 år gamle islamiske krig ser ud til at blusse op igen. Charles Krauthammer koncentrerer sin analyse i National Review om Obamas udenrigspolitik

Commenting on Saudi Arabia executing an Iranian cleric, Krauthammer said, “I can’t say the Saudi execution of this Shiite cleric was very wise, but they did see it as in their national interest, and I think they are acting fairly desperately. Because they look around and their protector since the 1930s when King Saud met with FDR, and they essentially established this relationship — ‘you supply us oil, we protect you’ — is deeply in jeopardy.”

“They look at the way Obama has abandoned them,” Krauthammer continued. “The nuclear deal is just the culmination of the process. Abandoned them in Syria, abandoning the red line, has done nothing since the signing of the nuclear agreement.”

Krauthammer said the Saudis now worry about encirclement: “Iran has become increasingly aggressive in Syria. In Yemen, which is, remember, is right on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia – it’s not removed the way Syria is – and they see serious encirclement.”

Også i Wall Street Journal kan man læse om den amerikanske eftergivenhedspolitiks fallit

President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military aggression and greater anti-American hostility.

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran.

(…)

The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: The hard-liners run Iran.

Og for at tvære pointen helt ud “The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions”. “Change” var hvad folk ville have uden at vide hvad det rent faktisk indebar og så fik de forandring. En forandring til det værre fordi flertallet ikke kunne tænke.

Det hele er nu ikke Obamas skyld. Islam er en rådden verden og et kollaps eller endnu en krig er uundgåeligt uanset vestlig naivitet. Spengler tegner i Asia Times et dystert billede for Saudiarabien, som lider under faldende olipriser (hvilket Obama med sin anti-fracking politik ikke har hverken lod eller del i)

Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years, according to an October estimate by the International Monetary Fund (as I discussed here). The House of Saud relies on subsidies to buy the loyalty of the vast majority of its subjects, and its reduced spending power is the biggest threat to its rule. Last week Riyadh cut subsidies for water, electricity and gasoline. The timing of the executions may be more than coincidence: the royal family’s capacity to buy popular support is eroding just as its regional security policy has fallen apart.

For decades, Riyadh has presented itself as an ally of the West and a force for stability in the region, while providing financial support for Wahhabi fundamentalism around the world. China has been the kingdom’s largest customer as well as a provider of sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles. But China also has lost patience with the monarchy’s support for Wahhabi Islamists in China and bordering countries.

According to a senior Chinese analyst, the Saudis are the main source of funding for Islamist madrassas in Western China, where the “East Turkistan Independence Movement” has launched several large-scale terror attacks. Although the Saudi government has reassured Beijing that it does not support the homegrown terrorists, it either can’t or won’t stop some members of the royal family from channeling funds to the local jihadis through informal financial channels. “Our biggest worry in the Middle East isn’t oil—it’s Saudi Arabia,” the analyst said.

China’s Muslims—mainly Uyghurs in Western China who speak a Turkish dialect—are Sunni rather than Shia.  Like Russia, China does not have to worry about Iranian agitation among Shia jihadis, and tends to prefer Iran to the Sunni powers. As a matter of form, Beijing wants to appear even-handed in its dealings with Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example in recent contacts between their respective navies. Chinese analysts emphasize that Beijing has sold weapons to both—more in absolute to terms to Iran but more sophisticated weapons to the Saudis.

More pertinent than public diplomacy, though, is where China is buying its oil.

Nonetheless, China’s oil import data show a significant shift away from Saudi Arabia towards Russia and Oman (which China considers part of the Iranian sphere of influence). Russia’s oil exports to China have grown fourfold since 2010 while Saudi exports have stagnated. Given the world oil glut, China can pick and choose its suppliers, and it is hard to avoid the inference that Beijing is buying more from Russia for strategic reasons.  According to Russian sources, China also has allowed Russian oil companies to delay physical delivery of oil due under existing contracts, permitting Russia to sell the oil on the open market for cash—the equivalent of a cash loan to Russia.

Det er alt sammen meget spændende og man kunne jo nyde sine popcorn til øllerne, hvis ikke det var således at den vestlige naivitet havde importeret nisserne. Ifølge BBC er der stigende bekymring for at “the sectarian divides so bitterly apparent in much of the Middle East” mellem sunnimuslimer og shiamuslimer udvikler sig yderligere i England. En shiamuslim fortæller

“Even at Soas, a university I love, Sunnis and Shias have big arguments all the time,” says Anahita.

“And elsewhere in London, we have the same problem - Sunni and Shia arguing. You can clearly see it when you walk in Edgware Road or Kilburn.

“If you have a green bracelet or anything that shows you are Shia, they look at you as if you are not even Muslim, or you don’t exist. It’s very disrespectful, and very sad.

“Islamic societies in general and especially in London are getting bigger all the time. But not in a good way.”

En tilflyttet shiamuslim mærker nu hvordan muslimer behandler ikke muslimer - og så er det lige pludselig ikke godt at der bliver flere af de andre muslimer i London. Hvor flygter muslimerne næste gang hen, når de bliver mange nok?

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress