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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

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

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

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

——————————-

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

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

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Obamas medierede virkelighed

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

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

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

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

MACCALLUM: Nobody is talking about that.

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

MACCALLUM: We’re not talking about that here.

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

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

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

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

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

Uansvarlighed skal stoppe det nationale ræs mod bunden

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

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

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

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

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

flygtningetegneserie

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ahmed-med-sin-kuffert

Hillary falder i en kurv af begrædelige

deplorables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vloggen Sargon of Akkad har lavet denne glimrende gennemgang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

Analyse med røven bar

Ask Foldspang Neve og Carsten Bagge Laustsen, henholdsvis studerende og lektor i sociologi, gør i Point Of View International et sociologisk forsøg på at forstå Donald Trumps tilhængere i lyset af “Trumps uforlignelige evne og vilje til at se sandheden direkte i øjnene og så alligevel at skyde først med det ene mere rablende udsagn end det andet“. At nogen er tilhængere af Hillary Clinton er altid selvindlysende for de skrivende klasser.

Neve og Laustsens gør sig umage med ikke at trivialisere fænomenet Trump, med at folk er for dumme til at kunne forstå bedraget eller fordummede af en stadigt mere overfladisk kultur. I stedet trækker de på filosofferne Peter Sloterdijk og Slavoj Žižek, “der beskriver moderne ideologi form som givet ved en kynisk attitude.”, hvor folk gennemskuer et bedrag eller en illusion, som de så accepterer fordi de finder den nyttig: “Kynikeren ved, at kejseren ikke har noget på, at han har røven bar, men insisterer ikke desto mindre på at behandle ham som kejser, fordi denne praksis konstituerer et fællesskab af følgere og muliggør en nydelse.” Som med Kejserens nye klæder er det også med Trump; “Alle ved, at det er et skuespil, men alligevel deltager de” og “Trump er den ultimative fiktion“, der muliggør “forestillingen om, at resten var virkeligt“. Det er altså en abstrakt virkelighed, der tales om, for kritikken er af USA, som noget uvirkeligt, sådan tager verden sig ud fra universitetet, det hele er et show

Det måske mest oplagte show at sammenligne Trumps kampagne med er pro wrestling, som flere amerikanske observatører allerede gjorde i foråret. For de uindviede er pro wrestling en show-kampsport, der blander sport og persondrama. Det er machosoap. Tilskueren følger ikke bare den enkelte kamp – som altså er aftalt på forhånd – men også historien før og efter. Det er næsten altid de gode mod de onde i et episk, men fuldstændigt todimensionelt univers.

Fribryderen Trump: løgn er bedre end sandhed

Trump har selv en lang baggrund i wrestling, og han har endda været i ringen i et stort opsat show, hvor først hans forkæmper og derefter han selv ’vandt’ over wrestlingforbundets ejer, Vince McMahon i en milliardærernes dyst. Wrestling bygger lige præcis på den bravado, den uforbeholdne skryden, som Trump er blevet kendt for. ”Jeg er den største bryder i verden!” proklamerede Gorgeous George, en af den tidlige wrestlings store stjerner. Dét lærte han fra sig til nogle af 60’ernes og 70’ernes allerstørste stjerner inden for showbiz overhovedet, som Muhammad Ali og Bob Dylan. ”Boksning, wrestling – det hele er et show,” sagde han til Ali, der endnu var Cassius Clay.  ”En hel masse mennesker er villige til at  betale for at se nogen lukke munden på dig. Så bliv ved med at prale, bliv ved med det kække og søg altid skandalen.”

Giv dine fans noget at begejstres over, giv fjenderne noget at oprives over, giv journalisterne noget at skrive om. Løgn er bedre end sandhed.

Trumps tilgang vækker mindelser om Berlusconis baggrund som krydstogtscrooner eller selvfølgelig Reagan og Schwarzeneggers som skuespillere. Men wrestling er mere basalt, og mere banalt, og derfor også endnu mere potent som fortællerform, for dem som altså ikke er stået af allerede ved indgangen. Det vækker afsky hos dem, der dyrker mindfulness, men har en enorm og overraskende bredspektret fanskare.

Publikum til en wrestling-match er selvfølgelig kynikere. De ved udmærket, at det er et show, men lader sig rive med alligevel. Ellers ville det jo være omsonst at se det. Så du får ikke noget ud af at råbe mængden op og gøre dem opmærksomme på, at det ikke er ægte. Du bliver formentligt bare buhet til tavshed eller bliver smidt ud. Folk vil have det show i fred, de er kommet for.

Ikke at de to herrer ikke har fat i noget langhåret, men de antager, som det er så populært i de kredse, at der ikke er noget, hverken bagved eller foran, den facade, som de glimrende beskriver. Fordi Trump er en showmand, ser de hans tilhængere som et publikum og hele det politiske spil som et show, frigjort fra realiteterne. Men hvis man vil forstå et show, skal man også tage det mere alvorligt end blot at ‘containe‘ wrestlingfans.

Pro Wrestling fortæller nemlig lidt mere end en kamp mellem de gode og de onde. Den tredje aktør i Pro Wrestling er nemlig kampdommerne, der skal sikre sig at reglerne overholdes. Dommerne er uden sans for proportioner og blottet for dømmekraft og de lader sig let distrahere af urimelige og trivielle indvendinger fra wrestlernes managers eller de bliver optaget af diskussioner med sidedommerne om nuancer i reglementet eller episoder forlængst passeret. De onde udnytter skamløst enhver lejlighed hvor dommerne opmærksomhed er fraværende, til at bruge feje kneb og slå deres modstandere i hovedet med de stole, der altid står ved ringside.

Dommerne er selvfølgelig de pludrende klasser, politikerne og magthaverne. De mener det sikkert godt, men de forstår ikke realiteterne og de forstår ikke at ethvert svigt i at opretholde reglerne er et svigt af de gode, der overholder reglerne selvom de bliver udsat for brud på reglerne. På den måde kommer regler til at beskytte de onde og hæmme de gode i at forsvare sig selv. Forbrydere er ligeglade med en stram våbenlovgivning og retorisk etikette på arbejdspladsen, udlændinge har ikke skrevet under på den sociale kontrakt, hvis fordele de konsumerer og vi vil alle blæse økologi en hatfuld.

Trumps tilhængere ved at den der ikke laver noget heller ikke laver fejl. Trump taler frit og fyndigt og er ikke bange for at kalde muslimsk terrorisme for muslimsk terrorisme.  Folket ved at det er islamisk terrorisme, begået af muslimer, der hader Vesten og USA for det, som Vesten og USA er. Fri, succesfuld og uislamisk. Folket ved at man ikke kan have fri indvandring og samtidig bevare amerikansk velstand og amerikanske værdier. De ved at man ikke kan have grænsekontrol, hvis også man giver illegale amnesti. De ved at politiet ikke udfører massakrer på sorte medborgere. De er trætte af race-baiting. De ved at Hillary er korrupt, at hele det politiske system er kompromiteret.

Hvad Trump demonstrerer med sit vulgære sprog og hans disrespekt for detaljer er at intet er helligt. Alle tanker kan gøres og ingen skal være hæmmet af de tabuer, som politisk korrekthed, hensynsbetændelse og politisk etikette har låst den politiske debat fast i en venstreorienteret skruestik, hvor der til stadighed opdyrkes nye ofre for den hvide, arbejdsomme skatteyders eksistens og historie, som skal betænkes med den hvide, arbejdsomme skatteyders penge. Trump forløser en opsparet frustration, førend den bliver til vrede, når han forholder sig til virkeligheden - og det virker selvfølgelig rablende på sociologer og andre dommere, som de hæger over juristeriet.

Islams gyldne alder grundstødte på islam

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

Obama sagde i sin Kairotale i 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og så følger en argumentationrække, der viste sig skrupforkert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary ved vejs ende?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

Information om Donald Trump

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

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

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

(…)

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

Det handler om sex

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

demokrater-opfordrer-til-vold-mod-trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Donald starter sin kampange

På National Review er de bekymrede over, hvilken skade Donald Trump gør mod den konservative tradition og hvor meget han potentielt kan skade dens anseelse i generationer fremover. De fleste amerikanere er mere bekymrede over, hvilken skade Hillary Clinton gør på USA og hvor mange generationer, det vil tage den stolte nation at komme sig. Donald Trump har været igennem den største løgnekampagne i et civiliseret land og alligevel, skriver Wayne Allen Root i Townhall, alligevel…

After all of THAT…after Hillary and the media and liberals…and the GOP establishment threw everything they had at Donald…

He is tied with Hillary (within statistical margin of error) in every major credible national poll out in the past few days. Pick your poll: Zogby, Rasmussen, LA Times/USC, Bloomberg, they all say he’s down 1 or 2 points with likely voters- which is tied. In the latest LA times/USC poll he’s down less than one point.

And we all know 5% to 10% of voters won’t admit they support Trump. Why would they after the three weeks of disaster I just described?

So that means he’s actually AHEAD by 3 to 5 points.

Hillary is like a NFL team ahead by 14 in the 3rd quarter…and the coach, players and fans all know it’s not enough. They can feel it. Disaster is coming. They are ahead by 14…and they just know they are dead.

If Hillary isn’t ahead by 15 to 20 points right now…at this absolute low point of Trump’s campaign…the deep, deep valley…Hillary is the one in deep trouble.

Her peak is actually the valley. Her fans and the mainstream media just don’t understand that yet. This is the high water mark of her campaign. It will never get better than this. And she’s tied, hanging on by her fingernails.

She won’t make it to the November 8th finish line. She is DOA (I mean politically, of course).

Even worse…

She knows any day between now and November 8th…Julian Assange and Wikileaks will drop a bombshell that will destroy her presidential run, political career and legacy all in one. She knows what’s coming, because she knows what’s in those emails. If Wikileaks has what Hillary thinks they have, her future involves the “Big House,” not the White House.

Because Wikileaks clearly has her 32,000 deleted emails. Secret emails that detail her crimes against the American people.

No wonder Hillary’s sick…no wonder she has “health issues”…no wonder she has trouble standing up behind a podium…or sitting on a couch without being propped up by large pillows…or walking up stairs…stress will kill you!

Hillary knows what’s coming…and it’s destroying her mental and physical health.

One more reminder- Donald Trump has not spent one dollar yet. His first TV ads start this weekend.

Og weekenden er her, The Donald giver amerikanerne et sobert valg

Der er essensen. Lige der! Vil man have kontrol med sit land, eller vil man ikke? Det er hvad folkedybet kerer sig om, det er hvad Trump taler om. Og venstrefløjen, medierne, snart sagt alt det etablerede, hader ham inderligt for det. De vil fortsætte deres drømme, hvor hensigten retfærdiggør fortrængning, hvor drømme om alt muligt umuligt er smukt, hvor op er ned og sort er hvid. Drømme om at man blot kan blive med med at sælge ud, ud af sine traditioner, statsborgerskaber, velfærd, hvor man blot kan blive ved med at bakke, at undskylde for fortiden og sin egen eksistens, indtil freden sænker sig og velstanden præsenterer sig selv jævnt for alle. Obama ville stoppe havspejlstigningen, men den bølge Trump har skabt, stopper ikke.

Måske ser det lidt mere sort ud for Trump?

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

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

Trump then hammered his opponent.

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

Trump noted who lords over most poor black neighborhoods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressens kamp for Hillay

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

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

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

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

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

Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.

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

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

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-11-kl-063211

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

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

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

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

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

Pressens kamp mod Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Godt man bor i Danmark

berlingske-om-trump

Nåh, ja. Det gør man jo.

Kan Trump overvinde the pussy generation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

Kommer det nye USA nu?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud

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

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

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

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

As propaganda, it was skillful.

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

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

Daily Show manipulerer med virkeligheden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mere blod på Obamas hænder

Yderligere 3 amerikanske politibetjente er blevet dræbt af en attentatmand, efter at være blevet lokket i en fælde. Mordene skete i Baton Rouge i Los Angeles. Breitbart skriver at

Sunday on Fox News Channel’s breaking news coverage of the shootings in Baton Rouge, LA that has killed 3 officers and injured 3 more, Cleveland police officer and Police Patrolmen’s Association President Steve Loomis said President Barack Obama had “blood on his hands.”

Loomis said, “The president of the Untied States validated a false narrative and the nonsense that Black Lives Matter and the Media are pressing out to the public — validated with his very divisive statements And now we see an escalation.

I New York råbte demonstranter for et par uger siden “What do we want? Dead Cops!”

Den slags afskrækker ikke venstrefløjenm, de kære mennesker. Sandheden, at sorte ikke har højere tendens til at blive skudt af politifolk end hvide eller andre farver, er ikke en viden de har brug for til at forstyrre deres ‘narrativ’. Og ‘narrativet’ er så godt i sin moralske renhed at man sagtens kan forsvare mord på politifolk, bare sådan i al almindelighed. “De amerikanske demonstrationer mod politifolks drab på sorte nåede i dag Danmark, hvor Rådhuspladsen i København dannede rammen om en solidaritetsdemonstration for bevægelsen ’Black Lives Matter’” skriver Danmarks Radio. Jamen, hvorledes kan det dog rage nogen herhjemme, hvad amerikanerne render rundt og laver, tænker man måske? Så er det fordi man undervurderer venstrefløjens evne til at blande alle deres sorger sammen.

Vi ønsker at vise vores solidaritet og opbakning til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsbevægelse Blacklivesmatter og vise vores støtte og kærlighed til de myrdedes efterladte.

Vi fordømmer den politisering, kriminalisering og racislisering af PADs (People of Afican Decent) der på globalt plan, dagligt frarøver os vores værdighed og liv, live for rullende kamera.

Lad os med klar røst sige deres navne højt og begribe deres menneskelighed og historie:

Trayvon Martin, Miriam Carey, Tanisha Anderson, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, Emmanuel Chidi Namdi. . . Listen fortsætter og inkluderer skæbner frarøvet på europæisk jord.

Vi fordømmer den raceprofilerende politibrutalitet der i USA placerer sorte mænd i risikozonen : 9 gange større sandsynlighed for at blive dræbt af politiet end en andre amerikanske borgere.

I 2015 mistede 1,134 afro-amerikanere livet i politiets varetægt, 25% af disse var ubevæbnet.

Vi fordømmer den manglende retsforfølgelse og dom af de voldsudøvende og moderiske politimænd.

Vi fordømmer den globale stilhed der lamer i vores øre når 10.000vis af PAD bådflygtningene mister livet på Middelhavet på deres færd mod Europa.

Vi råber den institutionelle og strukturelle racisme op, som forstummer og negligerer vores oplevelser og virkelighed.

Ifølge nogle teorier er vi alle af afrikansk herkomst, altså PADs så der menes vist nok bare negre (eller folk der er ikke er kommet videre om man vil).

Obama har vist ikke “helet nationen”

Politico skriver

The head of a law enforcement advocacy group lashed out at President Barack Obama in the wake of the Dallas shootings that left five police officers dead, accused the president of carrying out a “war on cops.”

“I think [the Obama administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,” William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.

(…)

“It’s a war on cops,” Johnson also said. “And the Obama administration is the Neville Chamberlain of this war.”

obama-black-lives-matter-meeting-getty-640x480

Billedet viser Obama der takker Black Lives Matter for deres “degree of focus and seriousness and constructiveness“, flankeret af grundlægger af Black Lives Matter, Brittany Packnett og DeRay McKesson. I samme ånd kunne han kun svinge sig op til at bemærke at det var kontraproduktivt at myrde politifolk

“Whenever those of us who are concerned about fairness in the criminal justice system attack police officers, you are doing a disservice to the cause,” Obama said at the Moncola Palace in Madrid.

Obama said that police and activists need to work together and “listen to each other” in order to mobilize real change in America.

The President added that in movements such as Black Lives Matter, there will always be people who make “stupid” or “over generalized” statements, but that a truthful and peaceful tone must be created on both sides for progress.

Og Hillary, der relativerede terrortruslen fra Islamisk Stat et al. med alt, inklusive politibrutalitet kommenterede  “White Americans need to do a better job of listening”. Og det, skriver Joel Pollak er “exactly the wrong message. It frames racism as the fundamental problem in American society, and encourages people to interpret events through that lens. It sows seeds of mistrust, when racism had largely been overcome.

And the answer is that our leaders made a deliberate choice to radicalize our politics, unnecessarily. The racism and mistrust followed, because they are necessary to sustain that radicalism.

The Tea Party arose not because of racism, but because President Barack Obama made clear he was going to push through his agenda regardless of the wishes of the opposition or the constraints of the Constitution, and because voters realized that the Republicans, left to their own devices, were not going to stop him.

That’s all. That had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but Obama and his party found it convenient to invent it — like the lies about the N-word being shouted at black legislators in 2010.

The reason Donald Trump exists as a political phenomenon is that there is a sizable constituency of conservatives who are tired of losing to that. They were tired of losing in 2000, too, but Republicans worried at the time about the moderate middle, and so a “compassionate conservative” like George W. Bush was their response.

The left demonized Bush anyway — partly because the 2000 recount convinced them they could, because he was “illegitimate” — and Obama rode that wave to office.

Trump fights back (though his statement about Dallas was remarkably measured, even presidential). The problem is that there is only so much more fighting the country can take. We abuse social media to fantasize about a dystopian America, and  in the process we are bringing it about.

Sheriff David Clarke uddyber den pointe. Ikke at der ikke er problemer i USA, et land med 320.000.000 indbyggere. David French skrev om forholdene i Ferguson, hvor Politiet grundlæggende holdt de mennesker, som de skulle “protect and serve” som gidsler og Reddit Hudson fortæller hårrejsende anekdoter her. Men de fleste steder udsætter politiet sig for gevaldige risici

[L]et’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs.

Mere kan læses på Power Online. Det er de progressive, der selv skynder på racespændinger

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress