Overklassens forælede unge er færdige med at grine ad Little Britain

Ian Tuttle beskriver i National Review, de barnlige reaktioner fra taberne af Brexit

In the wake of the U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the anti-Brexit crowd has leaped to explain the vote in stark terms. “The force that has been driving [‘Leave’ voters] is xenophobia,” wrote Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, and at Esquire Charles Pierce explained: “Some of the Oldest and Whitest people on the planet leapt at a chance to vote against the monsters in their heads.” The Guardian’s Joseph Harker mused: “It feels like a ‘First they came for the Poles’ moment.” And blogger Anil Dash managed to squeeze all of these dismissive opinions into a single tweet: “We must learn from brexit: Elderly xenophobes will lie to pollsters to hide their racist views, then vote for destructive policies anyway.”

(…)

Both sides of the Atlantic are dominated by liberal cosmopolitans who are no longer able to acknowledge the validity of any other worldview than their own. The anti-Brexit crowd cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security — that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly. And President Obama seems incapable of recognizing that there are reasonable, non-bigoted grounds on which to oppose his executive actions — for example, to preserve the principle of separation of powers that is a pillar of the American constitutional order.

Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats and tempered by “compassion” and “tolerance” — all of which aims at the maximal amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will all, eventually, be “citizens of the world,” and assumes that everyone will be happier that way.

It’s not unreasonable to think otherwise. Anti-EU movements and renewed nationalism in the United States are on the rise precisely because they offer alternatives to this self-assured order. It’s not clear whether a United Kingdom withdrawn from the EU will be better off. But it’s entirely defensible to think that it might be. Likewise, it’s not unreasonable to prefer loyalties rooted in close-knit interactions among people who share a particular space and a particular history. Or to prefer local rule to government outsourced to distant bureaucracies. Or to prefer a richer sense of belonging than interaction in a common market. There are alternatives to a transnational super-state that are not fascism.

En gammel klassekammerat ‘linkede til nogle bitre tweets fra unge Remain-tilhængere, som BuzzFeed havde samlet. Og ungdommen, den ungdom, selvsikker si sin egen selvretfærdighed, mistænker ældre mennesker for kortsynet egoisme. “I know it’s not very “politically correct” to say it out loud but in the wasteland of ruined Britain I am going to hunt and eat old people“, skriver en og “I’m not giving up my seat to the elderly anymore. Eye for an eye.” skriver en anden. Noget for noget, hva’, de generationer der gik forud, hvad har de nogen sinde gjort for mig? Billedet med de forræderiske ældre mennesker, der trods den større erfaring åbenbart er blevet mindre vidende illustreres også med gammel kunst

inforgraphic

Og historiske refererencer

medieval-reactions

Selvfølgelig, vi ved alle hvor egoistiske bedsteforældre er. (Psst, universiteter og den moderne videnskab blev opfundet i middelalderen).

brexiters-er-nazier

Brexiter er nazister fordi de ikke vil lade deres land diktere af fremmede magter.

channel-tunnel

Psst, Channel Tunnel er ikke EU, men fransk-britisk halløj. Så lad os slutte via Daily Mirror med den tidligere Liverpool og Arsenal wing, Jermaine Pennant og hans bekymringer for fremtiden

jermain-pennant

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

Obama-administrationen vil ikke associere islam med terrorangrebet på bøsse-baren i Orlando, der kostede 49 mennesker deres liv. Det vil efter Obamas opfattelse dæmonisere for mange muslimer og overlade definitionsretten til islam til de forkerte mennesker. Derfor var det meningen at transkribtionen af Orlando-morderens opkald til alarmcentralen ikke skulle indeholde det egentlige motiv, nemlig islam. Hårdt presset må den fulde tekst dog offentliggøres, skønt man stadig havde oversat Allah til Gud. Obama vil dog gerne gøre alle legale våbenejere, samt republikanerne til hovedproblemet. Venstrefløjen hader højrefløjen for at have ret.

I England vil Juliet Samuel gerne definere den yderste højre, når hun i Telegraph slår fast at mordet på den engelske labor politiker Jo Cox var højreorienteret terror. Jeg er ikke kommet langt nok i denne kedelige sag til at kunne konkludere, hvad der drev Cox morder Thomas Mair. Selv talte han efterfølgende om hævn, så helt forkert virker Samuels påstand ikke. Men Samuel fortæller om Jo Cox “The killing of a serving MP who had so much to contribute to our democracy has triggered a national period of sorrow, sobriety and reflection.” At Cox havde masser at byde på på er grangiveligt rigtigt, men hvis man med “our democracy” mener England er det tvivlsomt. Annie Dieu-Le-Veut skriver i The Holistic Health Store at Jo Cox “was so busy paving the road with good intentions that she didn’t look up to see that they were leading to Hell.” og citerer Francis Carb Begbie i Occidental Observer

Jo Cox wanted to make the world a better place and it was a cause for which she was willing to travel halfway across the globe. Whether consoling rape victims in Darfur or bombed out villagers in Afghanistan, it seemed the jet-setting international aid worker was rarely far from the action.

Lately it had been the struggle of Syrian war refugees to get to the West that touched her heart, and their plight was a subject she returned to again andagain after becoming a Member of Parliament. It seemed there was no victims anywhere she could not empathise with.

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

And that would be the White child rape victims of Muslim grooming gangs in her own back yard. For her West Yorkshire constituency is near the epicentre of the Muslim child rape epidemic that has been sweeping the Labour heartlands of northern England, largely ignored or covered up by social services workers, police and politicians.

For it is a striking omission that of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them. One cannot help wonder if this shrewd silence was connected to the fact that her lavishly paid MPs job in the constituency of Batley and Spen largely depended on the support of the local Muslim community.

Co-incidentally, just as Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death outside her constituency office in Birstall last Thursday,  sentencing was about to take place at Leeds Crown Court after a long trial involving a horrific case of Muslim child exploitation.

(…)

Tribute after tribute bore witness to Jo Cox’s uniqueness. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth.  In fact, women like Jo Cox are ten a penny across the West these days — bland, compliant functionaries who have been marinated in political correctness and are happy to regurgitate the platitudes and attitudes of their political masters. And are well-rewarded for doing so. Elizabeth Warren (AKA Pocahontas) in the US comes to mind.

She was that toxic combination of self-rightousness and entitlement which believed itself possessed of a special moral insight into the moral shortcomings of their own people. Never slow to parade her compassion, she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria. Bombing and babies; it was all business for Jo Cox.

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

Today, with her body barely cold,  her husband Brendan Cox is tweeting out a Go Fund Me link to his wife’s ‘favourite causes’ and one of those is the White Helmets.

Manden, Brendan Cox har tidligere været inde i en af disse godhedens skandaler, kan man læse på Daily Mail.

What it’s always all about

En muslim med dansk statsborgerskab iscenesætter sig selv om offer for diskriminatiopn for et villigt TV2, der ikke formår at stille et eneste relevant spørgsmål. “Folk tror at det her det er virkelig…badetøjet det handler om. For mig handler det mest om, at min søn ikke fik lov til at være sammen med sin mor i en fridag” siger stakkels Ulfat Al-Sitt og ikke et øje er tørt. Men ingen nægtede sharia-aktivisten samvær med sønnen da det var Ulfat selv, der insisterede selv på religiøst badetøj.

Mesterinstruktøren Steven Spielberg advarede i en tale til nogle graduenter mod den stigende antisemitisme. Den var reel, fortalte han, selv om han selv var opvokset med en ide om at den var for aftagende efter destruktionen af Nazityskland. Også hadet mod homosexuelle var en stigende trussel. Spielberg er fantastisk bag et kameral, men han er også en centrum-venstrefløjser og i næste åndedræt advarede han imod den stigende islamofobi.

En dansk ægtefælle til en jøde funderer i Information over det sørgelige i at holde vagt i skudsikker vest foran sine børns skole.

Min datter på syv år peger stolt på mig.

»Se, min far er vagt i dag,« siger hun til sin veninde fra 1. klasse og banker på skjoldet i min skudsikre vest.

»Hvorfor har du egentlig den på?« spørger hun og kigger op på mig.

Spørgsmålet er stillet nysgerrigt, neutralt – ikke med angst eller frygt. Hun er jo kun syv år.

Hvad skal jeg svare hende? Jeg vælger den praktiske vinkel og forklarer hende, at en skudsikker vest gør, at jeg ikke dør, hvis jeg bliver skudt.

»Men hvem skulle da skyde dig?«

Jeg når at konstatere antydningen af frygt i hendes øjne, inden jeg svarer hende, at hvis der nu skulle komme en bandit med en skyder, så er det jo meget rart at vide, at jeg ikke kommer til skade. Hun lader til at være tilfreds med den forklaring, eller også er det bare venindens insisteren på at lege, der lader mig slippe for at komme med yderligere forklaring.

(…)

Vi ved ikke, hvornår angrebet kommer, og vi ved heller ikke, hvilken slags angreb det vil være – varme eller kolde våben, som det hedder. Vi ved det ikke, men vi har forberedt os på det meste. Vi har fået undervisning og uddannelse og øvelser gennemført af professionelle sikkerhedsfolk.

Man kan ikke sætte ord på. Det er bare en bandit, som vi ikke ved hvor kommer fra og i hvilke mængder. Nærmere beskrivelse er svær, hvis ikke man vil geråde sig ud i islamofobi. Så hans afsluttende retoriske spørgsmål “Hvem bliver de næste, der skal leve i frygt? De homoseksuelle?” fortjener ikke den forlorne undren. Vi ved, hvem der bliver de næsten, alle der kan krybe og gå, også de homosexuelle, som blev udsat for en mindre massakre i den amerikanske by Orlando.

50 mennesker er indtil videre tallet af dræbte med over hundrede sårede. Gerningsmanden er “amerikaner med afghansk baggrund” dristede DR tekst-TV sig til at sige og så vidste man jo, hvad klokken var slået og straks blev der fra officielt hold i Florida rakt ud til det muslimske samfund, som jo altid er de sande ofre når ikke-muslimer slagtes, og Facebook lukkede Pamela Gellers FB-side ned for at knytte islams lære til islams praksis med tilfældet bøssemassakren i Orlando. Alligevel taler amerikaneren med muslimsk baggrund Barak Husein Obama ikke om islam; “no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer (…) ‘What is clear is that he was a person filled with hate

‘The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live,’ Obama noted.

‘The place where they were attacked was more than a nightclub, it was a place of solidarity, of empowerment, where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights,’ he continued.

Og så konstaterede han aT “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle“, hvorfor det var et spørgsmål om øget våbenkontrol. At der netop døde så mange bøsser fordi ingen af dem var bevæbnet med bøsser så de kunne forsvare sig selv og hinanden i ægte ‘empoweret’ solidaritet, i stedet for blot at blive slagtet i hinandens arme.

trump-krc3a6ver-svar

Obama mødes dog gerne med homofober, så længe de er muslimer, skriver Breitbart

President Barack Obama choose to publicly meet with an Islamic preacher in February who said the Koran declares gay sex “a despised act, it is haram, it is forbidden in Islam, completely, absolutely.”

The meeting in Baltimore came shortly after Breitbart publicized the Islamic cleric’s orthodox denigration of gays, which was posted on YouTube. It also came after Breitbart asked Obama’s gay political allies to comment on the Islamic cleric’s statements.

“You are a transgressing people,” said the cleric Imam Yaseen Shaikh, who sat on Obama’s left at the meeting. He is the man at the right hand side of the photo above, wearing a white hat. He is a senior leader of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which Obama choose for the first presidential visit to a mosque in February 2016.

obama-og-homofoberne

En bøsse-aktivist på Sky News, der som Obama beskrev bøsseklubber, som “places of solidarity”, kunne se at det var et “deliberate attack on LGBT people“, men nægtede at forholde sig til, hvilken åndelighed, der lå bag denne bandit, eller med hans ord, “dreg of humanity”. “Scum” kaldte han ham “That’s all he is!”. “Any Dreg of humanity can pick up a gun a murder people”,men forsigtigt forholdt simple realiteter om bandittens muslimske tanke og tale (selv bandittens arbejdskollegaer kunne se han var en tikkende bombe, men frygten for islamofobi-beskyldninger afholdt dem fra at reagere korrekt), blev den selvretfærdige prædiken utilstrækkelig og han stormede ud af studiet

For en god ordens skyld, så slog en Orlando imam ellers fast at døden kun er hvad bøsser fortjener.

I hvilken som helst by med eller uden en massakre kan man finde en imam der roligt har forklaret logikken bagved. Denne forklarer hvori islamisk barmhjertighed består, nemlig som en nedjustering af opskruede grusomheder. Daily Mail fortæller at en tyrkisk avis kalder ofrene ‘perverse’. Daily Mail anstrenger sig samtidig for at kalde den tyrkiske avis ”right wing” uden helt at fortælle om den er fortaler for minimalstat eller bare alment islamofobisk.

Newt Gingrich taler dog sober om sammenhængen mellem islam og vold mod først og fremmest minoriteter.

Det nederen ved de mange velbjærgede

Information meddelte i en leder 3. juni at “Neoliberalismen er døende” på baggrund bl.a af “tre ledende økonomer fra den internationale valutafond, IMF, i juni-nummeret af Finance & Development fastslår, at neoliberalismen »ikke har leveret som forventet«” og dermed “lægger IMF-skribenterne sig op ad et voksende kor af økonomer og andre fagfolk, der i dag betegner neoliberalismen som en model, der har ramt grænserne og nu leverer det modsatte af det tilsigtede.” Det er ikke overraskende “øget konkurrence, deregulering og fri kapitalbevægelse samt en mindre rolle til staten via privatiseringer og stramme offentlige budgetter” der nu ikke længere fungerer af lettere uklare årsager, men verdensøkonomiens sløje tilstand er i hvert fald bevis nok.

Jeg har som Information heller ikke ligefrem kompetencerne til at gå ind i en IMF-OECD teoretisering, men det er ikke svært at se at Information, griber ethvert strå i en vedvarende kamp mod “øget konkurrence, deregulering og fri kapitalbevægelse samt en mindre rolle til staten via privatiseringer og stramme offentlige budgetter”. Informations læsere er endnu værre.

En Niels-Arne Nørgaard Knudsen indrømmer på Informations Facebook side at “det er helt rigtigt at globalt set er fattigdom faldet - men det drejer sig for langt størstedelen at de levede under forhold som manglende adgang til rent vand, el og uddannelse”, så det er for intet at regne. John Jensen pointerer smagfuldt “Kom ikke her fortæl mig a liberal-ismen ER DØD.. så længe (eks.vis) Sørn Pind er i live.” En meget ivrig Carsten Rank fastslår at “Vi har slet ikke brug for vækst”, for senere i den efterfølgende tråd, at spekulere i “…borgerlønstanken…. hvis man nu gav folk penge, så kunne man øge væksten (forbruget).” kun for i en anden tråd at begræde “De velbjergede er kommet i flertal, ja. Det er sgu sørgeligt.” Ja, det omvendte ville klart have været at foretrække.

Well, jeg ved ikke, hvad jeg skal gøre ved dette særlige segment, men måske Tomas Sowell kan hjælpe de uinformerede om, hvad socialisme er

[P]eople who attribute income inequality to capitalists exploiting workers, as Karl Marx claimed, never seem to get around to testing that belief against facts — such as the fact that none of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries.

Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of the left. What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated.

(…)

How many of the people who are demanding an increase in the minimum wage have ever bothered to check what actually happens when higher minimum wages are imposed? More often they just assume what is assumed by like-minded peers — sometimes known as “everybody,” with their assumptions being what “everybody knows.”

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16- to 17-year-old black males was under 10%. But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30% for more than 20 consecutive years, from 1971 through 1994. In many of those years, the unemployment rate for black youngsters that age exceeded 40% and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50%.

The damage is even greater than these statistics might suggest. Most low-wage jobs are entry-level jobs that young people move up out of, after acquiring work experience and a track record that makes them eligible for better jobs. But you can’t move up the ladder if you don’t get on the ladder.

The great promise of socialism is something for nothing. It is one of the signs of today’s dumbed-down education that so many college students seem to think that the cost of their education should — and will — be paid by raising taxes on “the rich.”

Here again, just a little check of the facts would reveal that higher tax rates on upper-income earners do not automatically translate into more tax revenue coming in to the government. Often high tax rates have led to less revenue than lower tax rates.

In a globalized economy, high tax rates may just lead investors to invest in other countries with lower tax rates. That means that jobs created by those investments will be overseas.

None of this is rocket science. But you do have to stop and think — and that is what too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach their students to do.

Der er jo også den klassiske historie om økonomiprofessoren, der gav alle sine studenter gennemsnitskarakterer.

Negerrevolte

Det er farligt at lade sig friste af rollen som offer. De kortsigtede glæder ved følelsen af selvretfærdighed og den umiddelbare gevinst ved positiv særbehandling underminerer selvopretholdelsen. Og det er en effekt, der viser sig stærkest over generationer og som kræver stadigt mere positiv særbehandling helt ud i det absurde i et forgæves forsøg på at lindre den uafvendelige deroute. Thomas Sowell skrev for et par år siden følgende i National Review Online

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.

Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”

Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.

The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies. Public-housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public-housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals.

Med Obama som præsident i 8 år, valgt og genvalgt med en hvid majoritet, er det svært at dyrke sin ulykke som alle andres hvide fejl. Obama har ingenlunde været et eksempel eller har helet de modsætning har har gjort det til sin mission i livet at puste op. Tværtimod har han “spillet racekortet“, næsten hver gang en sort kriminel har mødt sin skæbne i en voldelig konfrontation med politiet eller modige borgere.

Flere negre har derfor fået nok, af den besnærende men hæmmende fortælling om undertrykkelse og hvide privilegier. Kevin Jackson er en af dem og han skriver i American Thinker

Obama is the divisive excuse maker, as his comments to graduates of Howard University showcased:

“Be confident in your blackness” Obama said in the speech, adding, “That’s a pet peeve of mine, people who’ve been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky, that God may have blessed them. It wasn’t nothing you did.”

I have major issues in Obama’s comments, surely to be overlooked by black liberals, the media, and white Leftist enablers.

To begin, what would the media and other leftists say if George Bush told graduates to “be confident in your whiteness”? I will allow you to ponder that; as for me, no further explanation needed.

In his commencement speech, Obama may have felt the need to remind blacks to be confident, because liberals like reminding blacks that we are less than everybody else. Blacks are taught terms like “institutional racism,” “white privilege,” and many other concepts that essentially say to young blacks that the deck is stacked against them. Black liberals have built-in excuses for failure. The irony of institutional racism is that almost all of the institutional racism originates from bastions of the left; in education, entertainment, and unions, to name a few.

But the next part of the Obama message was most perplexing: “it wasn’t nothing you did” to be successful in life, it was luck.

It seems that Obama is saying that your success is not because of you, your hard work, tenacity, determination, drive, focus, and the many other attributes needed for success. Obama implied that the Howard grads were just lucky.

Of course, there is an element of luck in everything, and there is a saying, “It’s always better to be lucky than good.” But it’s good to be good.

Obama provided a glimpse into this own views of his success, as he feels very lucky to be where he is. He must know that he was not prepared to be president, and that his performance has been dismal. Any credit that Obama gets as president is because of luck. The luck that the media is leftist, and therefore willing to accept failure of a black man, simply because he’s black and a Democrat. Imagine the history of Obama, if he were a white Republican and you will get the picture.

Obama is lucky that black people have not burned down Washington. Because if Obama were “lucky” enough to be a white Republican president, he would be the most despised president by blacks in modern history.

In a time where Obama and other Leftists talk of white privilege, the luckiest man on the planet is Barack Obama, lucky to be considered black, in a world that now despises white.

Efter at have udsat negerne for særbehandling, negativ som positiv, var det måske på tide med lige behandling?

Den vandrende muslim

Donald Trumps mådeholdende kommentarer til den islamiske invasion er blevet beskyldt for meget. Blandt andet at den opvigler had blandt muslimer til USA, hvor ISIS, der ikke har noget med islam at gøre, bruger Trumps udtalelser til at rekruttere muslimer. Det viste sig at ISIS ikke fandt Trump nævneværdig og i stedet koncentrerede sin vrede over de seneste amerikanske præsidenter, ‘horekarlen’ Bill Clinton og ‘løgneren’ George W Bush samt den siddende præsident Barak Hussein Obama.

Trump blev også beskyldt for at opvirgle had mod muslimer i USA og være årsag til hadforbrydelser. I modsætning til muslimsk terror, som ingen kan konkludere på da det ikke er tydeligt hvilke socialpsykologiske dynamikker, der skaber den slags frustrationer, så er negativ omtale af muslimsk terror med dil at skabe denne kunstige dikotomi mellem vestlig frihed og sharia, hvilket altså fører Johnny Redneck lige ud i et orgie af hadforbrydelser. En af disse had-forbrydelser blev tilsyneladen begået af den 35 årige Michael Scott Wolfe, der med en machette hakkede ind i en moske, hvor han efterlod bacon. En anden forbrydelse, der fik megen omtale, var ildspåsættelsen af en moske i Texas. Det viste sig at være en muslim, der stod bag.

Men muslimer frygter back-lash, at de bliver straffet for, hvad enkelte af deres troende kammerater har fundet på. Selv efter to muslimers massemord på en firma-julefrokost i San Bernadino var frygten, hvad andre dog ikke måtte tænke om dem. A.J. Caschetta skrev om back-lash industrien 17 december i Middle East Forum

The history of the looming anti-Muslim backlash that never arrives is instructive. Logically, the original post-9/11 anti-Muslim backlash should have been the largest and most ferocious of the various backlashes, and indeed George W. Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress frequently warned Americans not to blame all Muslims for the acts committed by Al-Qaeda.

Even an anti-Israel leftist like Rachel Corrie Award recipient Delinda C. Hanley recognizes that there was no post-9/11 backlash. Writing in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Hanley gushed: “As a result of the effective campaign undertaken by America’s leaders, non-governmental organizations and the media, a backlash that, in many nations, might have turned into a bloodbath was averted and, indeed, transformed into a celebration of diversity.”

The group known as Human Rights Watch however tells a different tale. It documents in the same era a series of attacks amounting to “a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions believed to be Arab or Muslim.” The numbers are notable either for the “ferocity and extent” as HRW puts it, or for the remarkable calm they convey compared to the predicted carnage. For instance the 17-fold increase in anti-Muslim incidents sounds more alarming than the fact that there were 28 such events in 2000 compared with 481 in 2001.

It gets more interesting when one reads that these numbers include behavior ranging from “verbal taunts to employment discrimination to airport profiling to hate crimes.” Since no actual numbers are listed for specific “crimes” one might suspect that there are far more verbal taunts than hate crimes among the 481.

Men industrier kan ikke levere, hvis ikke nogen vil aftage deres produkter og det vil venstrefløjen hellere end gerne. På Gatestone Institute kan man læse, hvorledes arbejdet skrider frem med at forbyde islamkritik i USA

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

(…)

Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Så muslimer er en særlig følsom gruppe. Jøder, derimod, er anderledes robuste, hvis man skal følge Facebooks logik (set hos Elder of Ziyon)

Shia mod sunni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Årets erstatningssøgsmål

Da uddannelsescenter Holstebro i 2010 stillede som betingelse, hvilket i medierne bliver til tvang, at ALLE ernæringseleverne selv skulle smage på den mad de tilberedte, mente en 24 årig muslimsk kvinde (”kom som spæd fra Libyen til Danmark”) at hun blev forskelsbehandlet fordi hendes religion forbød hende at spise svinekød. I 2015 vandt hun 40.000 kroner i erstatning. Det er ikke ligefrem amerikanske summer, men sammenlignet med at et voldtægtoffer får 60-70.000 kroner er det alligevel ikke helt ringe, traumets størrelse taget i betragtning. Og nu vi er ved muslimske mænds forhold til voldt… kvinder, så har Ligestillingsnævnet tildelt en muslimsk taxa-chauffør 10.000 kroner i erstatning, fordi han ikke ville give sin chef eller andre kvinder hånden. Der var også den arbejdsløse muslimske tandlæge, som de danske myndigheder ikke turde give autorisation, da han var uddannet fra et muslimsk land, der krævede erstatning ved Ligestillingsnævnet fordi “islam forbyder ham at arbejde med kvinder, svinekød, ikke-halalslagtet kød, spiritus og cigaretter”. Hvad blev der mon af ham?

Og hvad skal der mon blive af Ahmed fra Texas, der også gerne ville have erstatning. 105 mio. faktisk, men det er også i USA. Ahmed Mohamed er kandidat til årets erstatningssøgsmål. Ahmed Mohamed husker man jo nok, jeg er ikke den mest aktuelle blogger, men det var den opfindsomme og kreative dreng hvis selvbyggede digitalur, blev forvekslet med en bombe af den amerikanske islamofobi, der har internaliseret sig helt ind i skolesystemet. Således blev sagen beskrevet i danske medier, her Jyllands-Posten

Kravene kommer efter den 14-årige Ahmed Mohamed i september tog i den lokale skole MacArthur High School med sit medbragte videnskabsprojekt, et hjemmelavet digitalt ur, som hans lærer fejlagtigt troede var en hjemmelavet bombe.

Det hjemmelavede ur, som Ahmed Mohamed havde lavet i forbindelse med et videnskabsfag på sin skole.

Politiet blev derfor tilkaldt og Ahmed Mohamed blev lagt i håndjern, anholdt og ført væk.

»Jeg havde bygget uret for at imponere min lærer, men da jeg viste hende det, tog hun det som en trussel mod hende. Så det var virkelig sørgeligt at se, at hun opfattede det helt forkert,« sagde Ahmed Mohamed få dage efter episoden på et pressemøde, der blev afholdt foran familiens hus.

14-årig gik fra terrormistænkt til folkehelt på to dage

Efter Ahmed Mohamed var blevet løsladt, blev han suspenderet fra sin skole i tre dage for at have forårsaget uro på MacArthur High School.

Danske medier er blot en afglans af det centrum-venstredrejede politiske landskab og deres medier. Men historien var nu ikke den fortælling om amerikansk islamofobi uanset hvor meget den blev gentaget. Bill Whittle forklarer en del af sammenhængen bedre en de fleste

Ezra Levant fortæller mere om familien Mohamed og deres gænge med en godtroende presse. Og her kan man se et lille håb for en del af venstrefløjen ved den amerikanske talkshow vært og humorist Bill Mahar. Man skal ikke være bemærkelsesværdigt klog for at se at dette stunt er et fingeret angreb, man skal blot se Bean for at forstå logikken

Medierne danser i det herrens år 2015 gladeligt med på den muslimske offerfortælling og udhuler samfundets beredskab.

Hvorfor?

Da det muslimske ægtepar, pakistanske Syed Farook og Tafsheen Malik, begik massemord på en amerikansk julefest i det firma, hvor Farook selv arbejde, skulle man finde en forklaring. CNNs Erin Burnett foreslog at den kvindelige muslim måske led af en fødselsdepression. Og CNNs Gary Tuchman foreslog en enke til et af terrorofrene at det måske var hans egen skyld, kristent missionerende som han var. Council on American Islamic Relations fortalte CNN at terrorangrebet også var USAs skyld, med den førte udenrigspolitik in mente. Og sådan gik det til at det var en muslim der ved at argumentere for gengæld afslørede forbindelsen til islam for CNNs seere. På den amerikanske venstrefløj og blandt amerikanske muslimer var der forargelse over at medierne ikke havde respekteret Farooks massemyrdende kone Tafsheen Malik ved at vise et fotografi af hende uden hijab. Og mens de amerikanske universiteter analyserede teorierne frygtede man naturligvis et backlash.

Herhjemme advarede Poul Høi om ikke at være hurtig til at komme folk i “kasser og båse” og foreslog uden ironi at Syed Farook blev massemorder fordi hans barndom var ulykkelig med en drikfældig og voldelig far. Sammenhængen der viser at børn af alkoholiserede og voldelige fædre begår massemord antages blot at være sand fordi det er fra den samme kasse man forklarer al anden ondskab man ikke vil forholde sig til, og så var det vist konen Tafsheen Malik der fik ham til det. Med alle de børn af voldelige alkoholikere har Malik virkelig ramt en sekundær rekrutteringsåre.

Og så garnerer han sofisstisk med moralske betragtninger i psykologiske klæder som “Ingen massedrabsmænd er mentalt sunde”. Terror med politiske, religiøse, seperatistiske og sekteriske formål eksisterer altså ikke i Høis univers, hvis vi forstår mental sundhed i en klinisk forstand. Det giver ingen mening og sætningen er da også hentet i kassen for ondskab man ikke ønsker at erkende. Det er et moralsk udsagn som vi bruger om SS bødler, ISIS og lignende, men den tjener sproglig til at bakke Høis ide op. En tese han skyder i foden  når han som eksempel på Farooks integration i the american way of life skriver

Det følgende år indrykkede han [Syed Farook] en lignende annonce på et datingsite i Dubai, hvor han skrev, at han ledte efter en kvinde mellem 18 og 22 år, og hendes nationalitet og religion var underordnet.

Høi læser “nationalitet og religion var underordnet”, men overser at Farook ikke finder en kone i USA, men på et datingsite i Dubai! Med andre ord kan vi have en almindelig stærk formodning om at han ledte efter en araber som pakistaner og med religion mente at han ikke ville hænge sig i om hun foretrak Hamas frem for ISIS. Farrok havde fundet hjem førend han mødte konen.

Carsten Jensen mener modsat Høi ikke at Farook og Malik myrdede på grund af Farooks fars druk og vold. Han har sin egen kasse af forklaringer og den er fyldt med os andre end ham. Vi, som nationer, fører krige mod dem og det var os der startede. Mikkel Anderson leverer en anbefalelsesværdig nedsabling af Jensens realitetsforladte moralfortælling. Andersons centrale pointe begrænser sig ikke til Jensen, men er kardinal for hele venstrefløjens tænkning og skyld og ansvar

Dernæst fremsætter Jensen en af de sørgeligste travere, der altid hives af stalden, når vestlige venstreintellektuelle skal forsvare ikke-vestlig terror: ”Terroren har altid været den militært svage parts svar,” erklærer han.

Som nævnt udøver IS også rigelig terror, hvor de står stærkt. Men terror er et valg, ikke den nødvendighed, som Jensen vil have os til at tro.  Det er et valg, som intet har at gøre med, hvorvidt man er ”stærk” eller ”svag”. Den vilkårlige terror mod civile har altid været de totalitære og skruppelløses ”svar”, der så rigeligt også er blevet udført af ”de stærke”, hvilket Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler og en perlerække af andre fra verdenshistoriens rædselskabinet demonstrerer. Der er ingen automatik i, at en militært ”svag” part massakrerer tilfældige civile.

Desværre er de fleste af Jensens udsagn genfortalt af journalisten og jeg vil være varsom med at udlægge dem bogstaveligt, selvom om de er klassisk Carsten Jensen, som at anderkende ISIS ‘deres territorium’ uden at nævne folkemordene på de oprindelige indbyggere. Og fordi Jensen i store dele ses gennem artiklen fremgår de ikke klart hvor “vi” startede, da Jensen eksempelvis nævner Frankrigs for længst overståede Algier-krig uden at det fremgår som var der en direkte sammenhæng med nutidens civilisationskrig eller om det bare vare et eksempel på at det altid var “os” der starter.

Men et par enkelte af Jensens citerede udsagn fortjener måske et par kommentarer som overflødigt supplement til Andersons Jensenmassakre. For der er så mange besynderlige antagelser i venstrefløejens kasser så Informations journalist slet ikke mener at der skal følges op på et udsagn som “Islamisk Stat giver de unge mænds kamp en retning og et mål”, siger Jensen, som vælter danske unge mænd rundt i gaderne og uden mål og med halshugger tilfældige fodgængere. Eller, hvis det kun er logisk for muslimske unge mænd bare at være i kamp, var det så nu også os der startede? Hvem der startede bliver endnu mere forvirrende da Jensen fortsætter “Ekstremisternes våde drøm er, at typer som Søren Espersen får magten. Så har vi konfrontationen…”.

Men tilbage til San Bernadino og hvorfor det muslimsk-pakistanske ægtepar dog kunne finde på at kaste deres karrierer ud ad vinduet. Victor Davis Hanson leverer en fremragende diagnose i National Review af den næsten perfekte storm som muslimsk aggression og almindeligt kulturelt selvhad skaber

Why, then, is radical Islamism, so antithetical to Western values, still preached in American and European mosques? Do radical Muslims in the U.S. and Europe realize that if they had had their way, they would not have wished to emigrate to the U.S., given that it would resemble the homelands they abandoned? The worldview of Tashfeen Malik, if enacted, would eventually have turned San Bernardino into Islamabad; would Ms. Malik then have left it for Portland?

Why is ISIS apparently attractive to hundreds, if not thousands, of Western Muslim youth? Why is the FBI supposedly busy tracking down radical Muslims residing in America, who presumably came here of their own free will? Is it because the FBI is Islamophobic?

One obvious reason for these anomalies is a sort of paradox. The more a Muslim youth enjoys casual sexual hook-ups, easy access to liquor and drugs, and unapologetic secular indulgence, all the more the voluptuary feels he has betrayed his culture, religion, and very identity — and the more his eventual return to Islamic purity is likely to become extreme. No one forced Mohamed Atta and his band of killers to become Western sybarites. What made them slaves to their appetites was their very Islamic Puritanism, which turned what was commonly available into forbidden obsessions: the more taboo, all the more to be indulged in, and all the more to be regretted post facto and the indulgence blamed on others when passions are drained and probity returns.

Second, in many cases, the immigrant immediately asks upon arrival, “Why do they have so much here, while we have so little back home?” Do not expect him to cite everything from religious tolerance to consensual government to freedom and market capitalism — not when there is an accessible American dictionary of victimization, ranging from colonialism and imperialism to oil and Israel. The new arrival from the Middle East need not turn on Al Jazeera to be spoon-fed grievances, when he can listen to President Obama’s apology tours or Cairo speech or breakfast sermons about high-horse Christians and their millennium-old Crusades.

Third, we in America ask almost nothing of immigrants any more. We do not care whether they come legally and will obey the law once they’re here. We have no concern whether they can support themselves, or whether they will become wards of the state. One need only review the careers of Obama’s own immigrant aunt and uncle. We have no worries about whether they learn English. They can hate or love America, as is their wont. If an immigrant commits a crime against his hosts, we feel that we would commit a greater crime by sending our ungracious guest home. Is that why ICE released 36,000 alien lawbreakers in 2013 alone, preempting their deportation hearings, or why 347,000 criminal aliens are believed to be at large in the United States?

Citizenship as a cherished privilege has utterly vanished. So has any idea of gratitude. A hallowed notion of legality, of being more law-abiding even than native-born Americans, has disappeared among immigrants. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — the five-times-deported illegal alien and seven times repeat felon who shot Kate Steinle to death in San Francisco — was only the most extreme example of what is possible under current immigration law and practice.

At no time did Lopez-Sanchez thank the United States for offering him a better chance than Mexico had — at least if repeatedly committing felonies can be see as a form of not offering thanks. We deduce that he believed things were better here than in Mexico or he would not have reentered the country illegally so many times. Lopez-Sanchez, like the Tsarnaevs, knew that the U.S. leaves immigrants alone, or perhaps, better yet, romanticizes their difference, and provides, if not a legal amnesty for their crimes, a psychosocial one.

Fourth, immigrants sense an identity-obsessed culture, where diversity, not unity, brings career dividends. A teen can cross illegally from the oppression of Oaxaca and almost instantly qualify for victim status and affirmative action on the bizarre theory that American oppressions have earned him compensation and reparations, as if he were psychologically damaged by America while he was in Oaxaca or will be in America if he was not in Oaxaca.

Hyphenation, not conformity, is preferred — and wisely so. Poor George Zimmerman’s “white Hispanic” troubles arose from his Americanizing his mixed-race identity rather than emphasizing a constructed otherness by calling himself the more authentic-sounding Jorge Mesa. A fight between Trayvon Martin and Jorge Mesa does not reach the White House, because it furthers no particular agenda; it’s analogous to the weekend toll in Chicago rather than a Ferguson teachable moment. Apparently, Zimmerman did not learn the lesson that an upper-middle-class prep-schooler named Barry Dunham, whose conniving African father had abandoned him, would have been a mere statistic. But as Barack Hussein Obama he became a unique example of diversity, with all its resonance.

At best, if a Muslim immigrant fully assimilates, to the point where, as is true of most Americans, he cannot easily be identified by his religion, or if his religion becomes incidental rather than essential to his public persona, then he is rendered just an ordinary American. Perhaps he even is in some danger of joining the unattractive majority not subject to special dispensation. At worst, he can become a sellout in the eyes of his local mosque and immigrant enclave. Emphasizing identity to its logical extreme wins rewards in today’s America. We saw to what insane lengths this has gone in the cases of the fabulists Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill.

Finally, the Muslim shooter understands that so many of his hosts are naïve, ashamed of their own culture, unsure of their heritage, and prone to apologize rather than criticize. They would likely not call the authorities even if they spied preparations for terrorist activities — believing that being called a racist is worse than possibly allowing violence to ensue against the innocent. Note that Ms. Malik never thought that she might have to tone down her suspicious activities, because her neighbors quite magnanimously did not call the police.

Appeasement is a psychological disorder that affects both the appeaser and the appeased. The more exemptions are granted the offender, the more the grantor feels good about himself, and the more the offender loses respect for someone seen as weak rather than magnanimous.

Gentagelse og fald

Mikael Jalving havde ikke mere at sige, om endnu et terrorangreb, det vi så i Paris, fortalte han sine læsere. Eller i hvert fald kunne han ikke sige, hvad han allerede har sagt bedre end han gjorde senest, da Charlie Hebdo og et jødisk supermarked var genstand for muslimernes vrede. Men Jalving er værd at genlæse og ellers kan man glæde sig over Snaphanens Steens fremragende skriv, med masser af links til andre gode skrifter.

For det er er svært at sige noget nyt om en verden der ser ud til at gentage sig selv når politikere, journalister og eksperter ikke tager ved lære. I Berlingske Tidende kunne man i kortform læse eksperterne demonstrere næsten hele paletten. 6-7 gengangerpunkter blev nævnt og kun et eneste var relevant for forståelsen af den terror der rammer os, for den flygtninge og migrationsstrøm på vej og årsagerne bagved. Da jeg aldrig har skrevet så godt som Jalving kan jeg godt tåle at gentage mig selv uden at risikere en antiklimaks. De radikaliserede islamisters bevæggrunde er som følger

»Der er en række spændinger mellem franskmændene og den muslimske befolkning, der føler, de bliver undertrykt. Det ser vi blandt andet i forhold til, at man har indført forbud mod at bære tørklæde i skoler, ligesom muslimerne ikke føler sig imødekommet i forhold til mulighederne for at undgå svinekød i offentlige køkkener og udøve deres religion på offentlige steder,« siger Henrik Prebensen.

1a) Tørklædeforbud. Det er egentligt et forbud mod religiøs beklædning og rammer alle religioner der hænger deres hat på tøjet.

1b) Mangel på svinekødsforbud. Denne anke mod øvrigheden hænger sammen med den første, da det er krav om islamisk levevis. Men her er det ikke som passiv muslim, men som den offentsive der har retten til at diktere vilkårene for kuffar. Muslimerne nægtes deres overhøjhed.

Parret med en generel skepsis blandt franskmændene over for den muslimske befolkning…

2) Franskmændene er dårlige, hvis ikke xenofobiske, værter.

…betyder det ifølge Henrik Prebensen, at en stor del af Frankrigs muslimske befolkning føler sig tilsidesat og forfulgt.

3) Generel tilstand af udenforskab.

Tidligere PET-chef Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen er enig i, at det ikke er tilfældigt, at radikaliserede islamister angriber Frankrig igen. Han peger på Frankrigs rolle i den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat i Syrien og Irak. Desuden kæmper Frankrig mod islamistiske oprørere i det afrikanske land Mali.

4) Frankrigs rolle mod ISIS og at de forhindrede folkemord i Mali.

Ifølge Bonnichsen kan timingen af terrorangrebene i Paris hænge sammen med, at Islamisk Stat oplever modgang på slagmarken

5) Islamisk stat er trængte. Hvis de havde fremgang ville det være en anden sag må vi forstå.

Og så har man også nogle voldsomme sociale spændinger…

6) Ikke nok bistandshjælp.

…der kan understøtte det had, som eksisterer i forvejen, når vi taler om islam og den vestlige verden,« siger Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen.

7) Hovedet på sømmet! Og det går vi så ikke mere ind i, for det indebærer den smertelige erkendelse at ingen fred er mulig og at så længe man anerkender muslimernes ret til være en del af Frankrig, som af noget vestligt land, så længe vil man befinde sig i en tilstand af krig. Ja, man kunne udtrykke det som at bo i krigens hus.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-11-19-kl-072249

Ovenfor lover X-Files artikel i Jyllandsposten klassikerne i endnu et mysterium for medier, politikere og eksperter. Hvorfor sprængte en muslim sig selv og en masse kuffar i luften? Og så en fredag aften? Og så var også han, som alle de andre en god og rolig fyr.

Obama og Kerrys svar er ord. That’s all thay have, words. De insisterer på at kalde ISIS for Daesh, fordi navnet er blevet forbudt i Islamisk Stat: “Part of the reason is because in Arabic the word “Daesh” can be taken as a play on words to mean something along the lines of “a bigot who imposes his view on others” or “to trample down and crush,” og ved at insistere på at minde terrorister fra Islamisk Stat om at de rent faktisk undertrykker andres tanker, så generer man dem måske på et personligt plan. Det har ikke den samme effekt som Assads tøndebomber, men det skulle til gengæld ikke gå ud over civile. Meeen formålet er nok snarere at forhindre at islam kommer sprogligt i forbindelse med islamisk aktivitet, en renvaskning er problemets stilling. Hmm, det kunne være man skulle kalde dem det, Islamisk Aktivitet? Det ville sikkert pisse en venstrefløjser af i ens omgangskreds.

NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, ja det er vel ækvivalensen til at Saudierne blev formænd for FNs råd for menneskerettigheder, mener det er på sin plads at nævne islam, selv om islam ikke har noget med noget at gøre, skriver Danmarks Radio

- Dette er ikke en kamp mellem den muslimske verden og den vestlige verden. Det er en kamp mellem ekstremister, kriminelle og mennesker, der tror på fundamentale værdier som frihed og respekt for menneskerettigheder, siger han ifølge nyhedsbureauet AFP.

“It was instructive that the moment President Hollande grasped the awful reality his first instinct was to close France’s borders.” skriver Simon Heffer i Telegraph. Det er sigende at Hollande, trods en overordnet politik om åbne grænser og næsten stålsat vilje mod at ville indrømme krigens realiteter - indtil nu? - alligevel afslører en erkendelse af problemets rod; muslimer der vælter over grænserne.

Hvad fortæller det om Danmarks politiske elite når alternativet til Løkke var Christian Jensen, der straks han hørte om de muslimske myrderier, tweetede en appel til danskerne om at stemme ja til EU? Ja, hvad fortæller det om intelligentsiaen i Venstre når Justitsminister Søren Pind mener at manglende grænsekontrol og konventioner ikke havde noget at spille med terrortruslen. “Vi betaler nu en høj pris for den passivitet, som Vesten har udøvet i Syrien.” siger han og mener alligevel at vi skulle have entreret Søvndals syriske jungle. For erfaringerne fra de irakiske og libyske regnskove demonstrerer virkeligt at vores ageren er problemets rod. Inger Støjberg fortsætte sin hard-liner løgn ved at lange verbalt ud efter studiegruppen og islamoplyserne Hizb ut-Tahrir. En “syg organisation som ikke hører til her”, kaldte hun dem og som en anden Villy Søvndal “forstår egentlig ikke, hvad det er, der afholder dem fra at flytte”. Men hvis hun lyttede efter, så handler det ikke om at der er noget der afholder dem fra noget, sådan er det jo med frihed. Der er derimod noget de,, som så mange andre tilvandrende muslimer vil, nemlig lave Danmark om til et kalifat. De er her på en mission, som det politiske Danmark afholder sig fra at forhindre. I stedet diskes der op med ord, ord, ord.

Denne regering, den værste regering nogensinde i dansk historie, har ophøjet politisk impotens til et kategorisk imperativ, som folket blot er i vejen for. Og Dansk Folkeparti ser ud til at have købt Løkkes rope-a-dope taktik og betalt med deres identitet. Og det er vel en forandring.

En kedelig forandring var iøvrigt også Søren Espersen, der tilsyneladende tænkte, at hvis terroren i Paris kunne være udgangspunktet for en konstruktiv debat om islam, indvandring af muslimer og hævdelse af dansk overhøjhed på dansk jord, som venstrefløjen vanskeligt kunne undslå sig, så ville det være bedre med en debat for og imod Søren Espersen selv. Vel vidende at når man indleder en argumentation om at gå hårdere til Islamisk Stat med “…vi er så gentlemen-agtige, at vi aldrig bomber, der hvor der er civile - også kvinder og børn.” så er der ingen der læser resten og Espersen spildte sine støtters tid og ressourcer på “Det Søren siger og mener er…” mens venstrefløjen og medierne fik sig lidt luft med historien om den moralske ækvivalens mellem islam og dens kritikere.

“It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not!”

I Middelalderen grundlagdes universiteterne, som Quora skriver

These new centres of learning took the scholarly framework of the old cathedral schools’ curriculum based on the “seven liberal arts” but combined it with the structure of craft and merchant guilds (which is where the name universitas came from as well).  As in the guilds, students had to choose to work under the guidance of a “Master” and serve a long, structured and scrutinised apprenticeship and then pass a series of tests and oral examinations before being judged a “Master” himself and finally going on to become a “Doctor” or teacher.  This structure, hierarchy and rigorous testing made the Medieval university very different to similar-seeming schools in the Islamic world or the academies of ancient Greece.

The other radical and crucial novelty in the university system was the way advancement and prominence in this system was not gained merely by mastering material from key texts, but by disputation and debate using set rules of formal logic.  Masters and doctors maintained their positions and their reputations (and therefore their incomes from students) by their ability to win debates, often throwing open the floor to all comers.  And brilliant students could rise quickly in reputation and renown by taking on these masters and beating them.  At least twice a year a university would hold a quodlibeta - a multi-day tournament of rigorous logical disputation where anyone could propose and defend any position on any subject at all.  Often highly radical, controversial, paradoxical or even heretical idea were presented and participants had to defend or attack them using logic and reason alone. The idea of a rational free-for-all where the finest minds of the time used reason alone to bat around ideas like “God is in fact evil” or “the universe had no beginning in time” certainly does not fit most people’s ideas of the Middle Ages, yet this was a regular event in Medieval universities.

I det miljø ‘opfandt’ Benediktinermunken Roger Bacon den moderne videnskab og Guillaume de Conches hypotiserede darwinistisk at alt levende opstod fra ursuppen og udviklede sig over til det det er i dag - på Guds initiativ. Det er lang tid siden at man beflittede sig med rationalisme på universiterne og de fleste andre læreanstalter. Atlantic beskriver den sørgelige sag, da et akademiker-ægtepar sagtmodigt frasagde sig at rådgive de studerende om Halloween-kostymer og blev mødt med krav om bortvisning for deres manglende forebyggelse af potentiel krænkelse. Daily Caller ridser det sørgelige optrin op, hvis man ikke har hjerte til at se den lille video nedenunder

The conversation is at first tense but calm, but it escalates rapidly after a student accuses Christakis of creating an “unsafe space” at Yale.

“I did not-,” Christakis attempts to reply, but a student aggressively interjects.

“Be quiet!,” she screams. Then, voice quavering with emotion, she continues. “[In] your position as headmaster, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students who live in Silliman.”

Christakis attempts to dissent, saying “No, I don’t agree with that,” unleashing a torrent of shrieks from the student.

“Then why the fuck did you accept the position? Who the fuck hired you?,” she cries, drowning out any attempt by Christakis to explain himself (Christakis never raises his voice, except to be heard by the crowd).

“You should step down! If that is what you think of being headmaster, you should step down! It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not!”

Another student, a male, joins in, shouting “You’re supposed to be our advocate!”

The student continues the attack, saying that students will transfer out of Yale because of its failure to be a “safe space” for them. As she continues, one passing student yells out “Retweet!,” apparently to endorse her attacks.

“You should not sleep at night!,” she says to finish the verbal assault. “You’re disgusting!”

Som man kan se er konflikter nogle gange sort/hvide. Den unge dames hysteri udgør et studie i sig selv. Selvretfærdigheden, berettigelsen, selvoptagetheden, aggressionen, den manglende empati for andre mennesker, manglende selvrefleksion og den grundløse foragt for andre meninger. Og ingen sans for værdighed. Som et udtryk for venstrefløjen er der kun emotioner, et mentalt barn forkælet til den rene narcissisme. Men det får vente, for her er endnu et eksempel på venstrefløjs ideologiske emotioner fra Missouri State universitetet, hvor nogen demonstrerer imod noget strukturelt undertrykkende noget

After desperately trying to gin up media coverage of student protests at the University of Missouri, one of the school’s media professors is now furiously trying to “muscle” the press off campus to prevent them from covering student protests that rapidly spiraled out of control Monday.

Mizzou president Timothy Wolfe announced his resignation on Monday after members of the school’s 4-5 football team announced they would boycott team activities unless the school acceded to certain demands surrounding racial equality. Unsurprisingly, Wolfe’s resignation did little to quell the mob.

On Monday afternoon, activists who had demanded Wolfe’s resignation abruptly demanded that media stop covering their activities on the public campus of the taxpayer-funded university. At the center of those demands was Melissa Click, an assistant professor of mass media within Mizzou’s communications department.

In the video below, you can see Click ask for “muscle” to help her bully a Mizzou student into not covering the ongoing mob protests:

Det kræver en beundringsværdig mangel på ironis sans at holde en demonstration inden i et ’safe space’. En god ven spåede at professor Clicks bemærkning “I need some muscle over here!” kan blive en ikonisk kommentar; “Al safe/inclusive/cis/gyn/LGBT/postmodernisme-BS er hermed udstillet og demaskeret”. Det er sandt for dyden en stjerneparade i eksempler på venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Journalistens argument om de grundlovssikrede rettigheder, der beskytter ikke blot ham men også demonstranterne, hvorfor de ikke kan tvinge ham væk,, som han ikke kan tvinge dem, verfes af med “Forget a law. How about for humanity?”. Eller sætningen “Sir, I’m sorry, these are people too. You need to back off!”, som virkeligt kræver en indforstået præmis om moralsk overrettighed for at give mening. Og så er der unødvendige journalister, som der er unødvendige mennesker…

Breitbart ridser tendensen på amerikanske universiteter, der også mærkes i resten af den vestlige verden, op, for som venstrefløjens børn tydeligvis ikke kan rumme den virkelighed, som venstrefløjen har beredt dem, så kan venstrefløjen heller ikke rumme sine egne børn

Similar incidents have happened before, on other campuses. Oberlin College was recently the scene of astonishing protests at the visit of former philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers, who was deemed to be too “triggering” for some students. But it is deeply worrying to see this happen at Yale, where undergraduates typically go on to become business leaders, senators and even Presidents.

The footage was published by Greg Lukianoff, the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), one of the organisations that monitors and seeks to address the disturbing rise of intolerance on U.S. campuses. Lukianoff recently co-authored an influential essay, The Coddling of the American Mind, which describes the disturbing rise of campus zealots like the ones in this video.

Students of history will notice an alarming similarity in the video above to the “struggle sessions” of Maoist China, a form of public shaming in which perceived enemies of the Party would be surrounded in a public place by Red Guards, Mao’s most zealous supporters. The Red Guards would hurl abuse at their target until they confessed to their crimes.

Uninformed critics might argue that the Red Guards were a weapon of the Communist state, and not a genuine grassroots movement, but they’d be wrong: the Red Guards started out as a student movement, on Chinese campuses. Afraid yet?

College staff finally are. Earlier this year, Vox published an essay from a liberal professor who confessed that the zealotry of his own students frightened him. Earlier this month, Salon published an article from a black feminist film studies lecturer, describing her “disastrous” attempt to accommodate her students’ strangely aggressive emotional fragility. It seems the left, and especially the academic left, has finally woken up to the Frankenstein’s monster that they’ve constructed.

Daniel Greenfield ser også parallelen til rødgardisterne, men trøster sig med at i de frie lande har flertallet stadig noget at skulle have sagt og unge mennesker er generelt ikke så rædselsfulde

These aren’t an entire generation. They’re trained radical left-wing activists who have been encouraged to emote, to act out and throw tantrums as activism. It’s not unique.

(…)

What is happening now is a perfect storm with several causes, one of the biggest of these is the Obama era in which major social transformation and the craziest campus stuff have backing from the White House.

There are assorted generalizations about millennials in the workplace. But your typical campus screamer won’t be working a real job. They’ll be in academia, diversity consulting or something even dumber and more useless. Millennials serve in the military and members of that generation have won the Medal of Honor.

Washington Posts Wendy Kaminer går nogle årtier tilbage

You can credit — or blame — progressives for this enthusiastic embrace of censorship. It reflects, in part, the influence of three popular movements dating back decades: the feminist anti-porn crusades, the pop-psychology recovery movement and the emergence of multiculturalism on college campuses.

In the 1980s, law professor Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea Dworkin showed the way, popularizing a view of free speech as a barrier to equality. These two impassioned feminists framed pornography — its production, distribution and consumption — as an assault on women. They devised a novel definition of pornography as a violation of women’s civil rights, and championed a model anti-porn ordinance that would authorize civil actions by any woman “aggrieved” by pornography. In 1984, the city of Indianapolis adopted the measure, defining pornography as a “discriminatory practice,” but it was quickly struck down in federal court as unconstitutional. “Indianapolis justifies the ordinance on the ground that pornography affects thoughts,” the court noted. “This is thought control.”

So MacKinnnon and Dworkin lost that battle, but their successors are winning the war. Their view of allegedly offensive or demeaning speech as a civil rights violation, and their conflation of words and actions, have helped shape campus speech and harassment codes and nurtured progressive hostility toward free speech.

The recovery movement, which flourished in the late ’80s and early ’90s, adopted a similarly dire view of unwelcome speech. Words wound, anti-porn feminists and recovering co-dependents agreed. Self-appointed recovery experts, such as the best-selling author John Bradshaw, promoted the belief that most of us are victims of abuse, in one form or another. They broadened the definition of abuse to include a range of common, normal childhood experiences, including being chastised or ignored by your parents on occasion. From this perspective, we are all fragile and easily damaged by presumptively hurtful speech, and censorship looks like a moral necessity.

These ideas were readily absorbed on college campuses embarking on a commendable drive for diversity. Multiculturalists sought to protect historically disadvantaged students from speech considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory. Like abuse, oppression was defined broadly. I remember the first time, in the early ’90s, that I heard a Harvard student describe herself as oppressed, as a woman of color. She hadn’t been systematically deprived of fundamental rights and liberties. After all, she’d been admitted to Harvard. But she had been offended and unsettled by certain attitudes and remarks. Did she have good reason to take offense? That was an irrelevant question. Popular therapeutic culture defined verbal “assaults” and other forms of discrimination by the subjective, emotional responses of self-proclaimed victims.

This reliance on subjectivity, in the interest of equality, is a recipe for arbitrary, discriminatory enforcement practices, with far-reaching effects on individual liberty. The tendency to take subjective allegations of victimization at face value — instrumental in contemporary censorship campaigns — also leads to the presumption of guilt and disregard for due process in the progressive approach to alleged sexual assaults on campus.

Universiteterne var måske en religiøs opfindelse, til at begribe Gud og forstå hans skaberværk. Måske fordi Gud er ubegribelig, kunne et studievære en søgen, mens uden Ham, kan vi kun prøve at begribe os selv og vores selvretfærdighed? Hvem ved, denne ateist er ikke mindre rådvild, når teisme ligner det bedste værn mod religiøs dogmatik.

Peter Robinson taler med Charles Hill og General James Mattis om Iran-aftalen, demokrati og frihed

Hvis Obamas atom-aftale viser sig at være en Chamberlain 1938 så kan jeg nok tilgives for at hænge mig lidt i den

Recorded on July 16, 2015 - Hoover fellows Charles Hill and James Mattis discuss the Iran deal and the state of the world on Uncommon Knowledge with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson. In their view the United States has handed over its leading role to Iran and provided a dowry along with it. Iran will become the leading power in the region as the United States pulls back; as the sanctions are lifted Iran will start making a lot of money. No matter what Congress does at this point, the sanctions are gone. Furthermore, the president will veto anything Congress comes up with to move the deal forward. This de facto treaty circumvents the Constitution.
If we want better deals and a stronger presence in the international community, then the United States needs to compromise, and listen to one another other, and encourage other points of view, especially from the three branches of government. If the United States pulls back from the international community, we will need to relearn the lessons we learned after World War I. But if we engage more with the world and use solid strategies to protect and encourage democracy and freedom at home and abroad, then our military interventions will be fewer. The United States and the world will be in a better position to handle problems such as ISIS.

Iran-aftale

We’ll remember you’ve said that!“ Dennis Praeger skriver at ondskab ikke er mørk, men derimod så “painfully bright that people look away from it”

The Nazi regime’s great hatred was Jews. Iran’s great hatred is the Jewish state. The Nazis’ greatest aim was to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Iran’s greatest aim is to exterminate the Jewish state. Nazi Germany hated the West and its freedoms. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the West and its freedoms. Germany sought to dominate Europe. Iran seeks to dominate the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And exactly as Britain and France appeased Nazi Germany, the same two countries along with the United States have chosen to appease Iran.

(…)

Iran is responsible for more American deaths in the last quarter century than any other group or country. Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, and Major Chris Driver-Williams of British special forces, summarized it this way: “Iranian military action, often working through proxies using terrorist tactics, has led to the deaths of well over a thousand American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade and a half.”

The Neville Chamberlains of 2015 defend the agreement with Iran on two grounds — that the only alternative is war and that this agreement has the capacity to bring Iran into “the community of nations.”

The first is a falsehood. For three reasons.

First, the alternative to this agreement was continuing and tightening the sanctions that were weakening the Iranian regime and greatly diminishing its ability to fund terror groups around the world. Second, because the agreement so strengthens Iran, it makes war far more likely. When evil, expansionist regimes get richer, they don’t spend their wealth on building new hospitals. Third, because we have been at war with Iran for decades. But only one side has been fighting.

Mark Steyn mener at Obamas aftale er værre end Chamberlains (via Snaphanen)

Thomas Sowell endnu videre og sammenligner Iran aftalen med ‘den største historiske fejltagelse’, Yongle dynastiets opløsning af Zheng Hes ekspeditioner i 1433. Obama derimod sammenligner aftalen med Iran med atomaftalerne med Sovietunionen.

Hvad er det helt præcist, at Obama-regeringen tror har ændret sig vedrørende Irans ledelse?” spørger Douglas Murray på Gatestone Institute

Der må trods alt være noget, som en vestlig leder ser, når der gøres forsøg på at “normalisere” forholdet til et slyngelregime — noget Richard Nixon så i det kinesiske kommunistparti, som overbeviste ham om, at en optøning af forholdet var mulig, eller noget Margaret Thatcher så i Mikhail Gorbachevs øjne, som overbeviste hende om, at her var omsider en modpart, man kunne stole på.

De ydre tegn i forbindelse med Iran ser trods alt lidet lovende ud. Forleden fredag i Teheran, netop som P5+1 færdiggjorde deres aftale med iranerne, var Irans gader vært for “Al-Quds dag.” I den iranske kalender er dette dagen, indført af afdøde ayatollah Khomeini, hvor den anti-israelske og anti-amerikanske aktivitet træder i forgrunden i endnu højere grad end normalt. Opmuntrede af regimet, marcherede ti tusindvis af iranere i gaderne og råbte på udslettelse af Israel og “død over Amerika”. Der blev ikke blot afbrændt israelske og amerikanske flag – der blev også sat ild til britiske flag i en rørende påmindelse om, at Iran er det eneste land som stadig tror, at Storbritannien styrer verden.

Den seneste af en lang række af “moderate” iranske ledere, præsident Hassan Rouhani, dukkede selv op ved en af disse parader for at se de israelske og amerikanske flag blive brændt af. Greb han ind? Forklarede han folkemængden, at de havde fået fat i det forkerte notat – at Amerika nu er deres ven, og at de i det mindste burde koncentrere deres energi om masseafbrænding af davidsstjernerne? Nej, han deltog som han plejer, og mængden reagerede som den plejer.

Det var det samme for blot få uger siden, da det iranske parlament samledes for at drøfte Wienaftalen. Ved den lejlighed forlod det iranske parlament mødet, efter nogen bemyndiget debat, mens repræsentanterne råbte “død over Amerika.”

Et generøst menneske ville måske sige, at det ikke betyder noget – når man i Iran råber “død over Amerika,” svarer det til, at man klarer halsen. Det er netop, hvad vi får at vide – at disse budskaber “kun er til hjemligt brug” og ikke betyder noget.

(…)

Set udefra kan det virke, som om kun meget lidt har ændret sig i Irans retorik og at meget lidt har ændret sig i regimets adfærd. Det er grunden til, at mysteriet om, hvad det er for en forandring den amerikanske regering og dens partnere ser i ayatollahernes øjne, er ekstra gådefuldt.

Fordi aftalens karakter gør det ekstremt vigtigt, at der er en eller anden forandring. Inden for de næste ti år vil ayatollaherne, til gengæld for de formodet “gennemførte inspektioner” af et begrænset antal iranske kernekraftsteder, nyde godt af en handelseksplosion med en kontant guldgrube i størrelsesordenen 140 milliarder dollar i form af frigivne aktiver, blot for at sætte dem igang. I de samme ti år vil der ske en lempelse af restriktionerne på – blandt andet – iransk salg og køb af konventionelle våben og ammunition. Endelig vil Iran blive i stand til at købe det længe ventede anti-luftværnssystem, som russerne (der selvfølgelig også var til stede ved forhandlingsbordet i Wien) ønsker at sælge til dem. Dette system – som er blandt de mest avancerede jord-til-luft missilsystemer — vil være i stand til at skyde et hvilket som helst amerikansk, israelsk eller andet fly ned, skulle et sådant nogensinde dukke op for at ødelægge Irans atomprojekt.

Apropos det iranske regimes nye 100-150 mia dollars Ryan Mauro har på The Clarion Project samlet en liste over nuværende udgifter, her i uddrag, som kan komme Irans naboer til glæde og gavn

$6.5 Billion: Budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the elite security force that keeps the Iranian regime in power by oppressing the population and sponsors terrorism around the world. It is responsible for providing advanced IEDs that killed at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Moderate” President Rouhani increased the IRGC’s budget by almost half in 2015 at a time when Iran is strapped for money.

$6 Billion: Iran’s Yearly Donation to Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad

This figure was stated by the U.N.’s envoy to Syria. Other experts put it as high as $15 billion. Assad is a state sponsor of terrorism whose rule helps fuel Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. His determination to cling onto power has resulted in 320,000 dead and over 4 million refugees in a population of only 23 million since 2011.

$4-5 Billion: Estimated Spending By Iran on Terrorist Proxies

This figure was calculated by the Israeli Defense Forces’ Chief of Staff, who emphasized that this support is limited only by the current “economic limitations” of Iran, which will be expanded under the deal.

$2 Billion: Iran’s Annual Assistance to Extremist Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria

These militias have killed U.S. servicemen in the past and may target the 3,500 troops in Iraq now. The 140,000 members get $300 per month salary and $900 per month for arms and accommodations. The militias are brutal towards innocent Sunnis, indirectly assisting the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

Obama har sagt at han ville være en god præsident, hvis han fik en tredie periode. Han skal prise sig lykkelig for at det ikke kan lade sig gøre.

Stadig svært at erkende kristenforfølgelsen endsige dens ophav

Eliza Grizwold skriver i New Yok Times fyldigt om muslimernes forfølgelse af kristne i Mellemøsten

From 1910 to 2010, the number of Christians in the Middle East — in countries like Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Jordan — continued to decline; once 14 percent of the population, Christians now make up roughly 4 percent. (In Iran and Turkey, they’re all but gone.) In Lebanon, the only country in the region where Christians hold significant political power, their numbers have shrunk over the past century, to 34 percent from 78 percent of the population. Low birthrates have contributed to this decline, as well as hostile political environments and economic crisis. Fear is also a driver. The rise of extremist groups, as well as the perception that their communities are vanishing, causes people to leave.

“‘‘If we attend to minority rights only after slaughter has begun, then we have already failed,’’ siger FNs Menneskerets Højkommissær Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. Demokraten Anna Eshoo, der sidder i Repræsentanternes Hus for Californien siger “Christianity is under an existential threat”. Men alligevel har Det Hvide Hus uligt meget sværere ved at anerkende kristne ledere end muslimske skriver Raymond Ibrahim i Gatestone Institute.

During the height of one of the most brutal months of Muslim persecution of Christians, the U.S. State Department exposed its double standards against persecuted Christian minorities.

Sister Diana, an influential Iraqi Christian leader, who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012.

She was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq — including Sunni, Shia and Yazidi, among others — to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every religious leader from this delegation to Washington D.C. was granted a visa — except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana.

After this refusal became public, many Americans protested, some writing to their congressmen. Discussing the nun’s visa denial, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said:

This is an administration which never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists … I hope that as it gets attention that Secretary Kerry will reverse it. If he doesn’t, Congress has to investigate, and the person who made this decision ought to be fired.

The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa.

This is not the first time the U.S. State Department has not granted a visa to a Christian leader coming from a Muslim region. Last year, after the United States Institute for Peace brought together the governors of Nigeria’s mostly Muslim northern states for a conference in the U.S., the State Department blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, Jonah David Jang.

Greenfield har en lang udførlig liste over den undertrykkelse kristne udsættes for i den muslimske verden, der er værd at gøre sig nedslået over. Men få politikere synes at kere sig. I Griswolds lange, velskrevne, detaljerede og på en gang indsigtsfulde og manipulerende artikel skriver hun, at det har været en topprioritet for både Bush og Obama ikke at tage sig ud sig ud som kristne korsfarere

It has been nearly impossible for two U.S. presidents — Bush, a conservative evangelical; and Obama, a progressive liberal — to address the plight of Christians explicitly for fear of appearing to play into the crusader and ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ narratives the West is accused of embracing. In 2007, when Al Qaeda was kidnapping and killing priests in Mosul, Nina Shea, who was then a U.S. commissioner for religious freedom, says she approached the secretary of state at the time, Condoleezza Rice, who told her the United States didn’t intervene in ‘‘sectarian’’ issues. Rice now says that protecting religious freedom in Iraq was a priority both for her and for the Bush administration. But the targeted violence and mass Christian exodus remained unaddressed. ‘‘One of the blind spots of the Bush administration was the inability to grapple with this as a direct byproduct of the invasion,’’ says Timothy Shah, the associate director of Georgetown University’s Religious Freedom Project.

More recently, the White House has been criticized for eschewing the term ‘‘Christian’’ altogether. The issue of Christian persecution is politically charged; the Christian right has long used the idea that Christianity is imperiled to rally its base. When ISIS massacred Egyptian Copts in Libya this winter, the State Department came under fire for referring to the victims merely as ‘‘Egyptian citizens.’’ Daniel Philpott, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, says, ‘‘When ISIS is no longer said to have religious motivations nor the minorities it attacks to have religious identities, the Obama administration’s caution about religion becomes excessive.’’

Politisk korrekthed og hensynsbetændelse til muslimske vrangforestillinger betales af de kristne. Og politikerne høster veksler for deres kulturelle sensitivitet fra den smagfulde venstrefløj. Den umiddelbare historie og situation ridser Griswold op således

For more than a decade, extremists have targeted Christians and other minorities, who often serve as stand-ins for the West. This was especially true in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, which caused hundreds of thousands to flee. ‘‘Since 2003, we’ve lost priests, bishops and more than 60 churches were bombed,’’ Bashar Warda, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Erbil, said. With the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq in large numbers, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003.

The Arab Spring only made things worse. As dictators like Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya were toppled, their longstanding protection of minorities also ended. Now, ISIS is looking to eradicate Christians and other minorities altogether. The group twists the early history of Christians in the region — their subjugation by the sword — to legitimize its millenarian enterprise. Recently, ISIS posted videos delineating the second-class status of Christians in the caliphate. Those unwilling to pay the jizya tax or to convert would be destroyed, the narrator warned, as the videos culminated in the now-­infamous scenes of Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians in Libya being marched onto the beach and beheaded, their blood running into the surf.

The future of Christianity in the region of its birth is now uncertain. ‘‘How much longer can we flee before we and other minorities become a story in a history book?’’ says Nuri Kino, a journalist and founder of the advocacy group Demand for Action. According to a Pew study, more Christians are now faced with religious persecution than at any time since their early history.

Griswolds artikel kan absolut anbefales, hvis man vil være klogere på de kristnes situation og Mellemøstens morads. Men jeg skrev at den også var manipulerende og det er den i sin apologetiske omgang med islam. Selvfølgelig, fristes man nemlig til at sige.

Så skønt Griswold er langt fremme i erkendelsen af de kristnes ulykkelige situation i Mellemøsten (i hele  den muslimske verden, rent faktisk, og den kommunistiske også), og mens politikerne tøver, så er hun ikke nået dertil, hvor hun kan beskrive det reelle problem. Det er generiske “ekstremister”, der er problemet for Griswold, mens Condoleezza Rice trods alt vidste mere end det med sit “the United States didn’t intervene in ‘‘sectarian’’ issues” - og så svigtede de alligevel. Så civilisationernes sammenstød bliver derfor kun et narrativ for Griswold, en fortælling og ikke en beskrivelse af de faktiske forhold. (”Israel and Palestine” har en konflikt, en formulering, der betyder at Israel er en illegitim stat, der hvor Palæstina eksisterer).

Griswolds artikel er vævet over nogle flygtninges frygtelige historier med den 31 årige Rana og hendes mand som hovedroller. Ranas mand Diyaa beskrives som “a tyrant (…) who, after 14 years of marriage, wouldn’t let (), Rana, 31, have her own mobile phone. He isolated her from friends and family, guarding her jealously”. Han var tillige nærig. Jeg mindes ikke en historie om palæstinensiske ofre, der hænges ud som dumme svin. Nuvel, mennesker er mennesker og Diyaas karakterbrister drukner hurtigt i beskrivelserne af det muslimske vanvid. Bortset fra, at det gør det ikke helt, for islam holdes fri.

Lad os, som enhver god film, fokusere på parallelhistorierne. I det historiske afsnit hedder det fra Griswolds hånd

When the first Islamic armies arrived from the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century, the Assyrian Church of the East was sending missionaries to China, India and Mongolia. The shift from Christianity to Islam happened gradually. Much as the worship of Eastern cults largely gave way to Christianity, Christianity gave way to Islam. Under Islamic rule, Eastern Christians lived as protected people, dhimmi: They were subservient and had to pay the jizya, but were often allowed to observe practices forbidden by Islam, including eating pork and drinking alcohol. Muslim rulers tended to be more tolerant of minorities than their Christian counterparts, and for 1,500 years, different religions thrived side by side.

One hundred years ago, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War I ushered in the greatest period of violence against Christians in the region. The genocide waged by the Young Turks in the name of nationalism, not religion, left at least two million Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks dead. Nearly all were Christian. Among those who survived, many of the better educated left for the West. Others settled in Iraq and Syria, where they were protected by the military dictators who courted these often economically powerful minorities.

De islamiske hære ankom, skiftet fra kristendom skete gradvist og naturligt, kristne var beskyttet mod et vist kontingent (en lille del af folks motivation for det ‘naturlige’ skift), de muslimske fyrster var tolerante og religionerne trivedes side om side. Men så kommer nationalismen som følge af Osmannerrigets sammenbrud og begår folkemord. Det er ikke islam, det er end ikke ‘religion’! Alligevel sker folkemordet på kristne.

Det er djævlen i detaljen. Fortællingen er tilstrækkelig upræcist formuleret til ikke at være direkte løgn, men vildledende. Folkemordet på de kristne skete ikke som følge af Osmannerrigets sammenbrud, det startede med tiltagende pogromer i 1890′erne og blev færdiggjort i 1919, inden sammenbruddet. Og det var en erklæret jihad mod de vantro. Derfor fandt grusomhederne også en naturlig klangbund blandt almindelige muslimer, der tog ivrigt del i grusomhederne. Den dag i dag er kirkerne i Tyrkiet på vej mod udryddelse. Og regionens diktatorer, hvem var det nu de beskyttede de minoriteterne imod?

Så lad os vende tilbage til Rana og Diyaa og de andre kristne minoriteters historie om da nutidens islamiske hær ankom til den kristne by Qaraqosh, hvor de boede. Flygtninge fra Mosul fortalte de lokale at “The militants painted a red Arabic ‘‘n,’’ for Nasrane, a slur, on Christian homes”. Just ankommet kendte den islamiske hær ISIS ikke de kristne i Mosul - men det gjorde de kristnes muslimske naboer, klangbunden og de malede ‘n’ for nasrane på de kristnes hjem.

De kurdiske styrker, peshmerga, der havde været ene om at give ISIS modstand, trak sig fra området. Da kurderne havde afvæbnet de kristne og ISIS afskåret vandforsyningnen, flygtede de fleste af Qaraqosh indbyggere og efterlod kun de svageste, gamle og syge og en enkelt fulderik tilbage. Og så Diyaa, der nægtede Rana at flygte fordi han ikke mente ISIS vil ankomme.

As Diyaa and Rana hid in their basement, ISIS broke into stores and looted them. Over the next two weeks, militants rooted out most of the residents cowering in their homes, searching house to house. The armed men roamed Qaraqosh on foot and in pickups. They marked the walls of farms and businesses ‘‘Property of the Islamic State.’’ ISIS now held not just Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, but also Ramadi and Fallujah. (During the Iraq War, the fighting in these three places accounted for 30 percent of U.S. casualties.) In Qaraqosh, as in Mosul, ISIS offered residents a choice: They could either convert or pay the jizya, the head tax levied against all ‘‘People of the Book’’: Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews. If they refused, they would be killed, raped or enslaved, their wealth taken as spoils of war.

Således ser det ud når den islamiske hære ankom, skiftet fra kristendom sker gradvist forstået som et rykud, hvilket er naturligt omstændighederne taget i betragtning. Og de muslimske herrers tolerance var baseret på beskyttelsespenge. Således skal religionerne trives side om side, hvis altså ikke man foretrak at blive “dræbt, voldtaget eller gjort til slave”.

Men ISIS bløder op i dovenskab efter at rende og lede efter de sidste kristne og tilbyder “what they call ‘exile and hardship’”. Diyaa og Rana kommer frem fra deres skjul og melder sig til ISIS sundhedscenters ‘checkups’’, der er en slet skjult eufemisme for en visitering efter eventuelle værdier. Og, skal det hurtigt vise sig, så har mennesker også en særlig værdi i sig selv i det islamiske tankesæt

By 9 a.m., ISIS had separated men from women. Seated in the crowd, the local ISIS emir, Saeed Abbas, surveyed the female prisoners. His eyes lit on Aida Hana Noah, 43, who was holding her 3-year-old daughter, Christina. Noah said she felt his gaze and gripped Christina closer. For two weeks, she’d been at home with her daughter and her husband, Khadr Azzou Abada, 65. He was blind, and Aida decided that the journey north would be too hard for him. So she sent her 25-year-old son with her three other children, who ranged in age from 10 to 13, to safety. She thought Christina too young to be without her mother.

ISIS scanned the separate groups of men and women. ‘‘You’’ and ‘‘you,’’ they pointed. Some of the captives realized what ISIS was doing, survivors told me later, dividing the young and healthy from the older and weak. One, Talal Abdul Ghani, placed a final call to his family before the fighters confiscated his phone. He had been publicly whipped for refusing to convert to Islam, as his sisters, who fled from other towns, later recounted. ‘‘Let me talk to everybody,’’ he wept. ‘‘I don’t think they’re letting me go.’’ It was the last time they heard from him.

No one was sure where either bus was going. As the jihadists directed the weaker and older to the first of two buses, one 49-year-old woman, Sahar, protested that she’d been separated from her husband, Adel. Although he was 61, he was healthy and strong and had been held back. One fighter reassured her, saying, ‘‘These others will follow.’’ Sahar, Aida and her blind husband, Khadr, boarded the first bus. The driver, a man they didn’t know, walked down the aisle. Without a word, he took Christina from her mother’s arms. ‘‘Please, in the name of God, give her back,’’ Aida pleaded. The driver carried Christina into the medical center. Then he returned without the child. As the people in the bus prayed to leave town, Aida kept begging for Christina. Finally, the driver went inside again. He came back empty-handed.

(…)

As the bus rumbled north out of town, Aida sat crumpled in a seat next to her husband. Many of the 40-odd people on it began to weep. ‘‘We cried for Christina and ourselves,’’ Sahar said. The bus took a sharp right toward the Khazir River that marked an edge of the land ISIS had seized. Several minutes later, the driver stopped and ordered everyone off.

Led by a shepherd who had traveled this path with his flock, the sick and elderly descended and began to walk to the Khazir River. The journey took 12 hours.

The second bus — the one filled with the young and healthy — headed north, too. But instead of turning east, it turned west, toward Mosul. Among its captives was Diyaa. Rana wasn’t with him. She had been bundled into a third vehicle, a new four-wheel drive, along with an 18-year-old girl named Rita, who’d come to Qaraqosh to help her elderly father flee.

The women were driven to Mosul, where, the next day, Rana’s captor called her brothers. ‘‘If you come near her, I’ll blow the house up. I’m wearing a suicide vest,’’ he said. Then he passed the phone to Rana, who whispered, in Syriac, the story of what happened to her. Her brothers were afraid to ask any questions lest her answers make trouble for her. She said, ‘‘I’m taking care of a 3-year-old named Christina.’’

Trods disse utvetydige beskrivelser er Griswolds ellers glimrende artikel fuld af de standardbesværgelser der tynger de ledende medier. “No one has suffered more at the hands of ISIS than fellow Muslims”, hedder det pludselig, med henvisning til at flere muslimer end kristne dør af andre muslimer. Samme logik kunne man sige om tyskerne og jøderne under nazismen. Skønt interessant med Ellemannske observationer så er den relevante pointe at kristne næsten pr automatik dør i mødet med den ankomne muslimske hær, forrådt af sin muslimske nabo. Den kristne kan, som andre ikke-muslimske minoriteter, ikke komme uden om den direkte forfølgelse. Og den forfølgelse er islam.

Det sidste man hører om Rita er at hun “had been given as a slave to a powerful member of ISIS; Christina was given to a family to be raised as a Muslim”.

Nyt fra Mordor

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions.” skriver Seumas Milne for Guardian og konkluderer at stormagterne ikke kan nedkæmpe “Isis and its monstrosities” fordi det er “the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since”. Og han leverer et glimrende eksempel på de vestlige lederes fortvivlede ragen rundt i det muslimske ælte

On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition. That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much.

At sende de små fisk i fængsel for den linje politikerne selv har lagt kender vi godt herhjemme. Men Milnes observationer er glimrende, de vestlige ledere ved ikke hvem, der er ven eller fjende og jo mere de engagerer os i de muslimske morrads jo mere selvmodsigende og kontraproduktivt bliver det. Men jeg citerer ikke fra Guardians selvretfærdige klummeisters paranoia uden at komme med en bemærkning. Halvdelen af de 14 års krig mod terror, som Bush startede er blevet ført af Barak Hussein Obama, men han nævnes ikke med et ord. I stedet bruges variationer af ‘amerikanerne’. Og det til trods for at hvor Bush måske kunne være naiv i hvad USA kunne opnå af mirakler i barberernes verden, så agerer Obama på baggrund af allerede opnåede erfaringer. Det er ikke blot denne “rat line” af våben fra Libyen til Syrien, der er sket på Obamas vagt

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria. Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”. Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

Jack Kerwick konstaterer på Frontpage Magazine at på “Barack Hussein Obama’s watch, Islamic militancy has only increased in scope and intensity”. Daily Mail skriver at Tyrkiet er på randen af en borgerkrig efter voldsomme gadekampe er brudt ud mellem politi, PKK-aktivister og venstrefløjsgrupper. Men ikke nok med det, så er NATO-landet og EU-aspiranten også på vej ind i en direkte krig imod ISIS. Uzay Bulut skriver på Gatestone Institute

Turkey is evidently unsettled by the rapprochement the PKK seems to be establishing with the U.S. and Europe. Possibly alarmed by the PKK’s victories against ISIS, as well as its strengthening international standing, Ankara, in addition to targeting ISIS positions in Syria, has been bombing the PKK positions in the Qandil mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the PKK headquarters are located. As expected, many Turkish media outlets were more enthusiastic about the Turkish air force’s bombing the Kurdish militia than about bombing ISIS. “The camps of the PKK,” they excitedly reported, “have been covered with fire.” It appears as if Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is using ISIS as a pretext to attack the PKK. Ankara just announced that its air base at Incirlik will soon be open to coalition forces, presumably to fight ISIS, but the moment Turkey started bombing, it targeted Kurdish positions. Those attacks not only open a new era of death and destruction, but also bring an end to all possibilities of resolving Turkey’s Kurdish issue non-violently. (…) Sadly, Turkey has preferred not to form a “Turkish-Kurdish alliance” to destroy ISIS. First, Turkey has opened its borders to ISIS, enabling the growth of the terrorist group. And now, at the first opportunity, it is bombing the Kurds again. According to this strategy, “peace” will be possible only when Kurds submit to Turkish supremacism and abandon their goal of being an equal nation. In the meantime, Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkish minister of foreign affairs, said that the Incirlik air base in Turkey has not yet been opened for use by the U.S. and other coalition forces, but that it will be opened in the upcoming period.

Så Bush udløste kaoset, Obama enablede ISIS, mens folk som Uffe Ellemann Jensen presser på for at få Tyrkiet med i EU. Man siges at have de ledere man har fortjent. Hvad har vi dog gjort?

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

Atomaftalen med Iran er måske ikke en garanti for fred i vor tid, men måske i stedet “Fred i vor tid!”. I hvert fald ser den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry ud til at have fået betænkeligheder ved at Irans indgroede had til Den Store Satan USA, der skal DØ! sammen med Israel oma. ikke forsvundetReuters skriver

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

Mere hos Memri. Bruce Thorntorn i Frontpage Magazine at atomatalen med Iran er en katastrofe

We also know who bears the responsibility for this fiasco––Barack Obama. Historically ignorant and terminally narcissistic, Obama has all the superstitions and delusions of the progressive elite. And one of the most persistent and hoary of those beliefs is the fetish of diplomacy as a means to resolve disputes without force.

We must remember that Obama pointedly ran on the promise to “reinvigorate” American diplomacy. This trope was in fact a way to run against George Bush, whom the Dems and the media had caricatured as a “cowboy” with an itchy trigger finger, a gunslinger scornful of diplomacy and multilateralism. That charge was a lie––Bush wasted several months on diplomacy in an unsuccessful attempt to get the U.N.’s sanction for the war, even though the U.S. Congress had approved it, Hussein was in gross violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and the U.N. already has passed 17 Security Council resolutions, all of which Hussein had violated.

Yet the narrative that Bush had “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war,” as then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put it, lived on. For the progressives committed to crypto-pacifism and to the belief that America is a guilty aggressor, the story was too politically useful. Obama, one of the most programmatic progressives in the Senate, embodied all those superstitions. As senator he continually criticized the war in Iraq, scorned the ultimately successful “surge” of troops in 2007 as a “reckless escalation” and a “mistake,” and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008.

As a presidential candidate, his whole foreign policy was predicated on his being the “anti-Bush” who would “reinvigorate diplomacy” and initiate “engagement” with all our enemies in order to defuse conflict and create peace. As president, Obama has been true to his word. He has apologized, groveled, bowed to potentates, “reset” relations with our rivals, shaken hands with thugs, and now talked Iran into being a nuclear power. As for “peace,” it is nowhere to be found as violence and atrocities multiply from Ukraine to Yemen, Tunisia to Afghanistan.

(…)

The belief that words alone can transcend this eternal truth of human nature––a belief deeply engrained in the mentality of our leaders and foreign policy establishment–– led to the disaster of World War II, and will despite this lesson of history lead to a lesser, but still dangerous, disaster.

But there is yet another factor in this debacle that must be acknowledged: the tendency of democracies to privilege short-term comfort over long-term threats. In democracies the use of force must have the assent of the voters, who in the U.S. every 2 years hold leaders accountable at the ballot box. Setbacks, mistakes, atrocities, casualties, and all the other unfortunately eternal contingencies of mass violence try the patience of voters, and citizen control of the military gives them a means of expressing their impatience or anger. As de Tocqueville recognized more than 150 years ago, “The people are more apt to feel than to reason; and if their present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten.” That pretty much sums up America’s response so far to Obama’s agreement.

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

(…)

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

Men det går fra farce til skandale. Obama underløber kongressen for at få sin aftale istand

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

“The astonishing thing, which no one has pointed out”, skriver den ægyptiske Imad Al-Din Adib, der sammenligner Iran-aftalen med Chamberlains München-aftale “is that even if Iran complies to the letter with the 85 sections of the agreement, the agreement itself, once its 10-year duration is up, allows [Iran] to produce a nuclear bomb in the 11th year.”

Hvor tids jødehad

Så salonfähig er antisemitismen at BBC oversætter palæstinensisk jødehad til had mod Israel. Og hvad der ligger bag at direktøren for det Sergei Ustinov, grundlægger og direktør for Museet for jødisk historie i Rusland, er blevet skud i Moskva, hvor der bor 2 mill. muslimer, kan man indtil videre kun gisne om. Douglas Murray skrev i Gatestone Institute

In London, we have had Israeli orchestras, theatre companies and even string quartets howled down by mobs during performances, and Israeli-performed shows cancelled because the venues hosting them just do not want the bother. Last year, the Tricycle Theatre in London refused to proceed with a festival of “Jewish” culture because a tiny proportion of the festival’s funding was coming from the Israeli embassy in London.

The campaign is obviously organized. The same names crop up again and again. Little, if any, rigour is paid to whether the signatories of such letters even do what they say do, or have opinions worthy of any note. Beneath the barely-built veneer of “professionals objecting to something in their own profession,” is just the same tiny number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish obsessives. A sprinkling of “as a Jew” Jews, like Margolyes, help, of course. But the aim is clear. These people, step by step, want to make every expression of Israeli and Jewish cultural life subject to their idea of how a nation under constant threat of terrorist bombardment should behave. They denounce Israel as a militaristic society and then attempt to outlaw every non-militaristic cultural and artistic expression from that society.

It is the bigotry of our time. And if unchecked, it will lead in the same direction as it historically has done.

City Journal skriver om Tuvia Tenenboms bog Catch The Jew!, en satirisk udhængning af antisemistismen bag den vestlige palæstinenserindstri. Tennembom er tysk jøde, der optræder, som naiv tysk journalist i Gaza, Israel og Vestbredden får han en del sandheder at vide om de vestlige donorer og ngo’ers anti-israelske engagement

In his tour d’horizon of the Palestinian territories, Tenenbom uncovers the fact that there are almost 300 pro-Palestinian foreign NGOs working (that is, agitating) in the West Bank and another hundred in Gaza, most financed by German taxpayers. Moreover, aid to the Palestinians by the European Union and the United Nations is the highest, per capita, in the world. Which might explain why, as Tenenbom keeps noticing all over the West Bank, so many Palestinian officials and activists are driving Mercedes.

(…)

Relying on his unconventional journalistic techniques, Tenenbom elicits a string of unguarded comments from the activists who work so diligently to keep the narrative of Palestinian suffering in the news. He opens a unique window allowing us to see how the victims’ game works in Palestine. For example, the popular Palestinian leader Jibril Rajoub—with the help of willing European collaborators—succeeds in staging a series of morality plays that perpetuate the big lie about his people’s historical innocence and unique suffering. Rajoub lets Tobi the German in on one such full-scale operatic production in the West Bank village of Bi’lin. With compliant Western reporters told where and when to gather, Palestinian youths comes on stage and, on cue, begin stoning Israeli soldiers. The soldiers ignore the “youths,” but the stones get larger and they eventually respond. The self-righteous Western reporters now have their “story” of Israeli violence for the day. Moreover, the event is filmed for a documentary by an Israeli leftist financed by (what else?) a German NGO. Tenenbom knows something about theater, and his satirical account of this staged episode is as priceless as it is depressing.

Tenenbom’s method produces pure satiric gold, as when the wife of an American rabbi who heads a one-man organization called “Rabbis for Human Rights” (financed by a European NGO) can’t contain herself and admits to Tenenbom: “You can’t change him. Being a human rights activist in our time is to be a persona, not a philosophy; it’s a fad, it’s a fashion. A human rights activist does not look for facts or logic; it’s about a certain dress code, ‘cool’ clothing, about language, diction, expressions and certain manners. No facts will persuade him.”

Another highlight of the book is Tenenbom’s visit—arranged by a European NGO—to an inverted Potemkin village of Bedouin encampments in the Negev. In the original historical version of the Potemkin tall tale, the Russian Czar created a few model villages with false facades to convince Western visitors that all was well within the empire. In the twenty-first century version of the tale perfected by anti-Israel NGOs, the technique is to make Palestinian and Bedouin villages look as awful as possible on the outside even when they are relatively well off on the inside. After all, it can never be admitted that the Palestinian people, despite their suffering at the hands of the Jews, constitute the most prosperous Arab community (with the exception of the oil-rich Gulf monarchies) in the Middle East.

To Catch A Jew bliver næppe læst i den arabiske verden heller. Alene fordi arabere hader at læse.

ISIS er en islamisk bevægelse, derfor lader den sig ikke bekæmpe med fornægtelse og venstrehåndsbombninger

Daily Mail har en udmærket artikel om den enorme indsats imod Islamisk Stat der synes aldeles nytteløs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154680/The-astonishing-FIFTY-FOUR-countries-groups-battling-ISIS-haven-t-crushed-already.html#ixzz3fWyanjo9

An international coalition of over 30 countries and at least a dozen more rebel and terror factions have been unable to prevent the rapid growth of ISIS.

The terror group has expanded its territory, recruited ‘thousands’ of new foreign fighters and brought new jihadi organisations under its wing since an international ‘task force’ to ‘eliminate’ ISIS in October 2014.

At least 42 nations have either carried out airstrikes on ISIS, trained troops and Middle-Eastern tribesman to do battle against it or given weapons to those who are.

Meanwhile, at least a dozen rival Islamist groups are waging bloody war with ISIS on the ground - and for the hearts and minds of Muslims online.

Despite their collective hatred for the Islamic State, these disparate groups have failed to combat and destroy ISIS because their agendas conflict and they are not attacking the heart of the so-called caliphate, a counter-terrorism expert has told MailOnline.

ISIS commands 31,000 loyal fighters according to the United States - up from 16,000 last Autumn - while Kurdish forces put that number at closer to 200,000. And around eight million are thought to live under its barbaric rule.

This inspired more than 60 nations to commit to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS which was formed to ‘eliminate’ ISIS, even though some of these - including Austria, Sweden and Ireland - are simply providing humanitarian support to the millions made homeless by the insurgents.

As part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led coalition whose purpose is to eliminate ISIS, 13 different countries have executed airstrikes on Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

The United States and five of its Arab allies - Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - launched the intense campaign of airstrikes and cruise-missile attacks against ISIS in September 2014.

Since then, America has been responsible for around 60 per cent of the 16,000 bombings on Iraq and Syria carried out since.

Den irakiske hær har kæmpet med den siden 2006, dengang den kun var en Islamisk Stat Irak og Syrien begyndte i 2011. Mange muslimske lande kæmper internt med deres egne muslimske entusiaster, der begynder at sværge troskab til Islamisk Stat, blandt andet Boko Haram, der trodsede Michelle Obama og aldrig gav de kidnappede småpiger tilbage, har bragt flere afrikanske lande ind i kampen. Alligevel trives Kalifatet Islamisk Stat som aldrig før. Terroreksperten, som Daily Mail har talt med, mener at problemet er at alle, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat har forskellige interesser. Men det hjerte han mente skulle angribes defineres ikke.

Vi får dog at vide at en lokal terrorgruppe producerer sin egen propaganda, der skal imødegå Islamisk Stats “poisonous narrative” “and mistaken understanding of Islam“. Og den amerikanske præsident Barak Obama er helt enig i det synspunkt og “says no amount of firepower will bring down the terror group who prey on ‘vulnerable’ Muslims around the world, adding: ‘Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and compelling vision.’“. Man skulle tro at alle alternativer til Islamisk Stats svælgen i grusomheder var bedre ideer, at det IKKE at hugge hovedet at handlende der holder fredagsåbent klart var en bedre ide og en større vision end et gøre det. Men Islamisk Stats giftige narrativ, dårlige ideer, misforståeede islam og og uattraktive vision er åbenbart mere end almindeligt konkurencedygtigt og antallet af svage muslimer er svimlende og stigende.

Igår spekulerede jeg via kloge indlæg om Euroens og EUs krise kunne demaskere den herskende politiske klasses manglende realitetssans førend islams grusomheder blev ubenægtbare ud fra en Clintonsk ‘it’s the economyu, stupid’ tankegange. Douglas Murray forklarer i Gatestone Institute den stigende kløft mellem, det som politikere siger om ‘fredens religion og det som befolkningerne ved. For selvfølgelig kan man bekæmpe Islamisk Stat militært, skriver Murray i sit opgør med Obamas ide om attraktive ideer. Det var således man knuste nazismen. Islamisk stat kan ikke rekruttere nye krigere, hvis den knuses og den vil ikke virke attraktiv, hvis den får bøllebank og lider nederlag. Men der er noget andet om kalifatets ideer, som Obama og de andre vestlige ledere samt medierne vånder sig over at se i øjnene, nemlig at Islamisk Stat er islamisk, dens ideer er islamisk lære og det virker tiltrækkende på muslimer, der er opflasket med at islams ideer er de bedste uanset hvad virkeligheden ellers fortæller

While the Nazis tried to hide their worst crimes from the world, the followers of ISIS repeatedly record and distribute video footage of theirs. Between free and open democratic societies, and a society which beheads women for witchcraft, throws suspected gays off buildings, beheads other Muslims and Christians, burns people alive, and does us the favour of video-recording these atrocities and sending them round the globe for us, you would have thought that there would be no moral competition. But there is. And that is not because ISIS has “better ideas, a more attractive and more compelling vision,” but because its appeal comes from a specific ideological-religious worldview that we cannot hope to defeat if we refuse to understand it.

That is why David Cameron’s interjection was so important. The strategy Barack Obama and he seem to be hoping will work in persuading the general public that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the same tactic they are adopting in the hope of persuading young Muslims not to join ISIS. Their tactic is to try to deny something that Muslims and non-Muslims can easily see and find out for themselves: that ISIS has a lot to do with Islam — the worst possible version, obviously, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but a version of Islam nevertheless.

ISIS can destroy its own credibility among advocates of human rights and liberal democracy. The question is how you destroy its credibility among people who want to be very Islamic, and think ISIS is their way of being so. Understand their claims and their appeal, and work out a way to undermine those, and ISIS will prove defeatable not only on the battlefield but in the field of ideas as well. But refuse to acknowledge what drives them, or from where they claim to get their legitimacy, and the problem will only have just started.

Murray gør sig for mange håb om at islam kan reddes fra sig selv og det gør Jürgen Todenhoffer også i dette interview i BBCs Hardtalk. Men, hvis man kan abstrahere fra udtryk som “so-called Islamic State movement” og hæfte sig ved hans beskrivelse af den muslimske bevægelse for man et anderledes forstemmen realistisk billede af, hvorfor Obama har ret når han siger at vi kommer til at kæmpe med disse problemer i mange, mange år

The so-called Islamic State movement has very publicly murdered western journalists and aid workers who entered its territory. As a result, IS-held areas of Syria and Iraq have been off-limits to western reporters for the past year. Except for the guest today.

Last December Jürgen Todenhöfer spent ten days inside the self-styled IS caliphate. He emerged unscathed with a remarkable story - what more can he tell us about the jihadists and what can we conclude about his own motivations?

Racismens komplekse fortælling

Da en ung mand, Freddie Carlos Gray, mistede livet i Baltimore politis varetægt under besynderlige omstændigheder udbrød der uroligheder. Den unge mand var sort, vanekriminel ganske vist, men sort, eller i hvert fald mørk nok til at tælle med til de afroamerikanske, og mistanken om endnu en racistisk drab var derfor nok til en konklusion. Baltimore er styret af Demokraterne og har været det længe og har en sort borgmester. Politiet er 60% sort. Men da Trayvon Martin for et par år siden også blev dræbt af en hvid, eller snarere en latino og i selvforsvar, så var der et mønster.

Og dette mønster blev kun forstærket da den hvide betjent Darren Wilson dræbte den 130 kg lette teenager Michael Brown, der blidt havde skubbet den lokale asiatiske købmand omkuld og røvet en kasse cigarer. Ganske vist prøve Brown at overmande Wilson mens han truede med at slå ham ihjel, men da utroværdige vidner løj om at han havde hænderne oppe, afmægtigt appellerende “Hands up, don’t shoot!” så var det bedre en bevisets stilling. Alle løgne beviser den samme fortælling, at sorte ulykke intet har med deres adfærd at gøre, men er resultatet af et racistisk jerngreb som selv ikke Obama har kunnet hele.

“What’s weird is that it never happens to white kids” mente komikeren Chris Rock, skønt en hvid teenager var blevet skudt og dræbt at to sorte betjente nogenlunde samtidig med Freddie Gray. Michael Moore krævede på Twitter at “every African-American currently incarcerated for drug ‘crimes’ or nonviolent offenses released from prison today” og “Disarm the police. We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We’ll survive til the right cops r hired”. Højrefløjen bliver aldrig træt af at minde om, at en af Moores mange livvagter er blevet anholdt for ulovlig besiddelse af et skydevåben. Identiteten med at være undertrykt neger spredte sig til forskellige byer i USA og endda helt til Israel, hvor der opstod uroligheder i den venstredrejede(!) højborg Tel Aviv. Diversitet fører grundlæggende blot til øget segregering og mistro til naboer, samfund og myndigheder.

Thomas Sowell skriver i National Review

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less. You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.

Som ingen fakta tilsyneladende rokker ved følelsen af identitet, rokker ingen identitet ved fakta. Anklagemyndigheden endte med at rejse tiltale mod Den mordsigtede betjent er sort, som to af de tre sigtet for manddrab, som man kan læse på Daily Mail.

a-complex-tale-of-white-supremacy

Ja, det giver unægteligt racismefortælling et lag af kompleksitet

Negerderoute II

Den sorte familie i USA er gået i opløsning i takt med først stigende civile rettigheder og siden dyrkelsen af berettigelse skrev jeg tidligere. To sørgelige videoer til illustration. Først en teenager, der grinende tager selfies mens hans egen mor og kæreste slås

Dyrkelsen af berettigelse: Obama sendte en sørgedelegation til den kriminelle Freddie Greys begravelse, men ikke til krigshelten Kris Kyles. En kvinde mener ikke hun skal betale for en flaske vand fordi hendes slægtninge engang var slaver

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress