Do it by the book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

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

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

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

——————————-

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

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

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Post traumatisk negersyndrom

Eller slavesyndrom, men tanken er at hvide skal betale til negre selv om negre også holdt negre som slaver hjemme i Afrika. Og det er ikke noget at grine af: “We still feel that pain. We suffer discrimination, we suffer from racism…in every walk of life.” Jamen, så skal de da også ha’!

Faktisk var negre den foretrukne vare som negre i Afrika handlede i med og da europærerne kom til Afrika blev resultatet af dette kultursammenstød til en stor international eksportvare, hvad negrene i Afrika anså som ganske fair trade. Eller, der var allerede et arabisk marked før europærerne begyndte sine relationer til Afrika og det fortsatte efter europærerne havde fortrudt at lade sin økonomi basere sig på sort energi. I Frontpage Magazine kan man læse

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.”

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

Imens i Venezuela, prøver man nu om livegenskab kan redde den socialistiske drøm inden slaveriet bliver nødvendigt.

Mere blod på Obamas hænder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvide mænd teamer også op

Virkeligheden rykker ikke ved perceptionen. Ikke meget i hvert fald. Hvis du mener at mænd er nogle svin, så gider du ikke tale om specifikke kulturer, for du ser kun mænd. Derfor vil de store massesexovergrebssager i især store tyske byer Nytårsnat også være en yderligere bekræftelse på mænds adfærd. Tidlige viceformand for Dansk Kvindesamfund Ulla Thornemand leverede i den sammenhæng et af de allerførste feministiske relativeringer, da hun på Facebook skrev følgende opslag

Herhjemme kalder vi det drengestreger, når hvide unge drenge og fyre i flok, i folkeskolen og på andre uddannelsesinstitutioner, blufærdighedskrænker, sexchikanerer og sexforulemper piger.

Herhjemme kalder vi det kompliment, når unge, hvide fyre - både på enmandshånd og i flok - i nattelivet gramser, stikker hånden ned i trusserne og stikker en finger ind i fissen på og begår andre seksuelle overgreb på unge kvinder.

Herhjemme er det bare for sjov, når hvide mænd i flok råber efter en kvinde, at hende kunne de godt voldtage.

Herhjemme kalder vi det flirt, når hvide mænd på arbejdspladser sexchikanerer og forulemper kvindelige kolleger.

Herhjemme lyder der alt andet end ramaskrig når disse oplevelser fortælles. Faktisk sker det modsatte. Kvinderne, der modigt står frem og fortæller om de krænkelser og overgreb, de udsættes for, skammes ikke sjældent ud. Boys will be boys, I ved. White boys, tilsyneladende.

Den hvide mand har kronede dage og ve dig hvis, du er brun, for så får piben en anden lyd. Din tro, din kultur, dig, du er farlig for kvinder. Du forstår ikke spillereglerne, som den hvide mand gør. Den hvide mand som vi alle ved behandler kvinder med langt mere respekt. Som tager et nej for et nej. Som respekterer kropslig integritet. Hvis vold og seksuelle vold mod kvinder bunder i helt andre årsager.

Herhjemme har vi det godt.

Det der er foregået i Tyskland er fuldstændig grotesk, og de kvinder, som er blevet krænket og udsat for sexforbrydelser, har intet ansvar for det, uagtet hvad en borgmester og andre måtte mene.

Men at det nu fremstår som om den form for organiserede krænkelser er et nyt fænomen, i følge det tyske politi, er en sandhed med store modifikationer.

Tag hudfarven ud af ligningen, hør på de oplevelser, som kvinder i mange år har fortalt om af lignende karakter, og det fremstår tydeligt, at dette ‘fænomen’ hverken er nyt eller knyttet til en bestemt etnicitet eller kultur. Udtrykkene inden for fænomenet kan variere, men selve fænomenet er oldgammelt.

Link: http://www.dr.dk/…/video-evelin-blev-forulemplet-nytaarsaft…

Debatsporet der fulgte var sørgeligt. En anden og for mig helt ukendt variation fik 386 ‘like’s’

sanne-sc3b8ndergaard

Og også Rune Engelbrecht Larsen farede til Facebook, for at belære om sin uvidenhed

Et vanvittigt og uhyggeligt eksempel på seksuelle masseovergreb mod kvinder i Köln nytårsaften blev begået af afstumpede mænd af nordafrikansk afstamning. Desværre er det blot ét af utallige eksempler på, hvordan alt for mange mænd i alle farver og af alle nationaliteter stadig har absurd vanskeligt ved forstå og respektere kvindelig ligeværd og integritet. Hver femte kvinde på de amerikanske universiteter har været udsat for et seksuelt overfald. For eksempel. I det amerikanske militær er problemet ligeledes skræmende stort. For eksempel. I 2013 blev der rapporteret ca. 25.000 voldtægtssager i Indien. For eksempel. I Mexico eksploderer antallet af kvindekidnapninger, kvindemord og voldtægter og er blevet karakteriseret som en pandemi. Ifølge en Voxmeter-undersøgelse fra Amnesty International (marts 2015) mener hver syvende i Danmark, at en kvinde, der selv går hjem med en mand, har et medansvar, hvis hun bliver voldtaget. Hver syvende. For eksempel. Ca. 4.000 kvinder bliver voldtaget eller forsøgt voldtaget i Danmark hvert år, men kun 50 sager ender med en dom … Vi kan hurtigt blive enige om, at der er tankesæt og ideologier og kanoniske tekster, der er særligt kvindenedværdigende, men den udbredte kvindeforagt, som kommer til udtryk i seksuelle overgreb verden over, er ikke et kulturspecifikt eller etnisk betinget problem – det er desværre langt større end dét. Lad os møde alle overgreb mod kvinder med afstandtagen overalt.

Inde vi skal til satiren, så kan man studere de store tals lov

voldtc3a6gtskort

Da man kunne læse historien om endnu en muslimsk storfamiliens hærgen på et hospital  gav Journalisten Mads Brügger satiriske relativering

Det her minder mig desværre om de alle gange hvor jeg som hvid mand er teamet op med andre hvide mænd, og sammen har angrebet sygehuse i flok, helt vildt og vanvittigt, og stukket vores fingre op i røven på portører, og skræmt personalet fra vid og sans, og bagefter sagt til hinanden, at det hele bare var en god gang gazz. Det minder mig også om at sygehuse overalt i verden jo angribes af mænd i flok, fx i Indien og i Mexico, hvor det sker hele tiden, så i stedet for at tale om denne lille latterlige sag, skal vi så ikke bare være enige om at fordømme ALLE angreb på sygehuse, OVERALT i verden, hele tiden - men mest nok af alt de utroligt mange tilfælde hvor hvide mænd angriber sygehuse i flok. Så skal det nok gå væk af sig selv.

Bo Godwin Lidegaard

Det er ikke blot en bølge af migranter, der overvælder os i disse dage, det er også en bølge af idioti. Jeg tænker ikke så meget på migranternes genetiske gennemsnit eller deres indskrænkende religion, men på godhedens apostle. De forsøger ofte at gå tilbage i historien for at finde eksempler der kan understrege deres pointer. Men så forsludret deres argumenter er i nutiden så meget værre bliver de af at føres tilbage. Så meget at man øver vold på historien for at få et fernis af sammenhæng. Bo Lidegaard skrev således for et par uger siden i Politiken

Synet af store grupper af flygtninge på de europæiske landeveje vækker minder om en tid, som vi troede, vores kontinent havde lagt bag sig.

Uden at skulle gøre mig til dommer over historien, så er de store grupper af migranter på de europæiske motor- og landeveje ikke et europæisk fænomen, men et arabisk og afrikansk. Men det er i Godwin-overskriften det allerede går galt når Lidegaard skriver “Dengang tænkte vi ikke som Thulesen Dahl, men som Churchill og Eisenhower“. Dem kommer jeg tilbage til. Først Bo Lidegaard, der tror at andres bekymring er uden substans fordi Lidegaard har andre ønsker om samfundet (som i at jeg ikke forstår min kones frygt for at jeg vil foresage hendes død da jeg jo i givet fald kommer til at arve hendes formue)

Når de borgerlige forfalder til pessimisme, er det fordi, de ikke har forstået, at den store kamp ikke handler om nationalstaten, men om det samfund, vi har bygget i dens ramme. Sådan var det under Anden Verdenskrig – og sådan er det stadig.

Virkeligt? Nej! Og selv om det var giver dette udsagn overhovedet mening? Nej, hvis rammen ødelægges falder billedet ud. Samfundet er et resultat af nationen og nationen er dens forudsætning. Ellers ville Irak og Afghanistan være velfungerende samfund med alle de institutioner de fik forærende, men som de desværre for dem selv skulle forvalte og administrere med det næsten indlysende resultat der er tidens myrderier. Men Lidegaard vil drage den historiske parallel

Når Danmark kom så forholdsvis intakt gennem krig og besættelse, var det i høj grad, fordi politikerne havde indset, at landet ikke kunne forsvares ved grænsen, uanset hvor store ofre vi var rede til at bringe.

Det gav ingen mening at sende en generation af unge mænd ud i en udsigtsløs kamp mod Hitlers krigsmaskine, der lige havde nedkæmpet Polen.

Grunden til at grænsen ikke kunne forsvares mod Hitlers krigsmaskine var at Radikale Venstre og Socialdemokraterne, stik imod Churchills tanker, betragtede Hitler som en fremtidens mand, man hellere måtte tækkes (Lidegaards Politiken mente at Churchill var den farlige af de to) og derfor havde undermineret det danske forsvar til det parodiske. Hvis man derimod havde oprustet ville det være muligt at afskrække tyskerne fra at invadere Danmark, da det ville tage for lang tid at nedkæmpe det danske forsvar når det egentlig mål var at besætte Norge førend englænderne kunne nå at reagere.

Og er migranterne nu at sammenligne Hitlers krigsmaskine?

Og hvis der er så mange, at hverken Politi eller militæret kan holde dem ude ja tager de mennesker fejl, der skriver at problemet med migranterne er stærkt overdrevet.

Kampen skulle ikke føres på nazisternes præmisser, men på demokratiets, på samfundets. Der kunne vi kæmpe – og der havde vi en chance for at vinde.

Modstanden anså politikerne som kujoner. Men det var i høj grad det danske samfund, de kæmpede for, og blandt dens ledende skikkelser var efter krigen de varmeste fortalere for FN og Danmarks internationale engagement.

Det betød, at forsvaret af Danmark blev koncentreret om det menneskesyn, der lå til grund for folkestyret, om selve samfundets grundidé. Den var inkluderende og beskyttende over for alle, der var en del af samfundet, og som blev anset som landsmænd.

Er nazisterne stadig at sammenligne med migranterne i Lidegaards optik? Eller er det Thulesen Dahls præmisser, der er at sammenligne med nazisterne? Ingen ved det længere.

Men samarbejdet med nazisterne førte ikke til at de hverken forsvandt eller blev gode samfundsborgere? Faktisk eskalerede det danske folks konflikt med nazisterne som besættelsen trak. Ja, der forekom endda vold siges det. Og det var da også ved vold at nazisterne endelig trak sig ud, den vold de allierede var villige til at evnede at begå. Nej, Politiken har aldrig tænkt som hverken Churchill eller Eisenhower

Før krigen blev flygtninge fra Det Tredje Rige så vidt muligt holdt ude, hvad enten de var jøder eller andre forfulgte.

Begrundelserne var de samme, som også gentages i dag: Antallet forekom uoverskueligt, og alle mente, at alle andre burde gøre mere, mens vi selv allerede havde gjort mere end nok. Den holdning blev katastrofal for jøder og politisk aktive, der ikke kunne slippe ud fra Tyskland, fordi ingen ville tage imod dem.

Men var det resultatet af et rammehensyn (nationalstaten) eller et samfundshensyn? Lone Jenny Rünitz skriver i Folkedrab.dk (http://folkedrab.dk/sw64290.asp) “For at få tilladelse til at rejse ind i Danmark blev det krævet, at flygtningen havde en meget nær familiemæssig tilknytning” og “Det var desuden en betingelse, at den herboende familie kunne stille store økonomiske garantier”. Hvis tilknytningskravet er rammen så følger vel at de økonomiske garantier er samfundet?

Og var politikerne, dem som Lidegaard nu kalder ‘myndighederne’, for at slette forbindelsen, ikke indsigtsfulde i deres samarbejde med Tyskland? Var det netop ikke indsigten at man ikke kunne kæmpe på nazisternes præmisser, ved vold og trods, der lå bag frygten for at vække deres vrede, selve fundamentet for
Samarbejdspolitikken? Der sendte man jo ikke bare flygtninge tilbage med udsendte danske statsborgere til slavearbejde for den Hitlers krigsmaskine som man havde føjet.

Tilbage til overskriften hvor Lidegaard kaster sig op til dommer over, hvorledes Churchill og Eisenhower tænkte. Og han fejler. For en del år siden kunne man på Guardian læse (ja, det kan man for så vidt stadig) følgende om Winston Churchills syn på darkies kompabilitet med civilisationen

Sir Winston Churchill expressed alarm about an influx of ‘coloured people’ in Fifties’ Britain and looked for a chance to restore punishment by flogging, newly released cabinet papers from the national archive reveal.

On 3 February 1954, under the agenda item ‘Coloured Workers’, Churchill is quoted, with abbreviations, by Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook as saying:‘Problems wh. will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.’

Then David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of immigration control. He said: ‘There is a case on merits for excludg. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long trad[ition] tht. B[ritish] S[ubjects] have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We shd. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.’

He added: ‘The col[onial]. pop[ulations] are resented in L[iverpool], Paddington & other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don’t are apt to take a more Liberal view.’

Churchill intervened: ‘Ques. is wtr it is politically wise to allow public feeling to develop a little more before takg. action.’

Adding that it would be ‘fatal’ to let the situation develop too far, the Prime Minister is recorded as concluding: ‘Wd lke also to study possibility of “quota” - no. not to be exceeded.’

Manden der stoppede Hitler var altså modstander af indvandring af primitive folkeslag af de selv samme grunde som Thulesen Dahl. Et parallelt forhold der også gør sig gældende for Eisenhower. Han var manden bag Operation Wetback, der skulle stoppe og vende den illegale trafik af mexi’ere til USA. Christian Science Monitor mindes the good old days, hvor den politiske elite rent faktisk kerede sig om det land og det folk, hvis interesser de var valgt til at varetage

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”

(…)

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Men kan vi så slet ikke lære noget af historien om de jødiske flygtninge til Danmark? Jo, som Lone Rünitz skriver anklagende: “Den danske landegrænse var kort og velbevogtet. Derfor kom der forholdsvis få flygtninge illegalt ind i landet”.

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?

Ungarn kaster lænkerne

Ungarn er first movers skriver Berlingske Tidende

Ungarn har suspenderet EUs asylregel, der forpligter det land i EU, hvor en asylsøger først har sat sine fødder, til at behandle personens anmodning om asyl.

Det oplyser den ungarske regering ifølge nyhedsbureauet Reuters.

»Ungarns asylssystem er det mest overbebyrdede blandt EUs medlemslande,« siger en regeringstalsmand ifølge Reuters om baggrunden for beslutningen.

Suspenderingen af den såkaldte Dublin-forordning betyder, at Ungarn nægter at tage mod asylsøgere, som sendes tilbage til Ungarn fra andre lande i EU.

Tidligere har de gjort sig bemærket på EUs kontorer ved at rejse et sikkerhedshegn ved deres serbiske grænse. Fra den modsatte side af spektret, stemning fra Calais

Kill The Christians

BBC dokumentar om muslimernes folkemord på kristne

Overbefolkning?

Afrika, Akademia, Demografi, Diverse, Kristendom, Muslimer, islam — Drokles on April 9, 2015 at 7:45 pm

The Guardian har en meget smuk og foruroligende billedserie om overbefolkning

2a5e2f23-aa20-4cc3-81bf-77fe701ff8cf-2060x1236

En chef for FNs Klima halløj vil reducere antallet af mennesker. Og det er der god grund til, som David Attenborough argumenterer for. Presset på ressourcerne og naturen er nemlig ubønhørligt og snart vil vores plastikindpakkede verden ikke kunne skjule affaldet og vores børn kommer til at slås om de sidste rester af den udpinte jord. Eller gør de? Danmark er et meget tæt befolket land, hvilket tilsiger en anden indvandringspolitik end den man er slået ind på fra 1983. Alligevel er her god plads og grundlæggende rent og herligt. Trods vores placering højt mod nord producerer vi et overskud af fødevarer.

Den svenske professor, læge og statistiker Hans Rosling har et anderledes optimistisk syn på befolkningstilvæksten.

Hvad malthusiske Attenborough ikke forstår er at mennesket har evnen til at tilpasse ikke bare sig selv til sine omgivelser, men sine omgivelser til sig selv. Vand er ikke en begrænset ressource, men et kredsløb. Men skønt der ikke bliver for mange mennesker på Jorden, så bliver der alligevel for mange mennesker nogle steder. Men ikke bare det. Der bliver for mange af visse mennesker Pew Research Center:

Shifts in the world’s major religions will see Islam growing faster than any other faith, with the number of Muslims nearly equaling that of Christians by 2050.

A new Pew Research Center study finds that with the exception of Buddhists, the world’s major religions will all see an increase in numbers by 2050, although some will make up a smaller percentage from today. Muslims are the only major religious group projected to increase faster than the world’s population as a whole… If current trends continue, Muslims will outnumber Christians worldwide around 2070.

muslims2050_3258633b

Billedet ovenfor er fra Telegraph og viser den muslimske befolkningskoncentration fremskrevet til 2050. Som min ven konstaterede, så bliver der flere barbarer. Og det er sandt. Hvide vil udgøre 10% af fremtidens befolkning.

Mindre vold på grund af Oplysningen?

Lingvisten Steven Pinker har haft stor succes med at minde os om, hvor heldige vi er i forhold til generationerne før os. Trods indtrykket man kunne få fra nyhedsstrømmen bevæger historien sig stadigt længere væk fra vold. I 2012 kunne man læse et interview med Pinker i Reason

Just a couple of centuries ago, violence was pervasive. Slavery was widespread, wife and child beating were acceptable practices, heretics and witches were burned at the stake, pogroms and race riots were common, and warfare was nearly constant. Public hangings, bearbaiting, and even cat burning were popular forms of entertainment. By examining collections of ancient skeletons and scrutinizing contemporary tribal societies, anthropologists have found that people were nine times as likely to die violent deaths in the prehistoric period than in modern times, even allowing for the world wars and genocides of the 20th century. Europe’s murder rate was 30 times higher in the Middle Ages than it is today.

What happened? Human nature did not change, but our institutions did, encouraging people to restrain their natural tendencies toward violence. In more than 800 pages of data and analysis, Pinker identifies a series of institutional changes that have led to decreasing levels of life-threatening violence. The rise of states 5,000 years ago dramatically reduced tribal conflict. In recent centuries, the spread of courtly manners, literacy, commerce, and democracy have reduced violence even more. Polite behavior requires self-restraint, literacy encourages empathy, commerce changes zero-sum encounters into mutually beneficial exchanges, and democracy restrains the excesses of government.

Nogen mener endda at kunne bekræfte Pinkers teorier matematisk. John Gray er ikke sikker i på at det forholder sig så ligefremt med volden, som Pinker hævder. I Guardian peger han på flere forskellige faktorer, der også har indflydelse på nedgangen af vold, som eksempelvis kernevåben. De holder stormagterne i skak, mener han, og reducerer deres konfrontationer til proxy-krige. Derudover sætter han også spørgsmålstegn ved opgørelsen af ofre for konflikt kun skal tælles på slagmarken. Der var flere civile ofre under 2 Verdenkrig end Napoleonskrigene eksempelvis. Og hvor mange år af sit liv skal man miste førend man tæller med som offer (cancertilfælde efter Hiroshima osv).

Og så er der spørgsmålet om, hvad vold er. Korporlighed er helt klart trængt i baggrunden, men volden kan tage andre former. Var 1700 tallets gabestok værre end nutidens isolationsfængsel? Krige har ændret væsen og vi har ændret vores syn på vold. Men det betyder ikke nødvendigvis at vi er stoppet med at udøve vold, vi konfronteres blot sjældnere vores ofre. Modus operandi til side, så er Obamas droner og Kalifatets halshugninger krigsførelse, men blodet på hænderne er kun konkret i det sidste tilfælde. Alt sammen interessante akademiske indvendinger og nuanceringer, som jeg kun kan anbefale at man læser.

Men jeg vil hæfte mig ved den åndelige side af Pinkers teori, ideen om Oplysningens saliggørende effekter, thi disse antager løgnagtige former. Gray forklarer at arven fra Oplysningstiden ikke er et tag-selv bord af gode intentioner humanistiske idealer. Oplysningstiden satte mennesket i centrum, med alle dets implikationer til følge

Among the causes of the outbreak of altruism, Pinker and Singer attach particular importance to the ascendancy of Enlightenment thinking. Reviewing Pinker, Singer writes: “During the Enlightenment, in 17th- and 18th-century Europe and countries under European influence, an important change occurred. People began to look askance at forms of violence that had previously been taken for granted: slavery, torture, despotism, duelling and extreme forms of punishment … Pinker refers to this as ‘the humanitarian revolution’.” Here too Pinker and Singer belong in a contemporary orthodoxy. With other beliefs crumbling, many seek to return to what they piously describe as “Enlightenment values”. But these values were not as unambiguously benign as is nowadays commonly supposed. John Locke denied America’s indigenous peoples any legal claim to the country’s “wild woods and uncultivated wastes”; Voltaire promoted the “pre-Adamite” theory of human development according to which Jews were remnants of an earlier and inferior humanoid species; Kant maintained that Africans were innately inclined to the practice of slavery; the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham developed the project of an ideal penitentiary, the Panopticon, where inmates would be kept in solitary confinement under constant surveillance. None of these views is discussed by Singer or Pinker. More generally, there is no mention of the powerful illiberal current in Enlightenment thinking, expressed in the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks, which advocated and practised methodical violence as a means of improving society.

Like many others today, Pinker’s response when confronted with such evidence is to define the dark side of the Enlightenment out of existence. How could a philosophy of reason and toleration be implicated in mass murder? The cause can only be the sinister influence of counter-Enlightenment ideas. Discussing the “Hemoclysm” – the tide of 20th-century mass murder in which he includes the Holocaust – Pinker writes: “There was a common denominator of counter-Enlightenment utopianism behind the ideologies of nazism and communism.” You would never know, from reading Pinker, that Nazi “scientific racism” was based in theories whose intellectual pedigree goes back to Enlightenment thinkers such as the prominent Victorian psychologist and eugenicist Francis Galton. Such links between Enlightenment thinking and 20th-century barbarism are, for Pinker, merely aberrations, distortions of a pristine teaching that is innocent of any crime: the atrocities that have been carried out in its name come from misinterpreting the true gospel, or its corruption by alien influences. The childish simplicity of this way of thinking is reminiscent of Christians who ask how a religion of love could possibly be involved in the Inquisition. In each case it is pointless to argue the point, since what is at stake is an article of faith.

There is nothing new in the suggestion that war is disappearing along with the “civilising process”. The notion that the human capacity for empathy is expanding alongside an increase of rationality owes its wide influence to Auguste Comte, an almost forgotten early-19th-century French Enlightenment thinker. Comte founded the “religion of humanity”, a secular creed based on the most advanced “science” of the day – phrenology. While Pinker and Singer don’t discuss Comte, his ideas shape their way of thinking. For one thing, Comte coined the term “altruism”. Like Pinker and Singer, he believed that humankind – or at any rate its most highly developed portions – was becoming more selfless and beneficent. But he was also a sharp critic of liberalism who believed the process would end in an “organic” way of life – a “scientific” version of the medieval social order that, despite his hostility to traditional religion, he much admired. It was Comte’s virulent anti-liberalism that worried John Stuart Mill, another Enlightenment thinker who was in many other ways Comte’s disciple. Mill went so far as to suggest that the propagation of the species would in future become a duty to humanity rather than a selfish pleasure; but he feared that a world in which this was the case would be one without liberty or individuality. Mill need not have worried. Human beings continue to be capable of empathy, but there is no reason for thinking they are becoming any more altruistic or more peaceful.

It may be true that the modern state’s monopoly of force has led, in some contexts, to declining rates of violent death. But it is also true that the power of the modern state has been used for purposes of mass killing, and one should not pass too quickly over victims of state terror. With increasing historical knowledge it has become clear that the “Holocaust-by-bullets” – the mass shootings of Jews, mostly in the Soviet Union, during the second world war – was perpetrated on an even larger scale than previously realised. Soviet agricultural collectivisation incurred millions of foreseeable deaths, mainly as a result of starvation, with deportation to uninhabitable regions, life-threatening conditions in the Gulag and military-style operations against recalcitrant villages also playing an important role. Peacetime deaths due to internal repression under the Mao regime have been estimated to be around 70 million. Along with fatalities caused by state terror were unnumbered millions whose lives were irreparably broken and shortened. How these casualties fit into the scheme of declining violence is unclear. Pinker goes so far as to suggest that the 20th-century Hemoclysm might have been a gigantic statistical fluke, and cautions that any history of the last century that represents it as having been especially violent may be “apt to exaggerate the narrative coherence of this history” (the italics are Pinker’s). However, there is an equal or greater risk in abandoning a coherent and truthful narrative of the violence of the last century for the sake of a spurious quantitative precision.

I The Week tilslutter Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry sig stort set John Grays indvendinger og mener at det egentlige skifte er at vi er blevet mere sarte eller sippede når vi konfronteres med vold og andres ubehag. Og at vi derfor her fjernet os fra realiteternes verden (også ifølge Sean Penn). Vi konfronteres nødigt med processen bag vores vacuum pakkede kød for at tage et dagligt eksempel. Hitlers og Stalins grusomheder blev begået i fjerntliggende lejre og endda benægtet osv. Men Gobrys pointe er at hvis der overhovedet er tale om en nedgang i vold “it is due to Christianity”

By now, mainstream historians are slowly waking up to the realization that almost everything we like about the Enlightenment, from the rule of law to the scientific method to capitalism, had its roots in the extraordinary civilization of the Middle Ages.

Why is it that we modern persons are so much more squeamish, so much more likely to be stirred by the idea of harm?

One answer might be that our civilization had, for a millennium, at the center of its moral imagination, the battered and broken figure of a slave hanging from a gibbet, condemned to die by all rightful authorities and abandoned by his friends.

And it is worth noting that the increase in squeamishness in the West dates back from the takeover of the Roman Empire by Christianity.

A key indicator of cultural squeamishness is how a society treats children. As the historian O.M. Bakke shows in the tellingly-named book How Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity, Pagan society considered children as little more than objects, with consequences of — to us post-Christians — astonishing cruelty. The practice of abandoning newborns was widespread and not frowned upon. While most abandoned infants died, those who did not were typically “rescued” into child sex slavery, which was a legal and thriving industry. The sources report that sex with castrated boys, in particular, was considered very titillating, and there are reports of babies castrated to serve that purpose. These were all practices that Christians famously condemned, and Bakke nicely traces how phrases by Jesus holding children up as examples and insisting on care for the “least of these” caused emerging civilization, for the first time in the history of the West, to regard children as full human beings endowed with rights.

Another good indicator of squeamishness is the treatment of slaves. While only by the High Middle Ages was slavery over in the West — the first time in all of human history that a culture had abolished slavery — as soon as Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire rafts of unprecedented laws were passed to reform the institution of slavery, typically “squeamish” laws such as banning sexual relations between slaves and masters, making it illegal to break up slave families, banning the branding of slaves (first on the face, and later anywhere). The first condemnation of slavery as an institution in all of recorded history was made by the Catholic bishop and Church Father Gregory of Nyssa, in strikingly “squeamish” terms, exhorting his congregation to see in their slaves the same image of God that dwells in them, and to free them.

Because human hearts are so hard and crooked, this rise in squeamishness was infuriatingly slow and incomplete (and still is), but if there is one starting point one could name, it would be the rise of Christianity. If the Enlightenment did anything, it was only to accelerate a process that had been ongoing for centuries.

3. The modern age doesn’t look so hot when you count abortion.

Abortion is a typical “squeamish” issue, where mere squeamishness leads us astray. It’s harder to get squeamish about a “clump of cells” than a live baby, even though there is no conceptual difference between the two. When it comes to disabled children in the womb, we all too often get squeamish in exactly the wrong way: we get squeamish about the pain they will endure, instead of getting squeamish about the idea of snuffing out innocent life. “Care/harm” makes us empathize more with those we recognize as our alter egos, but make us empathize less about those we do not include in our circle of fellowship.

According to the U.S. Abortion Clock there have been 55 million abortions in the United States since abortion was legalized in the U.S., and more than one billion abortions worldwide since 1980. One billion. If abortions are counted as homicides then the modern age sure doesn’t look so hot.

4. The dark side of the Enlightenment.

The one true sleight-of-hand practiced by Steven Pinker in his account of the decline of violence (which, as I have said, has a lot of truth) is that he tries to erase the inherently modern phenomenon of totalitarianism from the legacy of the Enlightenment, so that they don’t get put on the Enlightenment’s balance sheet.

But totalitarianism is an inherently modern phenomenon that would have been impossible without the Enlightenment. Late 18th century French society got squeamish about the public torture of Jean-François Damiens — and just a few decades later, they used the hygienic innovation of the guillotine to murder people in the name of Enlightenment values on a scale that would have been unthinkable in the Ancien Régime. Communism was inherently a modern phenomenon: atheistic, pseudo-scientific, and pseudo-rationalistic, driven by a post-Christian and “squeamish” concern for the fates of the working poor, universal in scope and ambition. And while Nazism got mileage out of reactionary rhetoric, it is also inseparable from roots in the movements of “scientific racism” and eugenics which argued for treating human genetics as a kind of technology and fixing it (with the power of the state if need be).

I make this point because I am a person who believes the Enlightenment is a very good thing, but that it also has its dark side. The modern age included a laudable squeamishness against tyranny, but it also included a nice dose of utopian hubris, and the special horrors of the modern age are incomprehensible without this Enlightenment idea. The Enlightenment is a glorious thing, but it is also a dangerous thing — it must always be rescued from itself. The first way to do it is to refuse to whitewash its true legacy.

Som en lille eftertanke vil jeg også nævne Quodlibetas Humphreys kritik af Pinkers oppustning af middelalderlige mordstatistikker, for at hamre hans pointe hjem i Oplysningens navn (en god ven indskød at der qua gennemsnitslevetidens stigning er flere ældre mennesker i dag og altså gennemsnitligt færre unge brushoveder til at begå vold). Ikke så meget for at hakke på Pinkers arbejde, men på grund af følgende anekdote

In 1355 in what became known as the ‘St Scholastic’s Day riot’ an argument in a tavern became a pub brawl which went on for the next 3 days. It began when a group of students at an inn near Carfax disapproved of the wine they were served. The inn-keeper having given them ‘stubborn and saucy language’ the clerks ‘threw the wine and vessel at his head’. The townspeople then seized the opportunity to arm themselves with bows and arrows and attack scholars. Gangs of academics and citizens clashed in the streets and academic halls were burned. Six students and scholars were killed.

st_scholastica

Dengang fandt folket sig ikke så let i elitens svigt.

Death Boats to Greece: Europe Or Die (Episode 2/4)

Fra Youtube omtalen

Since 2000, more than 27,000 migrants and refugees have died attempting the perilous journey to Europe. With an unprecedented number of people breaking through its heavily barricaded borders in 2014, the EU continues to fortify its frontiers.

VICE News presents Europe or Die, a new four-part series that documents the efforts of those risking their lives to reach Europe, and the forces tasked to keep them out.

In episode two of our series, VICE News correspondent Milène Larsson travels to the border between Greece and Turkey, where Syrian and Afghan refugees are paying large sums of money to take “death boats” to Greece.

In part two of our second episode, VICE News correspondent Milène Larsson continues her visit to the border between Greece and Turkey to find out what happens to the many migrants who perish while attempting to cross Greece’s dangerous Evros river.

Storming Spain’s Razor-Wire Fence: Europe Or Die

Eller snarere Europe and the death of Europe. Der løbes storm på Europas grænser, men det er kun begyndelsen. Først et lille stemningsbillede fra 11/2 2014 leveret af BT

Mens der i 2013 blev født det færreste antal danske børn i 27 år, slog indvandringen af udlændinge rekord. I alt kom 56.276 udenlandske statsborgere til Danmark i fjor, og det tal overstiger antallet af par, der blev forældre. 55.873 spædbørn kom nemlig til verden i 2013.

Det viser tal fra Danmarks Statistik, og det er første gang, at indvandringen af udlændinge topper fødselstallet.

Indvandringen af udenlandske statsborgere er den største til landet nogensinde på ét år, og i forhold til 2008, hvor det hidtil højeste antal udlændinge flyttede til Danmark, er der sket en stigning på 12 procent.

Fra Youtube

Since 2000, more than 27,000 migrants and refugees have died attempting the perilous journey to Europe. With an unprecedented number of people breaking through its heavily barricaded borders in 2014, the EU continues to fortify its frontiers.

VICE News presents Europe or Die, a new four-part series that documents the efforts of those risking their lives to reach Europe, and the forces tasked to keep them out.

In episode one of our series, VICE News correspondent Milène Larsson travels to the border between Morocco and Spain, where West Africans in their thousands storm the razor-wire-clad fences. Many are beaten back by border police or illegally returned.

Watch “The Human Cost of War in the Central African Republic” - http://bit.ly/15xC4L2

Read “Guards Break Barricades and Jail Dozens as Refugees Continue Mass Hunger Strike Against Australia” - http://bit.ly/1Jq1f1b

Read “Asylum Seekers in Australia Could Soon Be Headed to Cambodia” - http://bit.ly/15mghWm

Patstrygning

Afrika, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur — Drokles on December 22, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Vesten er et lys i mørket. The Express skriver om et eksotisk indslag i det mulitietniske

SCHOOLS have been put on alert over a sickening form of abuse known as breast ironing in which girls as young as 10 have their chests pounded with hot objects to disguise the onset of puberty.

The mutilation, a traditional practice in the west African republic of Cameroon, aims to deter unwanted male attention, pregnancy and rape by delaying the signs that a girl is becoming a woman.

Experts believe the custom is being practised among the several thousand Cameroonians living in Britain. Schools are training staff to look out for signs of the barbaric practice. The move follows heightened awareness of female genital mutilation.

Campaigners want to see the same prominence given to other forms of cultural abuse, such as breast ironing. Margaret Nyuydzewira, co-founder of the charity CAME Women’s And Girl’s Development Organisation, says authorities need to take action faster than they have on stopping FGM in the UK.

Monokultur kører på WordPress