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.

Brexit er et generationstyveri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-07-01-kl-112356

EU er det nye sort.

Fri Debat uden ideologisk dagsorden

dsc02726

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artikel skrevet for Document.dk

Virkeligheden mod institutionerne

“Verden er efterhånden ved at vågne op til klimaforandringernes dilemma, og det er ikke et øjeblik for tidligt” skriver Duncan Clark i Information. Amerikanerne er i så fald ikke en del af den verden ifølge PEW

pew-bekymring-over-global-opvarmning

Og det er til trods for at ingen miljøsag har fået så megen promovering, som klimaet. Hysteriet toppede omkring 2006, hvor Al Gore fik en Nobel pris for filmen En Ubekvem Sandhed. I 2009 lækkede nogen interne emails fra en gruppe centrale klimaforskere tilknyttet East Anglia Universitetet i England. Angiveligt var det medvirkende til at man ikke opnåede enighed ved klimakonferencen i København nogle uger senere. Ifølge Watt’s Up With That har lande som Kina, Indien, Canada, Australien og Rusland endnu ikke besluttet sig for om de gider deltage i klimakonferencen i Paris til december i år.

Ifølge satellit målingerne er atmosfærens temperatur ikke steget de seneste 18 år. Den udvikling, sammen med andre historier som diskrepansen mellem modller og virkelighed, har man først for nyligt indrømmet og da kun med en lang række forbehold. Klimaet ser bare ikke ud til at være så påvirkeligt, eller følsomt, som det hedder indenfor den videnskabelige disciplin, som forskerne selv. Greg Jones skriver i Climate Change Dispatch at de træge modvillige indrømmelser fra klimahysteriets konsensus følger Kübler-Ross modellen for en psykologi konfronteret med det uafvendelige.

Now, after a roller coaster of emotions and barrage of media tantrums, it seems the issue is settled, sort of. In a recent paper in the journal Science, a team of researchers actually acknowledges the pause and attempts to explain it.

(…)

“The Pause in Global Warming is Finally Explained,” Scientific Americanassures us; “The global warming slowdown is real—but that’s no reason to question climate science,” sneers the Washington Post; “Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us,” proclaims a recent headline on Quartz.com.

As is often the case with predicting the climate, however, the certainty proclaimed in the headlines is anything but certain. This isn’t the first time researchers have attempted to explain what they have previously denied. To date, there are more than 52 scientific theories attempting to solve the pause that doesn’t exist, from a lazy sun to trade winds to the wrong types of El Niño’s. But for some reason Mann’s explanation is the one; 53 is apparently the magic number.

(…)

Mann’s paper encapsulates perfectly the issue between skeptics of climate change and the hard-core believers: something in the models is always missing that is later found. What was wrong last time has been corrected, even though last time nothing was wrong. The same models that are considered gospel always come up short, only to be revised as gospel yet again.

Everyone understands that climate change research is tricky; countless variables constantly interacting with one another at ever-changing time and distance scales. And studying the Earth’s climate is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. But there is nothing scientific about denying actual, physical data, in this case the global average temperature over two decades. And nothing is academic or open-minded about demonizing an entire portion of the population pointing out the obvious by labeling them “deniers” as if they doubt the Holocaust.

(…)

Don’t expect full acceptance anytime soon, however. In fact, a recent Nature paper defends the accuracy of the very models that failed to predict the very pause that didn’t exist that now does exist but only because the models were wrong. No, this is not a Zen koan: it’s modern climate science.

Klimahistorien har haft det svært, men trods dens lunkne opbakning er den stadig hos os. Måske fordi de n er blevet to big to fail, spekulerer Paul Driesen ligeledes i Climate Change Dispatch

Lockheed Martin, a recent Washington Post article notes, is getting into renewable energy, nuclear fusion, “sustainability” and even fish farming projects, to augment its reduced defense profits. The company plans to forge new ties with Defense Department and other Obama initiatives, based on a shared belief in manmade climate change as a critical security and planetary threat. It is charging ahead where other defense contractors have failed, confident that its expertise, lobbying skills and “socially responsible” commitment to preventing climate chaos will land it plentiful contracts and subsidies.

As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians. The Lockheed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.

The multi-billion-dollar agenda reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to using climate change to radically transform America. It reflects a determination to make the climate crisis industry so enormous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as computer models and disaster claims become less and less credible – and even if Republicans control Congress and the White House after 2016. Lockheed is merely the latest in a long list of regulators, researchers, universities, businesses, manufacturers, pressure groups, journalists and politicians with such strong monetary, reputational and authority interests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail.

Above all, it reflects a conviction that alarmists have a right to control our energy use, lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no transparency and no accountability for mistakes they make or damage they inflict on disfavored industries and families.

Selv om temperaturen holder ‘pause’ fortsætter debatten. Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post at den russiske forsker Habibullo Abdussamatov

His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age, to be precise. Abdussamatov has been quite confident of his findings for what might strike some as odd reasons: His science is based on that of the giants in the field — astronomers like Milutin Milankovitch, who a century ago described how tilts in its axis and other changes in the Earth’s movements determine its climate, and William Herschel, who two centuries ago noticed an inverse correlation between wheat prices on Earth and the number of sunspots generated by the Sun’s cycles. (Hint: the more energy from the Sun that Earth gets, the more warmth Earth receives, the more abundant the wheat crops, the lower the price of wheat; the less energy from the Sun, the less warmth, the more wheat crop failures, the higher the wheat price.)

Greenhouse gases — CO2 and water vapour — play a role in this drama but the gases come not from SUVs and other man-made activities but from the oceans, which contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. As the oceans warm or cool because of the Sun, they release or absorb these gases, whose greenhouse effect is secondary and relatively minor.

Abdussamatov’s model incorporates the Sun’s 200-year cycles and the feedback effects from greenhouse gases released by the oceans, and sees how they acted on Earth’s previous 18 Little Ice Ages. “All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.”

If the 19th Little Ice Age follows the pattern of the previous 18, Earth slipped into an ice age in the winter just concluded and will become progressively colder over the next 50 years, reaching its depth around 2060. Another half century, taking us to the 22nd century, and we’ll arrive back at today’s temperatures.

Mens Joe Romn i Think Progress betror os at pausen er slut

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

In March, NOAA announced the arrival of an El Niño, a multi-month weather pattern “characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.”

How much of a temperature jump should we expect? Last month, Trenberth explained to Living on Earth:

I interviewed Trenberth this week, and he told me that he thinks “a jump is imminent.” When I asked whether he considers that “likely,” he answered, “I am going to say yes. Somewhat cautiously because this is sticking my neck out.”

Trenberth explained that it’s significant the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) “seems to have gone strongly positive” because that is “perhaps the best single indicator to me that a jump is imminent.” During a PDO, he explains, “the distribution of heat in the oceans changes along with some ocean currents.”

“Through it all, Gallup will be describing the public’s opinion of global warming.” slutter Lawrence sit indlæg.

Den muslimske invasion af Indien

Tarek Fatah henviser til dette uddrag fra den yderst anbefalelsesværdige “The Story of Civilization

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicatecomplex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they hadadopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in.For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. The firstMoslem attack was a passing raid upon Multan, in the western Punjab (664 A.D.) Similarraids occurred at the convenience of the invaders during the next three centuries, with theresult that the Moslems established themselves in the Indus valley about the same time thattheir Arab co-religionists in the West were fighting the battle of Tours (732 A.D.) for themastery of Europe.But the real Moslem conquest of India did not come till the turn of the first millennium afterChrist. In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of thelittle estate of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young andpoor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious.Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry, he swept across the frontier with aforce inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar,slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away theaccumulated treasures of centuries.Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewelsand unbored pearls and rubies shining like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, andemeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.”

Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amusedhis men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richerthan before.

At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted withprecious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewellery; heexpressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labour of two hundred years, and thenordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground.

Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, therichest king that history has ever known.Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold asslaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could befound to offer more than a few shillings for a slave.Before every important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of Godupon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years andhonours, Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of thegreatest sovereigns of any age.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslemrulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction.In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi,destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish theSultanate of Delhi- an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, andchecked only by assassination and revolt. The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind -fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, “werebestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands.”In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), “fifty thousand mencame under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, removing their skins, stuffing these with straw and hanging them from the gatesof Delhi. When some Mongolian habitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted toIslam, attempted arising, Sultan Ala-ud-din (the conqueror of Chitor) had all the males -from fifteen to thirty thousand of them - slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a greatscholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy,surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to therebel’s wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste withpillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle.He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, “there was constantly infront of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging” the victims“and putting them to death in crowds.”

In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and leftit a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to bedragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when hislast journey was finished.

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice.He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invadedBengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for threedays whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reachedtwenty thousand.

These rulers were often men of ability, and their followers were gifted with fierce courageand industry; only so can we understand how they could have maintained their rule among ahostile people so overwhelmingly outnumbering them. All of them were armed with a religion militaristic in operation, but far superior in its stoicalmonotheism to any of the popular cults of India; they concealed its attractiveness by making the public exercise of the Hindu religions illegal, and thereby driving them more deeply intothe Hindu soul.Some of these thirsty despots had culture as well as ability; they patronized the arts, andengaged artists and artisans–usually of Hindu origin– to build for them magnificentmosques and tombs; some of them were scholars, and delighted in converse with historians,poets and scientists.One of the greatest scholars of Asia, Alberuni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India,and wrote a scientific survey of India comparable to Pliny’s “Natural History” andHumboldt’s “Cosmos”.

The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as the generals, and yielded nothing tothem in the enjoyment of bloodshed and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupeeof tribute that could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by straightforwardrobbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in India, and thereby turned them back into India’s economic life.Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening of Hindu physiqueand morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, politicaldisunity, and pessimistic religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Ala-ud-din, who required his advisersto draw up “rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.”

Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers hadtaken one-sixth. “No Hindu,” says a Moslem historian, “could hold up his head, and in theirhouses no sign of gold or silver…or of any superfluity was to be seen…. Blows, confinementin the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.” When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alauddin answered: “Oh,Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but Ihave a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive andobedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficientshall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not beallowed to accumulate and property.”

This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, itsuccumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficialdelusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worthdefending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.

1-mughal-india-kirpal-singh-bhai-mati-dass-ji-1024x766-1

The Muslim Issue, hvor ovenstående billede er hentet, har mere om den muslimske invasion af Indien.

Monokultur kører på WordPress