Den lange march gennem FNs institutioner

Tidligere kortavarig  Knessetmedlem for Arbejderpartiet Einat Wilf forsøgte med lidt optimisme ovenpå FNs resolution 2334, der delegitimerer alt israelsk udenfor 1967 ‘grænsen’, inklusiv Øst-Jerusalem med Grædemuren og det gamle jødiske kvarter. Wilf påpegede at resolutionen ved sin skelnen mellem bosættelser og selve Israel “essentially clarifying the absolute legality of the territory of Israel within the 1949 ceasefire lines, including west Jerusalem”. Optimismen slutter vi af med, men først til Caroline Glieck der i Jerusalem Post skriver om de palæstinensiske araberes diplomatiske svikmølle

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

Anne Bayefsky, der tidligere så glimrende har beskrevet FNs konstante krig mod Israel, skriver på Fox News

The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

Resolution sponsors Malaysia and New Zealand explained UN-think to the Council this way: Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution.” Not seven decades of unremitting Arab terror and violent rejection of Jewish self-determination in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Abbas ser frem til at kunne stille israelske sikkerhedsstyrker for den International Krigsforbryderdomstol i Haag. Elder Of Ziyon mindede med et par gamle avisudklip om arabernes jødefri ønske for ‘Palæstina’. Men videre og måske mere foruroligende skriver Bayefsky

At its core, this UN move is a head-on assault on American democracy. President Obama knew full well he did not have Congressional support for the Iran deal, so he went straight to the Security Council first. Likewise, he knew that there would have been overwhelming Congressional opposition to this resolution, so he carefully planned his stealth attack.

He waited until Congress was not in session. Members of his administration made periodic suggestions that nothing had been decided. There were occasional head fakes that he was “leaning” against it. He produced smiling photo-ops from a Hawaiian golf course with no obvious major foreign policy moves minutes away. Holiday time-outs were in full-swing across the country. And then he pounced, giving Israel virtually no notice of his intent not to veto.

Profound betrayal of a true democratic friend of the United States is the only possible description.

FN taler ikke om Yemen og den slags får Charles Krauthammer at foreslå at USA burde stoppe med at være vært for FN og omdanne FN-bygningen til ejerlejligheder. Og netop Trump er optimismen

Uansvarlighed skal stoppe det nationale ræs mod bunden

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

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

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

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

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

flygtningetegneserie

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ahmed-med-sin-kuffert

Lidt antisemitisme til weekenden fra duetten Eno og Lykketoft

Antisemitisme, Diverse, FN, Historie, Israel, Muslimer, Politik, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

Tidligere udenrigsminister Mogen Lykketoft og nuværende  blev bedt om at tale imod antisemitisme og bashede derfor Israel

When Israel, the U.S. and Canada hosted a forum on anti-Semitism at the U.N, the General Assembly president, former Danish foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, spoke of Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians.

Musikeren og produceren Brian Eno, der støtter Boykot, Divest, Sanction bevægelsen imod Israels eksistens, fik kvababbelse, da det kom ham for øre, at en israelsk dansetrup dansede til hans musik, skriver Jewish Standard

In a letter to the dance company and its choreographer, Ohad Naharin, Eno said he was not aware until last week that Batsheva used his work.

“(T)hough in one way I’m flattered that you chose my music for your work, I’m afraid it creates a serious conflict for me,” he wrote.

“To my understanding, the Israeli Embassy (and therefore the Israeli government) will be sponsoring the upcoming performances, and, given that I’ve been supporting the BDS campaign for several years now, this is an unacceptable prospect for me.”

Eno condemned “the demolition of Palestinian homes and confiscation of Palestinian land” and the lack of “any attempt to limit settler activity in any way.”

“I am trying to understand the difficulties that must face any Israeli artist now – and in particular ones like yourselves who have shown some sympathy to the Palestinian cause,” he wrote. But the bottom line, Eno said in the letter, is “I don’t want my music to be licensed for any event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.”

Og det mindede en god ven om en tid, førend verdens 1,5 mia. muslimer blev regnet som et sårbart mindretal, hvor Brian Eno ikke var optaget af kampagner mod verdens 5 mio. israelere. I 1981 indspillede Eno, sammen med musikeren David Byrne, pladen “My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, der samplede tv-prædikanter, arabiske sangere m.m. Et af numrene var Qu’ran, der satte dyster musik til koranrecitation. Fedt nummer. De fik så en henvendelse fra British Council of Muslims, der førte til at nummeret blev erstattet med et andet på cd-udgaven.

Og et par gyldne ord fra Brian Eno

““I think we’re about ready for a new feeling to enter music. I think that will come from the Arabic world.””

““I’d love it if American kids were listening to Muslim music.””

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

Klima: Hvis man har en hypotese…

Diverse, FN, Historie, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on August 4, 2015 at 9:56 pm

Weekendavisens Frede Vestergaard har et glimrende interview med professor emeritus ved Fysisk Institut på Aarhus Universitet Jens Ulrik Andersen om klimaspøgelset

»I de sidste 15-16 år har der ikke været nogen signifikant global opvarmning, uanset hvilken af de forskellige temperaturserier du kigger på, og hvad enten de er jordbaserede eller satellit-baserede. De viser med lidt variation en stort set uændret global middeltemperatur, og det er i stærk modstrid med de modelbaserede forudsigelser, som IPCC er kommet med. Så meget mere som CO2-koncentrationen i atmosfæren er steget hurtigere end forventet i 1990erne.

En gang imellem gøres der forsøg på at afvise, at der er en pause. Senest for et par uger i en artikel fra folk tilknyttet NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), der havde justeret på tidligere års målinger, så pausen forsvandt,« siger Jens Ulrik Andersen og påpeger, at nogle af de ældre klimaeksperter, såsom tysk klimaforsknings grand old man, professor Hans von Storch fra Hamburg, mener, at problemet med global opvarmning overdrives for at skabe opmærksomhed.

»Hans von Storch pegede for et par år siden på, at den globale middeltemperatur ifølge modellerne skulle være steget med 0,25 grader celsius i de foregående ti år, mens den kun var steget 0,06 grader over de sidste 15 år. Der er en kras modsætning mellem modeller og realiteter. Von Storch er en mainstream klimaforsker, og han mener fortsat, at global opvarmning er et problem, men også at udviklingen viser, at det ikke er i sidste øjeblik at handle, hvis ikke verden skal gå under. Vi har god tid til at vente, og derfor skal vi ikke tage alt for voldsomme skridt her og nu.«

(…)

Hvis man har en hypotese, der kan forklare alt, uanset om det går den ene eller anden vej, er den hypotese ikke meget værd. Så kan man aldrig modbevise den.

Det er kernen i videnskab. Hvad er så klimapanelets hypotese? Reasons Ronald Bailey har set på klimapanelets rapport fra 1990, der definerer hvor meget atmosfæres temperatur skal stige førend vi kan sige at menneskets påvirkning kan skelnes fra naturens støj (mine fremhævninger)

8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected?

The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level.

Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods should produce earlier results. We take a conservative view as a starting point namely that the magnitude of natural variability is such that all of the warming of the past century could be attributed to this cause. (Note that this is not the same as denying the existence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. With such a noise level the past warming could be explained as a 1°C greenhouse effect offset by 0.5°C natural variability.) We then assume, again somewhat arbitrarily that a further 0.5°C warming (i.e., a total warming of 1°C since the late nineteenth century) is required before we could say with high confidence, that the only possible explanation would be that the enhanced greenhouse effect was as strong as predicted by climate models. Given the range of uncertainty in future forcing predictions and future model-predicted warming when would this elevated temperature level be reached?

Detection WarmingIPCC

The answer is given in Figure 8.5. [Basically, the upper curve is assumes a fast warming rate and the lower one a slow warming rate. If fast, warming will be detected by 2002; if slow no detection until 2047.]

Figure 8.5 Text: If a further 0.5°C warming were chosen at the threshold for detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect then this would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2047.

On the basis of this simple analysis alone we might conclude that detection with high confidence is unlikely to occur before the year 2000. If stringent controls are introduced to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions and if the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range of model predictions then it may be well into the twenty-first century before we can say with high confidence that we have detected the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Professor Phil Jones definerede 3 varmeperioder i moderne tid (hvor forskerne sætter lid til termometermålinger) til BBC

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-08-04-kl-214259

Jones forklarer selv på klimapanelets vegne at kun opvarmningen efter 1950′erne kan være påvirket af menneskets udledning af CO2. Det vil sige at naturlig støj, som Bailey skriver, kan sættes til 0,163 grader/årti. Inden 1990′erne var ovre stoppede temperaturen med at stige. Vi er på vej mod to årtier uden temperaturstigninger.

Stadig svært at erkende kristenforfølgelsen endsige dens ophav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvor tids jødehad

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

Fort Europa falder

“Er der nogen her som husker grænsekæden i 1997?” spurgte Lars Kaaber på Facebook.

Det var dengang Kvinder for Fred, rødstrømpen Drude Dahlerup, den konservative borgmester i Bov, Poul Gerhard politisk ordfører for Retsforbundet, gamle DKP-medlemmer, højskoledigteren Jens Rosendal og Dansk Folkepartis Pia Kjærsgaard, Kristian Thulesen Dahl og Søren Espersen sammen med en hel masse andre holdt hinanden i hånden.

De dannede en menneskekæde på grænsen til Tyskland i protest mod at grænsekontrollen skulle nedlægges.

Dengang advarede venstrefløjen mod Fort Europa, et Europa der holdt indvandringen stangen og lukkede sig om sig selv. Jeg mente dengang at det lød tillokkende og hvis man kunne smide et militært-industrielt kompleks oveni kunne jeg måske endda gå hen og blive helt glad for unionen. Men jeg havde mine tvivl på at lade Danmarks grænser bevogte af lande uden interesse for Danmarks ve og vel. Henrik Wegmann skriver i Jyllands-Posten

Det kan undre, at vore politikere finder det vigtigt, at Danmark overholder sin del af Schengentraktaten, når vores aftalepartner, EU, ikke kunne drømme om at overholde sin del.

Schengen-aftalen består i sin grundsubstans kun af to elementer, hvor det ene er indlysende afhængigt af det andet. Nationalstaterne indvilger i at nedlægge egen grænsekontrol, og til gengæld forpligter EU sig til sikre Europas (Schengen-landenes) ydre grænser. Det sidste er aldrig sket. Her små 15 år efter aftalens ikrafttræden står det lysende klart, at EU hverken kan eller vil overholde sin del af aftalen. Derfor er det faktisk en frækhed uden sidestykke, at EU insisterer på, at vi skal overholde vores del.

Hertil kommer, at Dublin-konventionen, som tilsiger, at en asylansøger skal have sin sag behandlet i det første land, han kommer til, i praksis er sat helt ud af kraft. Det samlede billede er et totalt kaos. Under dække af at være asylansøgere, med krav om efterfølgende familiesammenføring, strømmer årligt op mod en million illegale immigranter fra Afrika og Mellemøsten uhindret ind over Europas grænser og videre til bl.a. Danmark. Der er tale om en sand folkevandring, som tager til år for år. Hele Europa er ved at udvikle sig til et galehus. Det er derfor direkte uansvarligt af vore politikere fortsat at lade som om, at disse skadelige konventioner giver mening og er at betragte som forpligtende. Hvad tænker de på?

En aftale, som kun den ene part skal overholde, er slet ikke nogen aftale. Det er bondefangeri. Derfor er Danmark naturligvis i sin gode ret til straks at etablere grænsekontrol i en hvilken som helst form, det selv måtte ønske.

Fra Express

Crowds of young men were filmed using crowbars to break into lorries queuing to get into the Channel port.

The figures show migrants were stowing away in cars and trucks at a rate of 90 an hour.

But the true figure will be considerably higher, as many made it through borders and as far as Bedfordshire before being caught. It has raised fears many more could be on our shores without police knowledge.

Ten migrants were found in the back of a lorry parked in Folkstone, Kent, at about 4.30pm yesterday.

They were sent to Dover Immigration Centre where they are now under their care.

Seven suspected illegal immigrants were arrested at Toddington Services on the M1 in Bedfordshire. One told reporters he had come from Sudan wanting to go to a British university.

With nearly 400 more migrants reaching Calais every week to add to the 4,000 already camping out and waiting for the chance to slip into Britain, truckers leaders called on the French authorities to do more to protect their members.

The crisis started escalating on Tuesday when a strike by French ferry workers facing the sack shut Calais down and migrants flocked to the stationary lorries stuck in traffic jams.

Cross-Channel services were returning to normal yesterday but David Cameron described the scenes as “totally unacceptable”.

He said it was important to work with France to tackle the problem and warned against “either side trying to point the finger of blame.”

But the Freight Transport Association (FTA) said France must do more to tame the “perfect storm”.

Migrant trying to get into lorry

Ifølge Professor Hans Rosling koster en flybillet kun 1/3 af prisen for en tur med en synkefærdig plimsjolle. Men et EU direktiv pålægger flyselskaberne alle omkostninger til at fragte papirløse indvandrere tilbage til udgangspunktet. Rosling mener at EU har fralagt sig ansvaret ud fra en ide om at alle har ret til at oversvømme Europa. Men læren er ikke moralsk overhøjhed fra et svensk udsyn, læren er praktisk: Det er let at beskytte Europa hvis man vil. Mikael Jalving skriver i Jyllands-Posten

Det er den fortsatte ophøjelse af menneskerettighederne til universelt dogme, politikernes og juristernes blinde henvisning til internationale konventioner fra 1950’erne og EU’s Schengen-regler om altings fri bevægelighed fra midten af 1980’erne, der står i vejen for en gangbar udenrigs-, udlændinge- og asylpolitik i de respektive europiske lande i det 21. århundrede.

Hvis vi får afideologiseret menneskerettighederne, punkteret de internationale konventioners oppustede status og samtidig forstår, at menneskers fri bevægelighed lyder godt, men fungerer dårligt, giver vi vore børn og børnebørn bedre betingelser for at komme til at leve i et Europa, som fremtidens historikere vil kunne genkende som europæisk. Hvor borgerne bl.a. vil kunne tænke, tro og udtrykke sig frit uden at skulle tage politiske og personlige hensyn til en voksende muslimsk befolkningsandel, anført af islamiske lobbygrupper med krav om særbehandling med henvisning til en vis profet, som stadig færre tør tegne og kritisere.

Dyrket som en sekulær trosbekendelse, sådan som menneskerettighederne bliver dét i Vesten, har vi glemt, at de faktisk er en ganske ny opfindelse og passion. I sit nyeste opus Human Rights and the Uses of History (2014) peger Samuel Moyn på det forhold, at selv Den Franske Revolution, der rutinemæssigt fremhæves som menneskerettighedernes notoriske arnested, netop ikke gav anledning til nogen menneskerettighedsbevægelse à la den, vi har oplevet i Vesten siden verdenskommunismens sammenbrud for 25 år siden.

Der fandtes simpelthen ingen menneskerettighedsbevægelse i det 19. århundrede. Hvad der kommer nærmest, var en liberal nationalisme, som ville garantere borgernes rettigheder i de respektive nationalstater – ikke i en global matrix opfundet til lejligheden.

Borgerrettighederne var bundet til nationalstaten, ikke påduttet et verdensfjernt verdensborgerskab, som alligevel ikke kan garantere nogen noget i deres virkelige, sociale og håndgribelige eksistens. Borgerrettighederne var ikke teleskopiske, men nære og genstand for løbende debat og strid. De var ikke udtryk for filantropi, men hårdt tilkæmpede dyder, der måtte og må forsvares, hvor de kunne og kan beskyttes, dvs. lokalt.

Men så kom Jimmy Carter. Den 20. januar 1977 fastslog han i sin tiltrædelsestale som USA’s 39. præsident, at fremtidens amerikanske udenrigspolitik skulle hvile på absolutte menneskerettigheder.

18rh7iulxtsijjpg

EU er slet ikke gearet til realiteterne, men kun til at administrere illusionen om et uforanderligt post-Anden Verdenskrigs Europa. “We’re on us own!”

Forår for højre?

Der sker noget i det politiske landskab i disse år. Medier, eksperter og politikere langt ind i borgerlige rækker advarer om en farlig højredrejning i Europa. Farlig fordi den vender sig imod det mulitikulturelle projekt og farlig fordi den truer EUs fortsatte eksistens. Højredrejningen er dog ganske uens, hvor den ellers finder sted. Grækerne har just stemt den yderste venstrefløj ind til at køre resterne af landet endegyldigt i sænk, med mit lille håb om at skade EU projektet i farten.

Igår henvist jeg til en film om Jobbiks tag i unge veluddannede i det Ungarn, hvor en borgmester mener det er god stil offentligt at hænge dukker forestillende israelske statsledere. Det svenske konsensus har lagt effektivt låg på Sverigedemokraternes indflydelse et par år endnu og det tyske konsensus undsiger nødråbene fra dele af folket på gaderne i de mere eller mindre succesfulde Pegida demonstrationer. I England og Holland er de nationale strømninger ved Nigel Farage og Geert Wilders grundlæggende liberale i modsætning til franske Front National, der meget fransk advokerer for protektionisme, imod kapitalisme. Nationerne er meget forskellige uagtet EUs embedsværk for harmonisering.

I Danmark er højredrejningen udtrykt ved Dansk Folkeparti, der grundlæggende er socialdemokrater, der elsker Danmark. Det var Thulesen Dahl, der trak en rød rose frem og erklærede Dansk Folkeparti, som de nye socialdemokrater. Men deres udtalte ambition har i mere end 10 år været at være det nye midterparti, der med Radikale Venstres katastrofale succes som forbillede kunne svinge med flertallet frem og tilbage over midten, mod endnu en indrømmelse, til partiets hjerteblod. Men, hvad er Dansk Folkepartis hjerteblod? ”For et år siden sagde Thulesen Dahl til Berlingske:”

»Vi vil ikke skelne mellem religioner. Der er religionsfrihed i Danmark, og man må tro på det, man selv vil tro på og være muslim, hvis man er muslim. Vi vil i stedet sigte på, hvordan vi sikrer, at de mennesker, som kommer til Danmark, rent faktisk kan integreres i det danske samfund. Derfor må jeg sige, at det her har taget en drejning, som jeg gerne vil benytte anledningen til at sætte på plads i den forstand, at den definition, vi gerne vil bruge, er vestlig versus ikke-vestlig.«

BT skrev 28. december 2014 på bagrund af en artikel i Jyllands-Posten at “En nationalkonservativ bevægelse, der vil værne om fædrelandet og den danske kultur, har bidt sig fast i den offentlige debat”

Ifølge debattører og politikere, der i større eller mindre grad betegner sig som nationalkonservative, trues den danske kultur, ja faktisk hele den vestlige civilisation, både indefra og udefra.

En af de nationalkonservative er blogger, debattør og politiker i foreningen Dansk Samling, der vil i Folketinget, Morten Uhrskov Jensen. Han siger til Jyllands-Posten:

»Der er en lang række overbevisende uimodsigelige tal og fakta, der underbygger, at vores kultur er truet. Og det kan de kulturradikale og socialkonstruktivisterne ikke tale sig ud af.«

Det nye højre består ifølge Jyllands-Posten også af debattør Rune Selsing, den islamkritiske forfatter Lars Hedegaard og formand for Trykkefrihedsselskabet Katrine Winkel Holm.

De nationalkonservative er ikke samlet i et parti, men i en fælles kamp for Danmark og mod fjenderne. Dem udpeger historiker, forfatter og blogger Michael Jalving udpeger i Jyllands-Posten:

»Det er islam. Det er folk med magt. Folk på universiteterne, folk på Christiansborg, det er de voksende minoriteter i vores samfund, bander og lobbyister. Og så er Det Radikale Venstre et yndlingsoffer,« siger han og fortsætter:

»Men de, der kan provokere mig mest, er borgerlige, der kalder sig borgerlige, men ikke er det.«.

Kulturanalytiker Hans Hauge fra Aarhus Universitet betegner det som helt nyt i en dansk sammenhæng, at det for eksempel på universiteterne er blevet accepteret at være nationalkonservativ.

De konservatives intellektuelle debat begrænser sig ikke til de rent akademiske miljøer, men er udtryk for en folkelighed. 20 januar i år kunne Jyllands-Posten fortælle at der var grobund for et nyt parti til højre for Dansk Folkeparti

Dansk Folkepartis indvandrerpolitik er ikke længere stram nok for en del af danskerne. Knap 13 pct. svarer i en måling foretaget af Wilke for Jyllands-Posten, at de »savner et parti, der har en strammere udlændingepolitik end Dansk Folkeparti«.

I blå blok er det 19,5 pct., der efterspørger sådan et parti, og 21 pct. anfører her, at de vil overveje at stemme på et »nationalkonservativt parti til højre for Dansk Folkeparti med stop for indvandring som hovedemne«.

Tallene er indsamlet i dagene efter angrebet på det franske satiremagasin Charlie Hebdo, og det kan forklare dele af den forholdsvis markante efterlysning, men det forklarer ikke det hele, mener eksperter.

“Forskerne er overraskede…” Selvfølgelig er de det. Det var Morten Uhrskov Jensen selvfølgelig ikke og han mindede straks om det realistiske i hans Dansk Samling ved at udlægge nogle af tallene fra Wilkes måling

Den myte har længe floreret, at særligt de unge vil finde det multikulturelle samfund naturligt, fordi de er vokset op med det. Det passer ikke, og det rammer undersøgelsen fra Wilke en tyk pæl igennem. Den suverænt største andel, der kunne tænkes at ville stemme på et national-konservativt alternativ til Dansk Folkeparti, er de yngste vælgere mellem 18 og 29 år. Hele 18,2 procent bliver det til her. De unge har aldrig kendt andet end det multikulturelle samfund, og næsten hver femte dømmer det ude. Godt gået, I der skal overtage Danmark efter os andre.

Meget interessant er det også, at et alternativ til Dansk Folkeparti kun vil hente under halvdelen af sine mulige vælgere fra Dansk Folkeparti, 40,7 procent af disse i forhold til sidste valg. Overhalvdelen vil komme fra især andre borgerlige partier, i rækkefølge Liberal Alliance, Det Konservative Folkeparti og Venstre, henholdsvis 14,2, 11,8 og 8,5 procent. De resterende fordeler sig på rød blok, ikke så mange, men stadig 2,4 fra Socialdemokraterne, 4,2 fra SF og imponerende 4,8 procent fra Enhedslisten. Kun De Radikale er ”rene” med 0,0 procent afgivet. Det viser, at en ordentlig erstatning for Dansk Folkeparti i høj grad vil kunne få stemmer uden for partiet, selvsamme Dansk Folkeparti, der meget snart har forskertset muligheden for at være danskernes talerør, hvad angår udlændingepolitik.

Sjovt nok havde Casper Støvring ugen forinden (10. januar) givet 3 grunde til at han mente at fremtiden tilhørte højredrejningen. Først og fremmest ville det multikulturalistiske eksperiment  i overstemmelse med Urhskovs udlægning af Wilkes måling kun løbe mere af sporet med “meget mere vold og mere terror” til at bevise og overbevise de kommende generationer om en idealismes fallit. Dernæst vil EU og andre antinationale drømme ligeledes vige til fordel for “en realisme og besindelse”. Hvilket fører til

3: Universalismen – at andre vil blive som os, og at vi har moralsk pligt til at hjælpe dem på vej – vil blive opgivet i takt med, at de andre store civilisationer vil følge deres egen kurs og efterlade Vesten som det, den er: noget partikulært, en unik kultur. De kommende generationer vil indse, at Vesten er alene i verden. Man vil da heller ikke have hverken ressourcer til eller lyst til at præge hele verden. Jeg tror også, at flere vil se med beundring hen mod andre civilisationer og deres evne til at overleve og skabe samhørighed (på deres betingelser).

Utopierne, som Støvring ganske rigtigt påpeger, om det er EU, multikultur, universalisme viser sig i stadigt højere grad uholdbare, moralsk lækre som de ellers var at besmykke sig med. Og virkeligheden kan ikke tales væk i længden. TV journalisten Stephanie Surrugue beskrev måske ikke helt så uforvarende den virkelighed i en debat med Morten Messerschmidt og sagde ifølge Uriasposten

Ja, men det jeg tror som kan være lidt svært for os at forstå her i Danmark, hvor vi måske kan genkende nogle af mekanismerne i den her splittelse, de her reaktioner, de her følelser er, at de stikker så meget dybere i Frankrig, de her frustationer de har været igang i årtier i Frankrig, ogjeg har talt med virkelig mange franskmænd, også som ligger på den politiske midte, som bare har fået mere end nok, altså de skal bare ud og de skal ikke komme ind igen. Der er kommet sådan en hårdhed i tonen nu, en indstilling til, at nu er, man omtaler folk der er født og opvokset i Frankrig som ‘de er ikke franskmænd’, ‘de må ud, de må væk’, de er problemer. Altså, jeg ville ønske jeg kunne sige, at det nok skal gå, og de der smukke tv-billeder som vi så af alle franskmænd i alle afskygninger skulder ved skulder var rørende, men jeg bliver bare nødt til at minde om, at langt størstedelen af franskmændene blev hjemme, og det gjorde de sikkert på grund af et væld af forskellige grunde, men der er et tavst flertal som er meget mere frustreret end politikerne, de er håbefulde.

At der er grøde i folkedybet ude som hjemme med forhåbninger om et nationalt orienteret parti giver mulighed for de forsømte konservative at lufte deres skuffelse over Dansk Folkeparti. Katrine Winkel Holm mente i Jyllands-Posten på bagrund af Wilkes måling at Dansk Folkeparti manglede begejstring

Det mest opmuntrende ved undersøgelsen er, at det især er ungdommen, der er bekymret. Tænk: Det er alle dem, der gennem et årti er blevet stopfodret med deres læreres røde fordomme, der viser sig multiresistente over for den bløde hjernevask.

Det er også blandt dem, hvor man finder trætheden over DF’s meget midtsøgende kurs. Foreløbig ytrer trætheden sig kun i en enkelt meningsmåling lavet af analyseinstituttet Wilke, og om den fører til et fremtidigt parti, der kan udfordre DF på mærkesagerne, vil fremtiden vise.

Meget af det afhænger af DF selv.

Hvis DF lytter til den tavse kritik, som meningsmålingen er udtryk for, vil man dæmme op for den stille protest. Men hvis DF-toppen, som antydet af Christine Cordsen torsdag, alene jubler over, at ”den yderste højrefløj” nu distancerer sig fra DF og ad den vej hvidvasker DF som et pænt, velfriseret og absolut stuerent midterparti, så ser det anderledes ud. For så er det partiets egne kernevælgere, man er i gang med at støde fra sig. Ja, så virker det faktisk, som om DF er ramt af et partimæssigt selvhad og i grunden kun er på jagt efter tilgivelse for at have været det, man engang var: en uforfærdet torn i øjet på meningseliten.

Partier er nødt til at være pragmatiske og taktiske. Sådan er det nu engang, men behøver man af den grund at tale med uld i mund om egne mærkesager?

Og Eva Agnete Selsing skrev et par dage senere i Berlingske Tidende mere opgivende at Dansk Folkeparti ser ud til at være gået på førtidspension

Det er helt utilstrækkeligt, at DFs folketingsmedlemmer harcelerer over halalkød i institutioner, bølleadfærd på hospitaler, reklamering på arabisk og hvad der ellers er af tilfældige reaktioner på dagsaktuelle enkeltsager. For hvad med det store billede? Hver eneste dag bevæger vores land sig langsomt mod en større opsplitning, og symbolske markeringer kan naturligvis ikke vende den udvikling.

Partiets eneste store sejr ligger tilbage i 2002, nemlig ændringen af udlændingeloven, som blev forhandlet af Jesper Langballe og Søren Krarup med Bertel Haarder. Men ikke bare var de stramninger langtfra nok til at standse den faretruende udvikling. Antallet af flygtninge og familiesammenførte er igen på vej op. Alligevel vil DF bevare både flygtningekonvention og kvoteflygtninge, og er grundlæggende ikke villige til at gøre noget for at bremse tilstrømningen.

Politikudviklingen er ikke-eksisterende. En fin illustration af det fravær får man på DFs hjemmeside, der kun indeholder tre udspil for hele sidste år: Dyrevelfærd, flere folkelige film (!) og et forkølet tosiders finanslovsudspil. Som taget ud af en karikatur – der mangler bare et krav om flere frikadeller til folket.

Skuffelsen over Dansk Folkeparti er langt fra ny. Morten Uhrskovs Jensen skrev i 2010 at Dansk Folkeparti alligevel ikke havde gjort så fremragende med at stoppe den muslimske folkevandring

En stor del af de mange nytilkomne registreres ikke i statistikken over familiesammenføringer, der er et sminket lig. Disse kædeindvandrere optræder som EU-borgere, fordi de har benyttet EU´s muligheder for fri bevægelighed.

Flygtningepolitikken kan vi endnu bestemme over, men vedtages det såkaldte Stockholmprogram, vil det fra 2014 også være slut med det. Så har Danmark ingen national indflydelse på udlændingepolitikken overhovedet.

(…)

Folketingets fem største partier vil ikke tale om, at udlændingepolitikken er til at køre på historiens mødding. De mangler ikke viden om, at den er helt gal, men de er ligeglade. Danmark og danskernes fremtid interesserer dem ikke. Kun deres egen »magt« - en magt, der er til at grine af, eftersom magten reelt ligger hos EU-kommission og EU-domstol - interesserer dem.

Der er forskellige grader af svigt i det her. S og SF har aldrig haft noget virkeligt ønske om at føre en stram udlændingepolitik. V og K bør naturligvis fordømmes på det allerkraftigste, idet Dansk Folkeparti gerne havde taget et opgør med EU-domstolen (dengang EF-domstolen) tilbage i 2008, da Metock-dommen gjorde det klart, at der var noget helt galt.

Det er således ikke Dansk Folkepartis skyld, at der ikke er blevet strammet i udlændingepolitikken. Men to ting kan man med rette bebrejde Dansk Folkeparti.

1. De skulle tilbage i 2004, da EU´s opholdsdirektiv blev vedtaget, og senest i 2008, da Metock-dommen lå klar, have gjort spørgsmålet om EU´s annektering af dansk lov og ret til et kabinetsspørgsmål. DF skulle med andre ord have trukket tæppet væk under V og K, hvis ikke de ville være med til en boykot af EU-domstolen. Dansk Folkeparti vil til dette svare, at det ville blive meget værre, hvis partiet væltede VK-regeringen, og de andre kom til. Det er et argument, jeg ikke er enig i, men som jeg for så vidt kan følge.

2. Hvad der derimod er utilgiveligt, er, at Dansk Folkeparti har valgt tavsheden om den katastrofale udlændingepolitik. Dansk Folkeparti har med åbne øjne besluttet sig for, at danskerne ikke skal vide, hvordan det står til. Man har Gud hjælpe mig tænkt sig at gå ind i en valgkamp og hævde, at DF er garanten for en stram udlændingepolitik, der ikke eksisterer.

Må historiens dom blive hård.

23. september 2008 skrev jeg

Hvor lang tid tager det et dansk fornyerparti at blive en del af parnasset? For dansk Folkepartis vedkommede fra 6. oktober 1995 til i går 22. september 2008 hvor accepten af at EU står over dansk myndighed ser ud til at blive en realitet. På hvilket argument vil de stille op til det dansk Folketingsvalg næste gang, hvis ikke de søger indflydelse på den øverste myndighed for dansk lovgivning, men kun en underafdeling af et større lovgivningsapparat med rødder i den katolske kirkes formynderstyre? Fra Politiken

En dansk erklæring på tro og love og skærpet kontrol med borgernes oplysninger skal være med til at sikre, at EUs regler om fri bevægelighed ikke kan »misbruges« til illegal indvandring.

Ifølge Marlene Winds udlægning - og det er med hendes udlægning og dermed med stærkt forbehold jeg skriver - er Dansk Folkeparti nu aktivt med til at reducere Folketinget til et elevråd. De accepterer den præmis at vi skal indordne os under de regler EU stiller op uagtet at de ingen adkomst har til den magt. At vi intet kan beslutte selv andet end om offentlige bygninger skal males i ny og næ - dog kun indtil en eller anden muslimsk gruppe finder farven anstødelig eller EU finder processen konkurenceforvridende.

(…)

Men Danmark skal ikke bære det affald ud, de andre lande hober op i deres uansvarlighed. Vi skal ikke bære byrderne af andres ideologiske sværmerier og småkorrupte systemer. De ligger som de har redt og den eneste nytte de nu kan gøre er at agere det negative eksempel vi andre kan lære af. Vi skal have nøglen til egen dør og der skal ikke ligge nogle kopier noget steds. Men som det ser ud nu er Dansk Folkeparti i færd med at acceptere at EU har systemnøglen og Danmark kun får udleveret en kopi til låns med begrænset virke.

Og efter nogen tid skrev jeg

Dansk Folkeparti har med knæfaldet for EU forladt selve ideen om at danskerne selv bestemmer i Danmark og anerkendt ideen om et større fælles bedste. Det er ikke længere Danskerne der kan “…hævde Danmarks selvstændighed, at sikre det danske folks frihed i eget land“, som Dansk Folkepartis principprogram som det første ellers slår fast. Dermed kan de ikke svare danskerne når de spørger i deres reklamer “Hvem bestemmer i Danmark? Danskerne eller EU?”. De kan ikke argumentere meningsfuldt imod indvandringen fordi suverænitetskravet på Danmark er faldet og i dets sted er trådt ideale forestillinger upåvirkelige af virkelighed og mennesker. Det handler ikke længere om, hvad vi vil være med til eller mener at kunne bære, det handler om noget større. Og de kan ikke argumentere mod EU’s bedreviden når man anerkender EUs overhøjhed. Hvor dansk er det? Selve navnet Dansk Folkeparti udtrykker jo netop, at det danske folk er suverænt. Hvis ikke det danske folks suverænitet er en bærende præmis, hvad signalerer navnet så? Et naivt håb? Eller er det snarere en interesserorganisation til varetagelse af dansk folklore?

(…)

Man vil bevæge sig ind i diskussioner om, hvordan en EU-tekst kan og skal forstås, frem for at argumenterer for hvad man vil. Og hvorfor det forholder sig således med krav og påbud oppefra og hvorledes vi skal implementere den højere orden har man ikke brug for folk der kender samfundet, men folk, der kender reglerne.

Det betyder at der vil komme en helt ny type politiker i Dansk Folkeparti, som er i stand til at forklare vælgerne den rette sammenhæng af det samfund de tror de ser og som kan forklare hvorfor politiske ønsker skal rette ind efter vedtagne idealer. Politikere, der har lært at tale efter forventninger, som med strømmen flyder stolt deres vej. Det er de skriftkloges sejr over almuen, juristeriets sejr over det politiske, kleresiets sejr over folket. Fremtidens DF-kandidater er Margrethe Vestager, Mogens Lykketoft, Uffe Ellemann, Svend Auken….

Dansk Folkeparti vil ikke længere være et nødvendigt parti, men et parti, som alle andre.

Og i en kommentar skrev jeg

Et valg på EU-modstand og Indvandring er et valg sendt af Herren til Dansk Folkeparti. Og det er et valg sendt af djævelen for de partier, der vil EU, men er bekymrede for indvandring (V, K, S, SF) fordi de skal argumentere overfor vælgerne at EU er en god ide, men at EU underminerer Danmark. De skal også bede vælgerne om at give dem en magt, som de mener skal gives videre til EU. Det bliver meget vanskeligt og Dansk Folkeparti vil dominere alle andre partier i debatter.

Hver kandidat slås for sit sæde og jo mere tro en kandidat er overfor partiet, jo sværere vil det være, mens man omvendt kan score point på en mere EU- og indvandrerkritisk argumentation. Det vil betyde at valget skifter karakter og at der kommer en konsensus af EU-modstand. Den politiske dagsorden vil være ændret og et vigtigt slag i kulturkampen vil være vundet.

For at sætte det på spidsen: Hvilken forskel gør farven på en regering, hvis den alligevel ikke kan regere?

Dansk Folkeparti rykker måske mod midten og det er ikke nødvendigvis skidt, hvis og kun hvis der eksisterer en konservativt parti, til at italesætte befolkningens bekymringer.

Lidt status fra Gaza

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, FN, Forbrydelse og straf, Hamas, Israel, Muslimer, Terror, UNWRA, islam — Drokles on October 1, 2014 at 5:38 am

Mudar Zahran har på vegne af Gatestone Institute talt med palæstinensere om, hvorledes de oplever Hamas

Although Gazans, fearful of Hamas’s revenge against them, were afraid to speak to the media, friends in the West Bank offered introductions to relatives in Gaza. One, a renowned Gazan academic, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that as soon as someone talked to a Western journalist, he was immediately questioned by Hamas and accused of “communicating with the Mossad”. “Hamas makes sure that the average Gazan will not talk to Western journalists — or actually any journalists at all,” he said, continuing:

“Hamas does not want the truth about Gaza to come out. Hamas terrorizes and kills us just like Daesh [ISIS] terrorizes kills Iraqis. Hamas is a dictatorship that kills us. The Gazans you see praising Hamas on TV are either Hamas members or too afraid to speak against Hamas. Few foreign [Western] journalists were probably able to report what Gazans think of Hamas.”

When asked what Gazans did think of Hamas, he said:

“The same as Iraqis thought of Saddam before he was toppled. He still won by 90-something percent in the presidential elections. If Hamas falls today in Gaza, people here will do what Iraqis did to Saddam’s statue after he fell. But even though Western journalists may not have been able to speak freely with Gazans, they still need a story to send to their editor by the end of the day. So it is just easier and safer for them to stick to the official line.”

“What was that,” I asked: “‘Blame Israel’?”

“I don’t know about that,” he said. “More like, ‘Never blame Hamas!’. Hamas was making a ’statement’: Opposing Hamas Means Death. Hamas is a dictatorship that kills us.”

M., a journalist, confirmed his view. “I do not believe any of the people Hamas killed in the last weeks were Israeli spies,” he said. “Hamas has killed many people for criticizing it, and claimed they were traitors working for Israel during the war.”

That conversation took place four weeks before Hamas killed 21 alleged “Israeli Mossad agents.”

Og så er der jo dem, der bliver tortureret, som Elder of Ziyon skriver om

The calm that dominates the atmosphere of the classroom is suddenly shattered with shrieks and groans from a building next to the school. Those cries and pain are emanating from those detained at the Department of General Intelligence, which is witnessing on a daily basis more cases of summons, investigations and arrest and torture.

Those shreiks sparked a state of fear and terror among the students of the school, located in the middle of the city of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, which operate on double shifts until the tenth grade..The students are complaining that they shouldn’t be forced to listen to the cries of that increase their own suffering.

Al Hayat al Jadida received a collection of complaints and appeals to be filed to the competent authorities without being able to reveal the names, especially as the region’s population watches and hears these sounds, but they can not publicly complain because they fear the consequences.

One student in the ninth grade joined the school this year was surprised in the first days to hear screaming. She tried to ask about it but her colleague told her that these screams issued from one of the detainees and pointed her to that site adjacent to the school where the intelligence services are doing their investigations.

“Y” said she began to feel scared about the presence of the police station near the school, especially as police are supposed to promote security, stability and order and not to provoke fear and terror.

De palæstinensiske myndigheder slås som gribe om vores skattepenge fortæller Gatestone Institute videre

As efforts are underway to hold an international conference in Cairo for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of Operation Protective Edge, the two major Palestinian parties, Hamas and Fatah, are already accusing each other of stealing funds that were channeled to help Palestinian families.

It is not clear at this stage how much money has made its way into the Gaza Strip since the Egypt-brokered cease-fire was announced late August.

But it is clear by now that both Hamas and Fatah are engaged in a fight over who will control the funds and assume responsibility for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

The war between Hamas and Fatah over the funds earmarked for the residents of the Gaza Strip is being fought over every penny and dollar. This is a power struggle in which the only losers are those Palestinians who lost their homes and family members during the military confrontation with Israel.

Hamas and Fatah know that hundreds of millions of dollars will sooner or later be allocated by Arab and Western donors for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The two parties are determined to lay their hands on the funds, knowing that he who controls the money controls the people.

Both Hamas and Fatah are desperate for cash and are ready to do everything to enrich their coffers, even if that means robbing a bank.

This is exactly what Hamas did last week. Sources in the Gaza Strip said that Hamas security officers raided the Bank of Palestine in Gaza City’s Rimal neighborhood and “seized” $750,000 in cash.

Kedelige udsigter. Hvem gider leve med korrupte morderiske sadister når man for nogle tusind dollars kan sætte livet på spil og flygte til Europa og sprede sin galde det? Gatestone Institute skriver om en ganske kynisk industri

Over the past few weeks, dozens of Palestinian migrants from the Gaza Strip have been killed or injured while trying to reach Europe by sea.

At least 500 Palestinians have gone missing after the boats carrying them sank in the sea. Some reports have suggested that rival gangs deliberately sunk the boats. The gangs are fighting for the cash the Palestinians are prepared to pay to leave the Gaza Strip. Palestinians refer to the situation as their “Death Boats” scandal.

The Palestinian migrants are said to have paid thousands of dollars to Hamas officials and Egyptian smugglers to facilitate the exodus from the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian Authority [PA] Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki claimed that each Palestinian paid $1,000 to Hamas personnel at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. Others are believed to have paid $5,000 each to leave the Gaza Strip.

Malki said that preliminary investigations have revealed that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have fallen victim to Hamas and Egyptian gangsters who managed to lure them with false promises.

According to various reports, some 13,000 Palestinians have already fled the Gaza Strip to Europe with the help of the gangsters. Most left through Hamas’s smuggling tunnels or by bribing its security officials at the Rafah terminal.

Efter en krig er palæstinenserne altså igen nedsunket i den daglige arabisme.

Flere kampe i vente mellem Israel og barbarerne

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Arabiske forår, FN, Hamas, Israel, Jihad, Muslimer, Terror, islam — Drokles on September 11, 2014 at 12:08 pm

Uanset hvem der vandt, var Israel-Hamas kampene denne sommer blot endnu et slag. Og vi kan se frem til de næste (og krydser fingre for at de ikke falder sammen med en slutrunde så man kan følge alle kampene) som måske først starter i nord ifølge Times of Israel

The report said Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 rockets — 10 times as many as were in the Hamas arsenal — and that its 5,000 long-range missiles, located in Beirut and other areas deep inside Lebanon, are capable of carrying large warheads (of up to 1 ton and more), with precision guidance systems, covering all of Israel.

Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system would not be able to cope with that kind of challenge, and thus the IDF would have to “maneuver fast” and act forcefully to prevail decisively in the conflict, Goldfus said.

(…)

As with Hamas in Gaza, the report said there were concerns that Hezbollah has also been tunneling under the Israeli border ahead of planned attacks. A deputy local council chief, Yossi Adoni of the Ma’aleh Yosef Council, said dozens of border-area residents have reported the sounds of tunneling under their homes since 2006 — when Israel and Hezbollah fought a bitter conflict known as the Second Lebanon War. “We are absolutely certain there are cross-border tunnels,” Adoni said.

“There could be,” noted Goldfus, describing the tunnel threat as “one more concern… If in Gaza there were tunnels, it stands to reason that it’s possible here too.” Israel’s launched a ground offensive in Gaza in mid-July to destroy some 30 Hamas tunnels dug under the border; 11 IDF soldiers were killed during the Israel-Hamas war by gunmen emerging from the tunnels inside Israel.

Og Hamas graver videre

FNs krig mod Israel

Antisemitisme, Arabere, FN, Forbrydelse og straf, Hamas, Historie, Israel, Jihad, Muslimer, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 12, 2014 at 5:04 am

Anne Bayefsky skriver i Jerusalem Post om FNs vedvarende krig mod Israel

On August 6, 2014, the United Nations convened the entire global community for an unusual day-long “informal” session of the General Assembly. The purpose: to demonize the Jewish state and emasculate its right of self-defense.

The UN formula for ravaging Israel by ignoring the criminal actions of its foes – and the foes of the civilized world – is breathtaking.

Not one of the UN speakers – the Secretary-General, the representative of the Office of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the UN Human Rights Commissioner, the UN’s MidEast envoy, the head of UNRWA – even uttered the word “tunnel.”

Israel was denounced for destroying “homes and neighborhoods” and “civilian infrastructure.” But the fact that Israel had destroyed an extraordinary labyrinth of 32 terror tunnels deep underground – running for miles, jam packed with explosives, opening near Israeli towns, and built for the sole purpose of killing Jews – somehow just got left out.

Terror tunnels also did not make it into repeated references to “root causes.” Hamas’ promise to kill Jews and “obliterate” Israel did not count as a root cause of the conflict either. At the UN, “root cause” is reserved for the Israeli “occupation” – that is, the non-existent Jews that have not lived in Gaza for eight years.

Part of the reason that Palestinian hate-speech does not make it on to the UN agenda is that the UN has no definition of terrorism. In UN circles, Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but a welcome member of the Palestinian “unity” government.

(…)

Disturbing evidence of possible UNRWA complicity in Hamas attacks, which warranted a full investigation, was ignored. The facts that UNRWA schools have been used as Hamas rocket storage facilities and that the immediate vicinity of UNRWA schools have been used as staging grounds for Hamas rocket attacks were shrugged off with an implausible “we had no clue,” a de minimis naughty-naughty, or a lecture about overcrowding.

Meanwhile, UNRWA chief Pierre Krähenbühl had the audacity to complain of Israeli actions that inadvertently have damaged its schools: “we cannot comprehend why they occurred.”

Og selvfølgelig kunne Aljazeera også skrive at FN vil have undersøgt Israel for krigsforbrydelser

The United Nations has named experts to an international commission of inquiry into possible human rights violations and war crimes committed by both sides during Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Israel responded to Monday’s announcement, dismissing the inquiry as a UN Human Rights Council “kangaroo court”.

Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman in Gaza said “Hamas welcomes the decision to form an investigation committee into the war crimes committed by the occupation (Israel) against Gaza and it urges that it begin work as soon as possible.”

The UN statement said the independent team will investigate “all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law … in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014.”

Men der er ikke megen kød på en sådan anklage, som ekspert i humanitærret Cecilie Hellestveit forklarer Dagsavisen

Hellestveit mener Det israelske forsvaret (IDF) ser ut til å ha «tatt høyde for å redusere sivile tap».

– De har ringt befolkningen i forkant av angrep og har raketter som de skyter mot hus for å advare før angrep. Men det ser også ut til å ha vært misforståelser på bakken, der sivile har misforstått og ikke forlatt husene eller blitt bedt lokalt om å bli værende.

(…)

– Dersom det er oppbevart militært utstyr på sykehusene og de brukes av væpnede aktører, som Hamas, for å skyte ut raketter, mister sykehusene den humanitære beskyttelsen. Vi kan da være i den paradoksale situasjonen at Hamas er krigsforbryteren. Dermed vil palestinerne være både de som lider og de som sitter igjen med ansvaret for krigsforbrytelser. Det er fryktelig urettferdig, men folkerettens system er slik. Man må bevise at Israel med overlegg har angrepet sykehus uten at det har blitt benyttet militært av Hamas. Dersom vi derimot snakker om et moralsk ansvar, har Israel et veldig mye høyere ansvar enn palestinerne for konflikten her, sier Hellestveit.

Derimod er Hamas modus operandi at begå krigsforbrydelser, som Ynet News stille pointerer

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni presented on Thursday a document in Arabic which explicitly instructs terrorists to deliberately fire at the Israeli army from within places where civilians are present, and thus harm its image.

Livni met with the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross and presented him with the guidelines, found in the pocket of a terrorist in Saja’iyya.

The page includes clear-cut instructions on how on the proper conduct during battle in order to cause maximum damage to Israel’s public image, while using innocent civilians as human shields.

Among the recommendations included in the manual, which admits that “the IDF limits the use of ammunition to avoid harming the civilian population,” Hamas officials wrote: “The IDF limits the use of fire against civilian population centers – we recommend to attack from there; shooting from within homes of civilians is in Hamas’ interest because it intensifies the hatred against the Israeli army.”

Ideen er, som palæstinensiske Bassem Eid forklarer i i24 News

Hamas has never considered Palestinian needs – only its own political interests. And so they have continued to fire rockets at Israel, knowing full-well what the result would be: Hamas paved the road for the death of our people. We knew that Hamas was digging the tunnels that would lead to our destruction.

We all know that three people live on every square meter in Gaza, and Hamas knew that any attack by Israel would lead to massive death. But Hamas leaders are more interested in their victories than in the lives of their victims. Indeed, Hamas needs these deaths in order to claim victory. Death of its own people empowers Hamas, enabling it to accrue more money and more arms.

Og FN er, som Bayefsky forklarer medskyldige i Hamas krigsforbrydelser, ikke blot for at opbevare Hamas raketter og lade deres bygninger udgøre dække og for at lyve og propagandere for Hamas, men også for at fragte Hamas krigere rundt fra slagmark til slagmark

Nyhedskrigen mod Israel

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Diverse, FN, Hamas, Historie, Israel, Muslimer, Pressen, Terror, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on August 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

Memri har samlet nogle uddrag fra Hamas pressestrategi

“Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don’t forget to always add ‘innocent civilian’ or ‘innocent citizen’ in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.

“Begin [your reports of] news of resistance actions with the phrase ‘In response to the cruel Israeli attack,’ and conclude with the phrase ‘This many people have been martyred since Israel launched its aggression against Gaza.’ Be sure to always perpetuate the principle of ‘the role of the occupation is attack, and we in Palestine are fulfilling [the role of] the reaction.’

“Beware of spreading rumors from Israeli spokesmen, particularly those that harm the home front. Be wary regarding accepting the occupation’s version [of events]. You must always cast doubts on this [version], disprove it, and treat it as false.

“Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from [Gaza] city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip. Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.

“To the administrators of news pages on Facebook: Do not publish close-ups of masked men with heavy weapons, so that your page will not be shut down [by Facebook] on the claim that you are inciting violence. In your coverage, be sure that you say: ‘The locally manufactured shells fired by the resistance are a natural response to the Israeli occupation that deliberately fires rockets against civilians in the West Bank and Gaza’…”

Resultatet kan man se og høre i de fleste medier, en ofte ukritisk kolportering af Hamas påstande, mistænkeliggørelse af Israel og direkte udeladelser af afgørende oplysninger og sammenhænge. BBC Watch giver et uddybende eksempel på, hvorledes Hamas terminologi glider ind i nyhedsformidlingen

Over the past week or so, the BBC has put considerable effort into amplifying and promoting Hamas’ main pre-condition for a ceasefire: the removal of border restrictions imposed by Egypt and Israel in response to terrorism against their citizens carried out by terrorist organisations in the Gaza Strip. Documentation of some of those BBC efforts can be seen here, here, here and here.

In the past few days, however, we have seen a shift in the BBC’s approach to the topic. No longer content with ‘merely’ providing context-free advertisement for the demands of a proscribed terror organisation, the BBC has now adopted that organisation’s terminology, ditching its former use of the phrase “economic blockade” for the inaccurate and partial term “siege”.

Here is a screenshot from the July 28th edition of BBC Two’s flagship news and current affairs programme ‘Newsnight’.

Screenshot Newsnight 28 7  siege

One presumes that the BBC is familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is its definition of a siege:

“A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.”

A besieging army does not ensure and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid including food and medical supplies to those it surrounds. It does not supply them with 50% of their electricity supply, with oil and diesel or with cooking gas. It does not help them export their produce and give their farmers agricultural training. It does not evacuate their sick and treat them – sometimes at its own expense – in its own hospitals.

Israel of course does all of the above – and more – and critically, Israel’s aim is not to compel “those inside to surrender”, but to prevent in as far as is possible the flow of weapons and dual-use goods which can be used to manufacture weapons into the Gaza Strip because for fourteen years its own civilians have been under attack by terrorist organisations located there.

Vi ser ingen Hamas krigere og hører kun om civile dødsfald i forbindelse med israelske bombardementer og efterlades med et indtryk af de israelske styrker som unødigt agressive. Modus operandi er et ukendt begreb og Hamas ønske om at ville udslette Israel optræder højest som et kuriosum. Men Hamas modus operandi med menneskeskjold har betydning for antallet af dræbte civile palæstinensere og ingen hær har som den israelske gjort så meget for at mindske lidelserne for modpartens civile. Det er den samme historie, hver gang Israel tager et opgør med de terrororganisationer, der har svoret massedrab på jøderne. Medierne svømmer over med Hamas eller Hezbollahs hysteri om massakrer på palæstinensiske civile og fordømmelserne regner ned over Israel. Meget senere når regnskabet gøres op har det ikke mediernes eller politikernes interesse at Israel har været udsat for et justitsmord. Og for hver gang lægges der lidt til det stigende endnu diffuse jødehad på venstrefløjen.

2014_07_20_human_shields_on_hamas_orders

Hamas brug af menneskeskjolde og uklare skelnen mellem civile og krigere udsætter selvfølgelig civile for livsfare. Og det er en krigsforbrydelse. Det er ligeledes en krigsforbrydelse at bruge hospitaler, skoler og FN faciliteter som affyringsramper for raketangreb da det gør dem til legale militære mål.

10349952_10153421042882316_6612714454851359235_n-1

(Videoen kan ses her, men uden undertekster og her affyrer Hamas en raket bag en journalist, der skynder sig væk, da området derved er gjort til et militært mål)

Men Mange af de civile der bliver ramt af krigen rammes af Hamas skødesløse omgang med våben og menneskeliv. Algemeiners Dovid Efune vurderer at 25% af Hamas raketter falder ned i Gaza

As many as 25 percent of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel in the current Israel-Hamas war don’t make it out of Gaza and strike civilians inside the coastal enclave, Algemeiner Editor Dovid Efune asserted in an interview on Real News TV on Friday.

Asked about an explosion at a UN school on Thursday, which killed at least 15, according to Gazan reports, Efune pointed to the IDF’s claim that the source of the munition may have been Hamas.

Algemeiner skriver ligeledes om hvorledes journalister bliver udnyttet eller intimideret til at være en del af Hamas propaganda maskine

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”

On Twitter, Barbati, Jerusalem Correspondent for Radio Popolare Milano, and a former reporter for Sky Italia, in Beijing, said, “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday [yesterday] in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

He said, “@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.”

On Tuesday, the IDF released aerial photos showing how a rocket from Gaza targeting Israel hit the Shati camp, run by the UNRWA, and Al Shifa Hospital, which has become a de-facto Hamas headquarters, against international rules of war.

Barbati said he was unable to speak about the Al Shifa hit, but he was certain that it was a Hamas rocket that hit the Shati camp, and a witness saw militants rushing to clean the debris.

Thomas Wictor har foretaget et glimrende stykke research, som medierne ikke har villet besvære sig med, på en anden påstået massakre ved Shijaiyah markedsplads og konkluderer ganske overbevisende at dødsfaldende skyldtes Hamas omgang med egne raketter

That burning warehouse was full of Hamas rockets. The series of concussions you hear are secondary explosions, not the primary explosions of aerial munitions. When you bomb a warehouse full of fueled rockets, each rocket will explode separately. What happened was the empty marketplace next to the burning warehouse became the set for a Pallywood production, but then the rockets started exploding, killing and maiming the people who tried to exploit this situation.

I know they’re secondary explosions because they’re causing no destruction. No fountains of earth or clouds of dust appear with each loud BOOM! And the Palestinians also sent out a photo of what they called an “unexploded Israeli missile” from this incident.

Missile

It’s not. The size would mean that it was an MK-84 2000-lb. general-purpose bomb, but those have casings that are cast in one piece. This “munition” has a welded-on nose cone. You can clearly see the the weld line, part of it in white. Therefore it’s not Israeli. It’s a prop for sympathetic or coerced photographers.

UPDATE

A reader tipped me off that a nearly identical photo was published on July 14, 2014.

Getty_images

That means this object has nothing whatsoever to do with the events of July 30, 2014. Note the spurious caption. Great work, Getty Images!

This next bit of video is very gruesome, but it shows that I’m right. You don’t have to watch it because I’ve isolated the relevant evidence that this damage was caused by Hamas rockets exploding. Read the description below the video first.

It contains footage of a man whose face, arms, torso, and legs are burned black. If you click the image, it’s pixelated so that you can’t see the terrible details.

burned

His legs are also broken. The only thing that could’ve done all that was an exploding rocket that smashed into him and doused him in burning fuel.

WARNING! WARNING! CONJECTURE AHEAD!

He has rolled trouser legs, indicating that he’s a Salafist Wahabbist. He may be a Hamas operative who was blown out of the warehouse and across the street.

Here’s more evidence that part of a burning rocket shooting along the wall wreaked all that havoc. First, we see the body of Rani Rayan, marked with the green arrow.

Rani_Rayan.3

We’re told that he was killed by an aerial munition, but the paramedic sitting up next to him is alive. Also, look at all the shoes lying around, and remember that most people were injured in the feet, ankles, shins, and lower body.

Next, the fronts of the two ambulances.

damaged_ambulances

Why would the fronts be shattered if the air strike happened behind the ambulances, as the videos show? Here’s the answer, which also explains why the bystanders turned on the water. Look at the smoke stain and holes in the wall, marked with a green arrow.

smoke

They’re from a Hamas rocket fuel tank. Because it was a tank, it contained no shrapnel. The fuel ignited in the warehouse, causing the tank to shoot like a torpedo across the street. It struck and killed Rani Rayan, breaking his legs. Please forgive the awful image, but it proves that I’m right. He has no shrapnel injuries, only badly broken legs.

Rani_Rayan.4

The fuel tank then exploded on the ground in the corner of the courtyard, blowing off everybody’s shoes and injuring them in the lower extremities. It turned each stone and piece of trash into a low-flying projectile.

All the videos to which I’ve linked are heavily edited to persuade viewers that this was an air strike on ambulances, but when the people trying to deceive you don’t know about military or technical matters, they make mistakes.

One of the secondary explosions was caught on film, at 2:03. You can hear the explosion and see the puff of smoke from the rocket blowing up.

So: the open-air market was closed, not crowded or busy. Israel had declared a ceasefire that did not include Shijaiyah, because Hamas kept firing rockets from that neighborhood. The Israelis struck a warehouse, not the market. Their intelligence was good; the fourteen secondary explosions show that the warehouse was full of rockets. The Palestinians showed up to create propaganda. They brought ambulances and frantic paramedics, but their inhuman leaders hadn’t told them that the warehouse was a giant bomb waiting to go off.

The rockets exploded, Hamas got its faked atrocity video, and the stenographers of the western media dutifully wrote what they were told.

Does it matter to anybody that the whole thing is a lie from top to bottom?

Update

The Telegraph article has very high-quality video that allowed me to garner further proof that this was a self-inflicted massacre.

First, you can see Rani Rayan a second before his death. He’s marked with the green arrow.

Explosion1.

The moment the explosion happens, every person nearby has his feet knocked out from under him.

Explosion.2

All those men are airborne, their legs having been hit with and forced backward by a pressure wave only a few inches above the ground. The first explosion sounds like a pulse-jet engine: preh-keh-ka-boom. That’s the noise of a large, hard object clattering down the cinder-block wall.

It was an exploding Hamas rocket fuel tank that killed and injured these people. I have no doubt.

Der henvises til Pallywood og nedenstående film fra 2009 viser, hvordan en israelsk massakre oftest bliver til

FN er tabt

Den ædle ide om et FN der bedre kunne løse internationale stridigheder i mindelighed er degenereret i samme takt som dets rettigheds aktivisme er øget. Samtidig har især venstrefløjen dyrket en irrationel ide om at det diplomatiske maskineri udgjorde en moralsk målestok. Men alt har en ende og FN overspiller i stigende grad sine kort, som  Anne Bayefsky skriver i Jerusalem Post

The Obama administration voted against – after joining and legitimizing the virulently anti-Jewish Council for the past five years, and now feigning disappointment for American cameras.

The Europeans abstained because they did not want to upset their violent Muslim minorities, and with their sordid past, the resolution’s message wasn’t too foreign in any case. A few cowardly countries that Israelis have magnanimously befriended over the years also abstained.

But the majority of the UN world cheered – literally. Speakers during the procession of hatemongers at the Council were greeted with applause.

(…)

The feeding frenzy that followed her at the UN’s highest human rights body was raw unadulterated antisemitism. It was a verbal blitz timed to coincide with the blitz of Hamas rocket attacks that Israelis were experiencing from the skies. The Council session revealed – for the umpteenth time – that these offensives are a continuation of the rejection of a Jewish state, period. Or in the words of Palestinian foreign minister Riyad Maliki himself at the Council, first came the “Israeli atrocities of 1948.” Maliki went on to charge Israel with having “exterminated” Palestinians. His language included: “the smell of death is pursuing Palestinian children because of Israel…who have transformed children into shreds…while they tried to escape the machinery of death.”

Over and over again the despicable antisemitic analogy of Israelis to Nazis was repeated, along with maniacal claims from a parade of human rights abusers. Algeria said “Gaza is a concentration camp.” Sudan said Israel had a “policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide.” Iran claimed Israel was engaged in “massacres and crimes against humanity.” Venezuela said “Israel seeks to exterminate the Palestinian people.” Tunisia said “Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism and is acting in Gaza like the Nazis.” And then there were charges of “barbaric, inhuman acts,” “heinous massacres,” and “crimes unparalleled in recent history.”

In the end, the Human Rights Council’s resolution “deplores” and “condemns in the strongest terms” Israel’s “grave,” “widespread, systematic, and gross” “violations of human rights.” The word “Hamas” is never mentioned.

And the UN launched a second Goldstone-like inquiry – another “human rights” investigation into “violations of law in the occupied Palestinian territory” – not Israeli territory of course.

(…)

The UN is lost. It is not too late for America.

Denne forelæsning fra 2010 fortæller netop Anne Bayefsky om degenereringen af Menneskerettighedsrådet

Much to the dismay of people in actual need of human rights protection, the UN’s Human Rights Council have been hijacked by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) — an organization of 56 Muslim countries who use Islamophobia to justify terrorism, while undermine the fight for human rights in Muslim countries and making sure Muslim countries and Islam will always be above criticism while of course blaming all the ills and injustice in the world on the western non-Muslim world and particularly the United States and Israel.

In this video, Anne Bayefsky, discussed the U.N.’s Racism Conference (Durban Conference), the invention “Islamophobia” as means to justify terror. And the intense lobbying by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) for the issues of “Islamophobia” and “oppression” of Muslims ONLY by non-Muslims to be the prominent focus of the UN’s agenda in general and the Human Rights commission in particular. And the war (which they have won) to ensure that a prohibition against “Islamophobia” will be endorsed by the world community as the newest international human right issue and the equivalent of anti-Semitism.

Borrowing from Wikipedia:

“According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism.[3] UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council’s president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[4][5][6] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration”.

Nu er FN aktivt med i krig mod Israel. Som de leverer Hamas våbenlagre tilbage til Hamas kører de også deres krigere rundt i FN ambulancer

Den internaliserede fatwa

Arabere, Diverse, FN, Historie, islam — Drokles on February 18, 2014 at 10:10 am

img_19552

Lars Vilks Komiteen markerede fredag 14. februar i samarbejde med Ateistisk Selskab 25. årsdagen for fatwaen mod Salman Rushdie ved en paneldebat med så prominente navne som Henryk Broder, Lars Vilks selv og David Pryce Jones. Men også direktør for Centre for Secular Space og grundlægger for ”Women against fundamentalism” Gita Saghal, Næstformand for Ateistisk Selskab Nana Prentø, redaktør ved Information Niels Ivar Larsen og Mikael Jalving sad i panelet. Det betød at der kun var 5 minutters oplæg fra hver panelist førend der var spørgerunde. Og det var synd for både Pryce Jones og Henryk Broder var en soloaften værd. Til gengæld sad vi ved små borde, hvor vi kunne have vores alkohol stående, noget som altid er tiltrængt når man skal høre så meget tale igennem.

Mens jeg startede på min første øl fandt jeg mig pludselig i selskab med Lars Vilks, der talte med gode venner ved mit bord. Vilks er en venlig, vidende og humoristisk mand og han talte om hvor tilfældigt islamisk krænkelse bryder ud. Oftest er det journalister der aktivt leder efter eventuelle krænkede til en hurtig kommentar og ind imellem tager en historie sig selv og så sprøjter der fatwaer ud. Og så begræd Vilks stille hvorledes ufriheden også havde sænket sig over Danmark ved at pege op på de vandflasker, der var sat frem til panelisterne. Kun Vilks egen bajer, købt i baren, markerede et sidste lille rebelsk trods. Og så blev arrangementet indledt ved en velkomst af Jaleh Tavakoli, der præsenterede sig som dansk-iraner og medlem af Lars Vilks Komiteen førend Brix tog ordet og præsenterede panelisterne og en endeløs række af emner der ville blive berørt.

David Pryce Jones’, Jonathan Quayle Higgins III’s akademiske lillebror, kunne som en ægte engelsk lærd ikke selv strække armene helt ud og nå mikrofonen og måtte forlade sig på medpanelisten fra den tidlige kronkoloni. Pryce fik i Brix’ introduktion stor ros for sin seneste bog hvilket han brugte som oplæg til at fortælle om hvorledes hans bøger nogle gange blev anmeldt i den arabiske verden. En forarget introduktion, hvor Jones blev beskrevet som en dekadent zionist kapitalist blev efterfulgt at et 500 ord langt citat fra bogen, hvorefter en kort kommentar pointerede at det værste endda endnu ikke var sagt og så blev anmeldelsen afsluttet med et 1000 ord langt citat fra bogen. Således fungerer system og islam kritik i den arabiske verden.

Pryce Jones Hævdede at den iranske revolution i 1979 sammen med 1989 fatwaen mod Salman Rushdie var et historisk vendpunkt, hvor islamisme som en ny ideologi indtog verdensscenen. Han beskrev ytringsfriheden som en kampplads for en civilisationernes kamp og fremhævede at begrebet ‘islamofobi’ var et kunstigt ord, et propaganda våben til at kvæle kritik. Som Brix skyndede på ham for at have overskredet sine 5 minutter fortsatte Jones med at fortælle om OIC’s Istanbul process der arbejdede på netop at beskytte religion mod kritik ved hjælp af hate-speech love. Jones advarede at vi var ‘færdige’, hvis vi, som Hillary Clinten mente vi burde, accepterede disse præmisser.

Indiske Gita Saghal mente at kunne spore den islamistiske bølge tilbage til hendes hjemland. Bangladeshkrigen i 1971 var for hende den moderne islamistiske mobilisering til massevold og vi levede i denne logik og dens opfattede succes’ eftervirkninger. Men for Saghal var der ikke tale om en kamp mellem civilisationer, som Jones havde slået til lyd for, men mellem civilisationes ideer. Det var nemlig hendes opfattelse at der var lige så mange muslimer som vesterlændinge, der ville frihedens værdier. Hun sluttede af med at fritage den islamiske verden for eneskylden i truslen mod ytringsfriheden ved at nævne den seneste absurditet fra det engelske, nemlig forlaget Penguins tilbagekalden af en bog om hinduisme under frygt for repressalier.

Vilks startede med at hamre mikrofonen ind i sin frihedens øl førend han slog ned på udsagnet om at man ‘forsvarede ytringsfriheden’. Det var tomt,mente han, ytringsfriheden skulle bruges. Han beskrev hvorledes vi levede i en offentlighed præget af hurtige politiske budskaber som en slags åndelig fastfood, hvor vi istedet har brug for og skulle insistere på “slow thinking”! Vilks mente at vi levede i en tid, hvor man kunne få taletid uanset hvor dum man er, hvilket jeg blev lidt stødt over, og han sluttede af med at genfortælle hvor tilfældigt hurlumhej om en opfattet krænkelse kunne opnå en kritisk masse med udgangspunkt i hans egen rundkørselshund.

Henryk Broder lagde ud med at proklamere at de gode nyheder var at vi ikke havde censur, men at de kedelige nyheder var at vi havde selvcensur. Selvcensur var ikke nødvendigvis af det onde, men det betød et frihedstab. Selvcensuren var båret frem af politisk korrekthed, som Broder beskrev som en pludselig tåge der lægger sig over et emne, en tåge man ikke kunne forudsige hvornår lettede. Og den politiske korrekthed er absolut ikke objektiv, men bygger på nogle grundantagelser, som at islam er godt, kapitalisme ondt og klimaforandringer menneskeskabte. Hele dette (under)forståelses kompleks var nærmest at betragte som en religiøs bevægelse komplet med ypperstepræster og inkvisitioner mod kættere. Og så lancerede Broder, hvad der blev aftenens ord, da han beskrev hvorledes politisk korrekthed internaliserede det underforståede kompleks af grundantagelser i offentligheden så vi udøvede selvcensur. Under Salman Rushdie affæren havde der ikke været tvivl om at vi i vesten stod på den rette side med ytringsfriheden og at Khomeni og mullaherne var skurkene. Men i dag har vi internaliseret deres krænkelsesmentalitet og er selv i skurkerollen. Internaliseringen havde plantet sig så solidt i Tyskland at man nu ville indføre muslimske helligdage.

Næstformanden for Ateistisk Selskab forkyndte at stat og kirke burde adskilles og at man også burde afskaffe blasfemiparagraffen. Religion var nemlig en menneskeskabt idé og ideer lod sig ikke krænke. Derefter fulgte en forvrænget gennemgang af historien leveret med en intens ovebevisning, der havde gjort enhver vandreprædikant misundelig. “I belive in fact!” slog hun fast med guld i mund efter at have beskrevet hvorledes vi levede i De Sidste Dage for troende mennesker.

Niels Ivar Larsen fra Dagbladet Information tog Broders internalisering til sig og bekræftede at hvor vi vandt slaget om Rushdie, så har vi langt fra vundet krigen netop fordi vi netop har internaliseret fatwaen. Og så støttede han sig til en artikel fra dagens Information, hvor Kenan Malik pointerer at krænkelse kun er ens eget problem og at krænkelse er det uundgåelige produkt af frihed. At krænkelserne har den funktion at de trækker konflikterne frem så vi kan behandle dem. Og så flashede han stolt hvad der angiveligt var en Muhammedtegning fra sin avis.

Også Mikael Jalving, der flashede sit nyfarvede hår, tog Vilks beskrivelse af fatwaer som særegne, sjældne og tilfældige til sig. Men han mente at fatwaer kun var toppen af isbjerget og at organisationer der støtter hate speech love bliver stærkere og flere. Og parallelt med Broders bemærkninger om politisk korrekthed beskrev Jalving det religiøse drive der lå bag hate speech lovgivning der er en strukturel spændetrøje om ytringsfriheden. Og venstrefløjen førte via hate speech love lawfare mod sine modstandere og at denne knægtelse ville internaliseres i de kommende generationer. Jeg kom til at tænke på justitsminister Karen Hækkerup, der dagen forinden på TV2 News havde udtrykt ønske om at kunne undervise alle klodens børn i menneskerettigheder. For Jalving var hate speech love “the end of discussion”.

Og så var det tid til spørgerunden, hvor en svensker lagde for med at spørge panelet om man burde have lovgivning der beskyttede mod spredning af had. Pryce Jones svarede at han gik ind for uhæmmet ytringsfrihed og at nedsættende tale om hans østrigske baggrund ikke generede ham det mindste. Til det svarede Gita Saghal at det ikke var lige så let som inder i 70′ernes England at rende ind i en gruppe fodbold hooligans på vej hjem fra kamp. Hun beskrev derefter den mangelfulde lovgivning, der på den ene side kunne anholde en forvirret teenager for at skrive dumme ting på Facebook mens man lod hånt om at slå ned på de imamer og moskeer, der delte løbesedler ud i de muslimske miljøer med navne og billeder på specifikke personer og citater af, hvad de havde sagt. Disse underforståeede men klare trusler fløj kækt under juraens radar.

Derefter tog tidligere bestyrelsesmedlem for Trykkefrihedsselskabet Mrutyuanjai Mishra ordet og begyndt at tale om nye stemmer i debatten med udgangspunkt i 1971 blodbadet i Bangladesh i nogle lange minutter indtil Brix skar ham af da penalet vist havde forstået pointen. Det havde panelet dog ingen lunde, ingen kunne, men Ivar Larsen udfyldte rollen som den favnende avismand og bedyrede at han altid var på jagt efter ‘nye stemmer’ og vævede usikkert og velmenende over det tågede spørgsmål. Og så var det at den ateistiske stand-in for en kort bemærkning satte rav i den. Hun spurgte med dramatisk højrøstet stemmeføring, nærmest indigneret om nogen overhovedet havde overvejet at fatwaer var omfattet af ytringsfriheden. Broder virkede ikke rystet af dette tilsyneladende paradoks, måske fordi han evnede at skelne mellem handlinger og ytringer, men gav istedet endnu et eksempel på internaliseret frygt når FN godt turde mande sig op til at afkræve den Katolske Kirke at opfylde en lang stribe lige- og bøsse rettigheder, men ikke havde hævet et øjenbryn overfor mullaherne der lystigt stenede videre.

Brix fik hurtigt ro over de spirende gemytter så panelet ikke gjorde aftenen interessant ved at diskutere deres uenigheder og gav i stedet ordet til en ung mand, der lagde så lovende en Maliks præmis for sit spørgsmål, ved at konstatere at vi behøvede ytringsfriheden til at kunne kritisere ufrihed og udtrykke samfundets mangler. Men, og det var her aftenen begyndte at gå hurtigt på hæld, vi måtte kæmpe for at udvidde disse rettigheder også til dyr, der som levende væsener var at betragte som ligeværdige. Henryk Broder affærdigede gryntende spørgsmålet ved at konstatere at dyr var noget vi spiste, men Brix gav ordet til Jalving, som hun til salens moro præsenterede som panelets dyreretsaktivist. Men Jalving ville ikke trampe på dem der ligger mentalt ned og afviste høfligt ideen om dyrs om menneskers ligeværd.

Og så blev der lige tid til en kvinde der spurgte Broder om han kunne forklare Stockholmsyndromet. Det kunne han godt. Og så talte han igen om internaliseringen der havde affødt en diskussion i England om at forstå Lee Rigbys muslimske mordere. Nej, mente Broder, der var ingen grund til at forstå voldtægtsforbrydere, terrorister og pædofile. Der var ingen uhæmmet frihed fordi friheden var individuel og derfor skulle den give plads til andres frihed, hvilket var det indirekte svar til den ateistiske stand-in. Hun så upåvirket ud, som hørte hun slet ikke efter, men hun sad jo også allerede med sandheden. Saghal bød ind på de ironiske eksempler ved at pointere at politisk korrekthed var udtryk for racistisk ligegyldighed overfor de brune kvinder der er fanget som kulturbærere. Og så lagde hun til salens tilfredshed trumf på ved at beskylde vestelige regeringer for at begå et svigt ved at beskrive og anderkende grupperinger som Det Muslimske Broderskab som moderate.

Og det sidste sprøgsmål var muligvis om racismeparagraffen, det var svært at forstå, men Ivar Larsen bekendte at han var imod racismeparagraffen. Han mente den kunne have en nødretsfunktion, som måske havde hjulpet i Rwanda. Det tror jeg næppe, men aftenen var forbi og jeg skyllede mit 7. frihedssymbol ned og vaklede hjem.

Kommentar til dokumentar

Al Jazeerah, FN, Historie, Israel, Jihad, Politik, islam — Drokles on January 13, 2014 at 6:56 am

Jeg refererede forleden til en dokumentar om Yom Kippur krigen i 1973 mellem først og fremmest Syrien-Ægypten og Israel. På overfladen en udmærket og grundig dokumentar med masser af interviews med hovedpersoner, centrale vidner og eksperter. Dokumentaren er fra Al Jazeera, men kunne såmænd have været produceret af en hvilken som europæisk stats TV-station, hvilket vil sige at der er en naturlig skævvridning og og udeladelse af relevante oplysninger.

For der er et par men’er man kan knytte til vinklingen af konflikten, der kun på overfladen tager sig neutral ud og nogle af de påstande, som den arabiske side slipper igennem. Dokumentaren hæfter sig meget ved at Sinai og Golanhøjderne var besat af Israel efter 6-Dageskrigen (dokumentaren bruger sjovt nok for en arabisk TV-station ikke den lidt mindre bibelske og for araberne mindre ydmygende Juni Krigen eller 67 Krigen), men glemmer at fortælle hvorfor Israelerne følte sig nødsaget til at opretholde en buffer zone mod Ægypten og Syrien, der havde som svoret mål at rulle Israel i havet. I stedet tegnes Sadats motivation som en utålmodighed med de fastfrosne fredsforhandlinger.

Flere gange får vi at vide at en israelsk sejr er fulgt af svære tab. Israel mistede 2.656 soldater under krigen og i forhold til israelsk standard er det også mange tabte liv.  For ægypterne og syrerne anslås tabene at være mellem 8.000 og 18.500. Den voldsomme usikkerhed fortæller alt, der er værd at vide om arabernes forhold til menneskeliv.  Der lægges omvendt vægt på arabiske soldaters tapperhed når det lykkedes dem at stoppe den israelske fremrykning i krigens sidste dage og de efterladte og ødelagte israelske kampvogne der stadig står som monumenter og markerer den endelige frontlinje - langt inde på arabisk jord!

Der er også et indigneret afsnit i det sidste program, hvor israelerne flere gange sidder en FN våbenhvile overhørig fordi de virkeligt har tur i den på slagmarken og vil stå så stærkt som muligt ved forhandlingsbordet. Dokumentaren hæfter sig ved at den amerikanske udenrigsminister Henry Kissinger lader Israel slippe  afsted med at fortsætte kamphandlingerne. Men det var især Sovjet der ville skåne araberne for selv at betale prisen for den krig, de selv havde startet. Israels handlinger var ganske fornuftige og moralske.

I filmen fortæller en stolt soldat at skønt de virkeligt hadede Israel og var ganske euforiske ved de første sejre så behandlede de alligevel israelske fanger godt. Muligvis var det hans oplevelse, men det var ikke sandheden om arabernes behandling af israelske krigsfanger. Fra Wikipedia

Syrian atrocities

Syria ignored the Geneva Conventions and many Israeli prisoners of war (POW) were reportedly tortured or killed.[249] Advancing Israeli forces, re-capturing land taken by the Syrians early in the war, came across the bodies of 28 Israeli soldiers who had been blindfolded with their hands bound and summarily executed.[250] In a December 1973 address to the National Assembly, Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass stated that he had awarded one soldier the Medal of the Republic for killing 28 Israeli prisoners with an axe, decapitating three of them and eating the flesh of one of his victims.[251] The Syrians employed brutal interrogation techniques utilizing electric shocks to the genitals. A number of Israeli soldiers taken prisoner on Mount Hermon were executed. Near the village of Hushniye, the Syrians captured 11 administrative personnel from the Golan Heights Force, all of whom were later found dead, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs. Within Hushniye, seven Israeli prisoners were found dead, and another three were executed at Tel Zohar. Syrian prisoners who fell into Israeli captivity confirmed that their comrades killed IDF prisoners.[252]

Some Israeli POWs reported having their fingernails ripped out while others were described as being turned into human ashtrays as their Syrian guards burned them with lit cigarettes.[253] A report submitted by the chief medical officer of the Israeli army notes that, “the vast majority of (Israeli) prisoners were exposed during their imprisonment to severe physical and mental torture. The usual methods of torture were beatings aimed at various parts of the body, electric shocks, wounds deliberately inflicted on the ears, burns on the legs, suspension in painful positions and other methods.”[254] Following the conclusion of hostilities, Syria would not release the names of prisoners it was holding to the International Committee of the Red Cross and in fact, did not even acknowledge holding any prisoners despite the fact they were publicly exhibited by the Syrians for television crews.[255] The Syrians, having been thoroughly defeated by Israel, were attempting to use their captives as their sole bargaining chip in the post-war negotiations.[256] One of the most famous Israeli POWs was Avraham Lanir, an Israeli pilot who bailed out over Syria and was taken prisoner.[257] Lanir died under Syrian interrogation.[92][258][259] When his body was returned in 1974, it exhibited signs of torture.[258]

Egyptian atrocities

Israeli historian Aryeh Yitzhaki estimated that the Egyptians killed about 200 Israeli soldiers who had surrendered. Yitzhaki based his claim on army documents. In addition, dozens of Israeli prisoners were beaten and otherwise mistreated in Egyptian captivity.[260]

Individual Israeli soldiers gave testimony of witnessing comrades killed after surrendering to the Egyptians, or seeing the bodies of Israeli soldiers found blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs. Avi Yaffe, a radioman serving on the Bar-Lev Line, reported hearing calls from other soldiers that the Egyptians were killing anyone who tried to surrender, and also obtained recordings of soldiers who were saved from Egyptian firing squads. Photographic evidence of such executions exists, though some of it has never been made public. Photos were also found of Israeli prisoners who were photographed alive in Egyptian captivity, but were returned to Israel dead.[260][261]

The order to kill Israeli prisoners came from General Shazly, who, in a pamphlet distributed to Egyptian soldiers immediately before the war, he advised his troops to kill Israeli soldiers even if they surrendered.[260]

Arabernes behandling af krigsfanger afslører at deres egentlige ærinde aldrig var en fredsløsning, men en endelig løsning.

Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

Akademia, Diverse, FN, Grøn energi, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 11:56 am

FN’s klimapanel IPCC barsler med en ny rapport, der skal tjene beslutningstagere over hele verden, som en vejledning i hvilken trussel menneskeheden står overfor og subsidiært hvorledes vi kan beskattes for at kunne beskyttes. Men 17 år uden global opvarmning, uden mere ekstremt vejr og uden en eneste klimaflygtning har sået tvivl i de ellers ubetvivlelige konklusioner. Ross McKitrick skriver i Financial Post

Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

IPCC

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

(…)

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.

This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.

And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.

But forecasting the future state of the climate system was always a risky business. The Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, was correct: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

Unlike daily forecasts made by meteorologists, the advantage to climate prognosticators of multi-decadal forecasts is that few people will remember how wrong you were when your forecast finally goes bust.

Yet, here we are, with over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.

I’m sure the politicians believed we would have had new energy policies in place by now, in which case they could have (disingenuously) claimed their policies were responsible for global warming “ending”. Not likely, since atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, and even by the most optimistic estimates renewable energy won’t amount to more than 15% of global energy generation in the coming decades.

But it’s been nearly 20 years since Al Gore privately blamed us (now, the UAH satellite temperature dataset) for the failure of his earliest attempt at CO2 legislation. Multiple attempts at carbon legislation have failed. The lack of understanding of basic economic principles on the part of politicians and scientists alike led to the unrealistic expectation that humanity would allow the lifeblood of the global economy — inexpensive energy — to be restricted.

Tyske Fritz Vahrenholt siger i et interview med bloggen No Tricks Zone

It’s now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What‘s false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn’t been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth’s radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a “missing heat” cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we’ve been hearing speculation about the deep ocean.  On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.

NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world’s leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there’s a problem with climate science?

FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That‘s why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years – never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to “prove“ the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They’ll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.

NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?

FV: Certainly. That’s what’s so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don’t fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.

NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany’s media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?

FV: This process is fully under way. But it’s going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.

NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?

FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.

Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.

It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.

On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.

The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It’s been a run-away train and it’s too expensive. We are putting Germany’s industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn’t any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.

NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media – even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?

FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there’s been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it’s man’s fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That’s why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.

NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC’s tunnel vision is growing. But let’s not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

More seriously, rather than engaging in proxy wars over media reporting and the short-term PR spin associated with it — which may in fact just make things worse — it would be in the long-term interests of the climate science community to take a step back and consider the role of their spokespeople (official or otherwise) in aiding and abetting the skeptics, deniers and other nefarious evil-doers.

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

Joanna Nova tror ikke at klimamiljøet tager imod sådanne gode råd og minder i stedet om at  ”They offer no credit to those who were right”

We are over the peak. Years late, the IPCC concedes some territory and wears headlines they must hate (“Global warming is just HALF what we said“, “We got it wrong on warming“), but PR still rules, and in the big game, this will quickly spin to a minor bump. It’s a classic technique to release “the bad news” before the main report, to clear the air for the messages the agents want to stick.

Since 2007 they’ve burned through their credibility in so many ways:  think Climategate, and getting caught pretending activist material was science, being busted for 300-year-typos like the Himalayan Glaciers, plus 15 years of no warming, no hot spot, models being wrong, droughts ending, and ice returning, all the while pouring scorn and derision on anyone who questioned them. The IPCC were being hammered and they had to change tacks. Now, for the first time, the IPCC is making a serious retreat, presumably in the hope of being able to still paint itself as “scientific” and to fight from a different trench. Anything to continue the yearly junkets and to save face. What they hope is that no one will notice that the deniers were right and the experts were wrong, and the “government panel” has helped governments waste billions of your dollars.

They were 90% certain in 2007, which was never a scientific probability, but a hands-up vote. Now, in the most meaningless of ways, they are 95% certain of something more vague: the range has gone from 2°C to 4.5°C, to 1°C to 6°C. (See Matt Ridley in the Wall St Journal). They just made the barn door even wider. In years to come this allows them more room to pretend they hit the target, without acknowledging that they missed it for 23 years. And even that new supersize barn door may still not be wide enough.

Og nu Joanna Nova anbefaler Matt Riddley, der kalder bortforklaringerne af den manglende varme for “a cottage industry in climate science“, i Wall Street Journal

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (”very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Og han fortsætter

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that “the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius.”

Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That’s uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar’s model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that “hindcast” the same data.

The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.

Forleden sagde Connie Hedegaard at selv om videnskaben skulle være forkert er politikken stadig rigtig. Selv om patienten alligevel ikke var syg var det rigtigt at operere? Selv om den anklagede alligevel var uskyldig…. Mon ikke absurditeten i at underkende præmissen for en beslutning vil fremstå mere tydelig for selv de definerende klasser de kommende år?

Connie Hedegaard er en vandmelon

Diverse, FN, Klima, Politik, Pressen, Vandmelon, Videnskab, miljø, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on September 17, 2013 at 10:01 am

Vandmeloner er grønne udenpå og røde indeni. Connie Hedegaard er sådan en vandmelon, der bruger bekymring for miljøet som en løftestang for at føre socialistisk politik. Presset af virkeligheden, som klimaindustien mærker med især Daily Mail’s stort opsatte artikler om den manglende varme, har klimapanelet nedsat forventningerne til Jordens undergang og indrømmer nu manglende ufejlbarlighed. Daily Mail skriver

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

Ifølge Telegraph fortryder Connie Hedegaard intet i lyset af at hun muligvis har taget helt fejl. For intentionen har altid været en anden

“Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.”

“I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”

“I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices,” she said.

The Danish commissioner also rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills.

Hedegaard er langt fra den eneste vandmelon, som Forbes giver nogle eksempler på

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal:We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.

Ak ja, det totalitære og det religiøse er et iboende træk i mennesket.

Håbet for en klimakatastrofe svinder

Akademia, FN, Globalisering, Grøn energi, Politik, Pressen, miljø — Drokles on March 1, 2013 at 8:59 am

Den generelle stemning, konsensus kunne man vel kalde det, blandt verdens folkeslag for en snarlig klimakatastrofe ser ud til at være stærkt aftagende. Globescan meddeler at interessen for miljøet generelt tager et dyk i disse år

Environmental concerns among citizens around the world have been falling since 2009 and have now reached twenty-year lows, according to a multi-country GlobeScan poll.

(…)

Climate change is the only exception, where concern was lower from 1998 to 2003 than it is now. Concern about air and water pollution, as well as biodiversity, is significantly below where it was even in the 1990s. Many of the sharpest falls have taken place in the past two years.

The perceived seriousness of climate change has fallen particularly sharply since the unsuccessful UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Climate concern dropped first in industrialized countries, but this year’s figures show that concern has now fallen in major developing economies such as Brazil and China as well.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-02-28-kl-183800

Det er nok også krisen der kradser og tvinger folk til at koncentrere sig om virkelighedens prosaiske problemer. Men med til historien hører også det tåbelige budskab om undergang i sig selv. De færreste kan forholde sig til fortællingen om at gennemsnitstemperaturen stiger nogle grader over niveauet fra før industrialiseringen. Her i Danmark svinger temperaturen gerne 55 grader Celcius hvert halve år. Og når så temperaturen ikke steget de seneste 17 år hæmmer følelsen det af en ukontrollabel udvikling. Derfor griber man til en masse små sidefortællinger om de katastrofale konsekvenser for at gøre rædslerne levende for de små mennesker, hvis tillid man desværre stadigt grundet det ulykkelige demokrati er nødt til at vinde.

Men man skal kende træet på dets frugter og de små gyserfortællinger bringer kun en kortlivet forskrækkelse som efterhånden bliver afløst af grin og siden skuldertræk. Som f.eks. historien om hvorledes klimaforandringer truer morgenkaffen, som Watts Up With That ironiserer over MSN News ildevarslende historie

A cup of morning coffee could be much harder to find, and much more expensive, before the century is out thanks to climate change and the possible extinction of wild Arabica beans.

That’s the warning behind a new study by U.K. and Ethiopian researchers who say the beans that go into 70 per cent of the world’s coffee could be wiped out by 2080.

Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Environment and Coffee Forest Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia looked at how climate change might make some land unsuitable for Arabica plants, which are highly vulnerable to temperature change and other dangers including pests and disease.

They came up with a best-case scenario that predicts a 38 per cent reduction in land capable of yielding Arabica by 2080. The worst-case scenario puts the loss at between 90 per cent and 100 per cent.

There is a “high risk of extinction” says the study, which was published this week in the academic journal Plos One.

Hver dag er 1. april når man læser om klimaet, selv om det ikke er sjovt at spøge med folks helbred, som klimatalsmand George Luber for det amerikanske Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gør

Climate change threatens polar bears and is rapidly melting Arctic ice, but the effect it is already having on people’s health is what might cause them to take action, a federal official said Tuesday.

Global warming has caused more severe heat waves, increased pollen counts and lengthened allergy seasons, said George Luber, associate director for climate change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a webinar presented by the The Ohio State University Climate Change Outreach Team on Tuesday.

And the effects will only get worse in the future, as temperatures in the Midwest alone could increase 5.6 to 8.5 degrees by the end of this century, he said.

“We should be promoting climate action for people’s sake,” he said.

Kom ihu den seneste tids historier med overbelægning på danske hospitaler fordi vinteren blot er værre for folks helbred end sommeren. Det har vist noget at gøre med kulden. Og for lige at korrigere for den ofte luftede bekymring for bestanden af isbamser, så giver Polar Bear Science 10 gode grunde til at lade være.

Men tilbage til undergangen. En flok amerikanske generaler, politikere og embedsmænd på tværs af partierne (dem begge to) advarer om at folk vil flygte i millionvis når de løber tør for is - eller noget i den retning. Det skriver Responding to Climate Change

“We, the undersigned Republicans, Democrats and Independents, implore US policymakers to support American security and global stability by addressing the risks of climate change in vulnerable nations. Their plight is our fight; their problems are our problems,” it says.

“Without precautionary measures, climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world.

“In fact, we may already be seeing signs of this as vulnerable communities in some of the most fragile and conflict-ridden states are increasingly displaced by floods, droughts and other natural disasters.”

(…)

“If we have difficulty figuring out how to deal with immigration today, look at the prospects for the glacial retreats in the Andes,” said R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, at an event to launch the letter.

“The glaciers are not doing well…If that starts to go away, we will have millions upon millions of southern neighbours hungry, thirsty, with crops failing and looking for some place in the world they can go,” he said.

Hvis man læser Guardian kan man måske finde et åndeligt slægtskab mellem ovenstående vrøvl og præ-menneskeretsforkæmpere

In the abolitionists’ fight for what they knew to be true, I saw deep parallels with the work of modern leaders fighting for action on climate change. I’m thinking of brave activists such as Bill McKibben, who gathered 50,000 people last week to march on Washington, scientists such as Jim Hansen and Michael Mann, and many other leaders in politics, business, and civil society. The metaphor of slavery to climate change is not perfect. But there’s a strong sense of déjà vu about the people working for change, their uphill battles, the arguments they face and, unfortunately, how long it takes them to win.

Nej, metaforen er vist ikke helt perfekt. Den hænger dels på at Rom, som så meget andet, ikke blev bygget på en dag

The foundations of climate science go back more than 100 years, and carbon dioxide measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in 1956. But the real climate movement probably started 25 years ago when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began.

Given the 40-year march to a constitutional amendment on slavery, it’s not surprising that we don’t have a global price on carbon yet. Especially when the forces arrayed against climate action put up significant roadblocks – hurdles that look and sound really familiar.

Og dels på ren idioti

There were many supposed arguments against abolition. The most absurd ideas generally were about not rocking the boat: ideas such as “slavery is natural and has always existed,” or the enervating idea that it’s impractical to change such a big system. On energy and climate, the status quo pitch goes like this: “We’ve relied on these fuels for so long and will for a long time to come.”

Således retfærdigjort er der jo ikke langt til at forlange et diktatur af “the just and wise“, som akademikere jo gerne gør.  The New Nostradamus of the North har læst professor David Shearmans og økofilosoffen Joseph Wayne Smiths bog The Climate Change Challange and the Failure of Democracy

We have known about these impending problems for several decades.  Each year the certainty of the science has increased, yet we have failed to act  appropriately to the threat. We have analyzed the reasons for this indolence.  This understanding will lead you to ask yourself if Western civilization can  survive in its present state of prosperity, health, and well-being, or will it  soon suffer the fate of all previous civilizations—to become a mere page in  history?

We will demand from you the reader, far more than your comprehension  of the consequences of climate change and the workings of democracy. You  will need to examine the limits of your introspection and the motivation  bestowed upon you by biology and culture. The questions to be asked are  dif?cult. You have a commitment to your children, but are you committed  to the well-being of future generations and those you may never see, such as your great-grandchildren? If so are you prepared to change your lifestyle  now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a  necessary solution? -

Chapters 6 and 7 demonstrate that the inherent failures of  democracy that have lead to the environmental crisis also operate in many  other spheres of society. They are inherent to the operation of democracy.  Furthermore, we come to share Plato’s conclusion that democracy is inherently contradictory and leads naturally to authoritarianism.

In chapters 8 and 9 we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of  humanity, and it may be better to choose our elites rather than have them  imposed. Indeed Plato, on seeing the sequelae of democracy’s birth, observed that it is better that the just and wise should rule unwillingly, rather  than those who actually want power should have it. We analyze authoritarian structures and their operation ranging from the medical intensive care  unit and the Roman Catholic Church to corporatism with the conclusion  that the crisis is best countered by developing authoritarian government  using some of the fabric of these existing structures. The education and  values of the new “elite warrior leadership” who will battle for the future  of the earth is described.

De burde hellere skrive om The Failure of and Old Idiot Sir Ranulph Fiennes, der ville krydse Antarktis om vinteren for at “draw attention to global warming“. Hans forsøg blev ikke hindret af hedeslag eller pollenallergi, skriver Washington Post

British explorer Ranulph Fiennes on Monday pulled out of an expedition to cross Antarctica during the region’s winter after developing frostbite — a bitter disappointment for an adventurer who had spent years preparing for one of the last great polar challenges.

Hvis han havde krydset Ækvator, kunne han have siddet med åben kaleche i skjorteærmer og drukket champagnecocktails hele vejen. Det er ikke overbevisende at frygte for at Jordens mest livløse sted bliver let tilgængeligt.

Forsvar og mure

Antisemitisme, FN, Israel — Drokles on November 7, 2009 at 6:57 am

Mens verdenssamfundet sad og fordømte Israel i FN for at forsvare sine grænser mod raketangreb, bombede Saudiarabien sidst på ugen de iranskstøttede Houthi oprørere i Yemen, som man kan læse på Berlingske Tidende

- I går eftermiddags begyndte saudiarabiske luftangreb med meget kraftige bombardementer af deres (oprørernes) positioner, ikke bare på grænsen, men også ved deres hovedstillinger omkring Saada, siger regeringsrådgiveren med henvisning til hovedstaden i den nordlige provins, hvor oprørerne holder til.

Ingen stat vil finde sig i at have iranskstøttede subversive styrker rendende rundt på eller i nærheden af sit territorium. Fra Memri

According to the article, the Yemen government’s announcement that it had captured an Iranian ship smuggling arms to the Houthis [1] meant that Yemen-Iran relations were at a turning point: “Although Tehran denied reports that an Iranian vessel carrying armor-piercing weapons to the Houthi rebels was captured off the Yemen coast, the incident added a new element to the many that are contributing to the deterioration in Yemen-Iran relations and have led them to [this critical point]. It would seem that San’a’s anger over Iran’s interferences is growing along with the senior Yemen officials’ conviction that Iran is finding more and more way of supporting the Houthis - whether through funds, weapons, or media support.

“Tension reached its peak two weeks ago, when San’a cancelled the Yemen visit of Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was coming to discuss relations between the two countries - which have been in a very sensitive condition indeed since the outbreak, 10 weeks ago, of the sixth war between the Yemen military and the Houthis.”

According to Al-Watan, the Yemen government fears that Iran’s support for the Houthis is aimed at undermining stability in Yemen, and at turning the country into an arena for wars - and thus threatening Saudi Arabia. It wrote: “San’a is still using diplomatic [language] regarding Iran’s support for the Houthis, by saying that it is [certain] elements in the Iranian religious establishment that are behind it, and not the Iranian leadership. But elements who follow Yemen-Iran relations confirm that San’a’s patience has been worn thin by Iran’s interference in its domestic affairs, and that it is not ruling out the possibility that the Houthis have direct contacts with high-ranking Iranian officials.

I et for arabiske muslimers vedkommende sjældent anfald af rettidig omhu er saudierne gået i gang med at sikre sig mod det, som yemenitterne ikke er de bedste til at sikre dem imod og som de helt mister evnen til når Yemen er faldet fra hinanden, som man kan læse på BBC

In order to defend the most powerful economy - and biggest oil reserves - of the Persian Gulf, the Saudi Kingdom’s 9,000km (5,590 mile) border is currently being reinforced with one of the longest security fences in the world.

(…)

A security fence is already in place on the Yemeni border, also built by EADS.

Og BBC har en lille rundtur til andre sikkerhedshegn/barrierer/mure, som man let glemmer når man sidder og fordømmer Israel.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress