“Money, the media, and the establishment in cahoots are hard to beat”

Og resten af verden med, lader det til. FNs højkommisør for menneskerettigheder Zeid Raad al-Hussein siger ifølge BBC at “If Donald Trump is elected on the basis of what he has said already - and unless that changes - I think it is without any doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view.”

Mr Hussein has spoken out before on Mr Trump’s policies, saying in June that “bigotry is not proof of strong leadership”, while in September he launched a scathing attack on Western populist politicians, branding them “demagogues and political fantasists”.

På universiteterne er der for hver en tænkende, 5 venstrefløjsere blandt underviserne og flertallet ser ud til at se favorabelt på de studerende der støtter Hillary Clinton, skriver Gateway Pundit. Ved Wikileaks seneste lækage fra Clintons snudskede verden, beskæftigede de amerikanske medier med alt fra ovennævnte Hussein, henover vice modkandidatens meninger om høvisk sprog til Janet Jacksons graviditet, skriver The Political Insider.

Man kan godt forstå Trumps tilhængere, hvis de mener at alt er imod dem og deres kandidat. Men derfor skal der alligevel snydes, lader det til

Måske er det derfor Hillary næsten er holdt op med at føre valgkamp?

Balfour erklæringen er alle katastrofers moder

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

(…)

These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

Jødehad på Campus

Safe Spaces gælder selvfølgelig ikke jøder på de amerikanske campus. Forklædt som Israel-kritik, ender debat-arrangementer eller foredrag om Israel ofte i mod-demonstrationer, mødeterror og uroligheder. På Algemeiner kan man læse om hvorledes venstrefløjen retfærdiggør sin mentalitet

Members of two prominent student groups who took part in a violent protest against a pro-Israel event at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) are attempting to justify their actions, following intense backlash and calls for legal action against them.

UCI’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) each released separate statements defending their sponsorship of and participation in the demonstration against a Student’s Supporting Israel (SSI) event featuring Israel Defense Forces (IDF) veterans and the screening of a movie about the army.

As The Algemeiner reported, anti-Israel students at UCI blockaded attendees. One female student was harassed and chased, to the point that she was forced to flee and take refuge inside a nearby building. Police were eventually called in, but allowed the protest to continue. Protesters shouted ,“Long live the intifada,” “f*** the police,” “displacing people since ‘48/ there’s nothing here to celebrate” and “all white people need to die.”

SJP said they were “wholly justified” in protesting the SSI event, because “the presence of the IDF, better known as Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), and police threatened our coalition of Arab, Jewish, Black, Latinx, API, undocumented, trans, and queer students and the greater activist community. Our demonstration was held to protest the presence of military and police forces on campus, which threaten the lives of Black and Brown people every day.”

Bombarderet med had til Israel fra pressionsgrupper, undervisere og medier, skrider morgendagens elites, de studerene, opfattelse af moral ad absurdum

Med strømmen flød de stolt deres vej

Hvis der synes at være en foruroligende diskrepans mellem den verden man selv kan opleve og den verden der bliver beskrevet af den fineste ekspertise, så skyldes det marxismens march gennem læreanstalterne. Philip Carl Salzman skrev tilbage i januar på Middle East Forum om hvorledes universiteterne i USA - og det gælder desværre også for de fleste steder i Vesten -  ser læring og tænkning gennem en marxistisk prisme. Tør man sige falsk bevidsthed?

The one place that Marxism has succeeded is in conquering academia in Europe and North America. Marxism-Leninism is now the dominant model of history and society being taught in Western universities and colleges. Faculties of social science and humanities disguise their Marxism under the label “postcolonialism,” anti-neoliberalism, and the quest for equality and “social justice.” And while our educational institutions laud “diversity” in gender, race, sexual preference, religion, national origin, etc., diversity in opinion, theory, and political view is nowhere to be seen. So our students hear only the Marxist view, and take it to be established truth.

Postcolonialism is the view that all ills in the world stem from Western imperialism and colonialism. The hierarchical caste system in India, that disenfranchises half the population as “untouchables,” is, according to postcolonial analysis, and invention of the British while they governed India. So too with tribes in Africa, allegedly invented by the British colonial authorities to “divide and conquer” the native African, who previously had all mixed together happily with no divisions and no conflicts. So too in Central Asia, where, thanks to Soviet colonial authorities, “formerly fluid hybridities and contextual identifications were stabilized, naturalized, and set into a particular mold that gave each group a definitive history, physiognomy, mentality, material culture, customs, language, and territory,” according to one postcolonial author. Apparently, according to the postcolonial view, history and culture in India, Africa, and Central Asia started with the arrival of outsiders in recent centuries.

“The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West” skrev Patrick Deneen i februar om resultatet af Gramscis udhuling af dannelse, uddannelse og tænkning; en venlig tomhed

My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their brains are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, a civilization that has forgotten nearly everything about itself, and as a result, has achieved near-perfect indifference to its own culture.

(…) They are respectful and cordial to their elders, though easy-going if crude with their peers. They respect diversity (without having the slightest clue what diversity is) and they are experts in the arts of non-judgmentalism (at least publically). They are the cream of their generation, the masters of the universe, a generation-in-waiting to run America and the world.

But ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks.

(…)

We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like “critical thinking,” “diversity,” “ways of knowing,” “social justice,” and “cultural competence.”

(…)

Above all, the one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive:  a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.

Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world’s first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning “private individual.” Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.

(…)

They won’t fight against anyone, because that’s not seemly, but they won’t fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory.

Men tryk avler modtryk, som der blev råbt. Rebel Medias Tiffany Gabbay fortæller om at også hvide unge mennesker har et behov for at finde deres kulturelle rødder, nemlig det vidunder, der er den vestlige civilisation

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

Negerhistorie

Jeg dvælede lidt ved de amerikanske universiteters sørgelige tilstand i et par posteringer universitet i Missouri. Viden og rationalisme er fortrængt af politisk korrekt moralisme, der forudsigeligt er metastaseret ud i absurde selvmodsigelser. Et centralt begreb for denne del af ‘campusradikalismen’ er ideen om et ’safe space’, et rum hvor den studerende ikke konfronteres med ord, ideer, udtryk eller tanker af nogen art, som kan bringe den studerende følelsesmæssigt traumatisk ud af balance, hvilket gælder den verderstyggelige sandhed. Selvfølgelig er det for at bekæmpe et væld af fobier og ismer der er blevet så slemme at man end ikke kan dokumentere dem. Men man ved de er der og med racismen er det blevet så slemt at det krævedes et “black only healing space” som Truth Revolt kunne fortælle

Activist Steve Schmidt tweeted that the militant group Concerned Student 1950 were “asking white allies to leave.”

The Blaze writes, “Prominent Black Lives Matter activist Johnetta Elzie seemingly confirmed those with Caucasian skin were asked to leave the area, tweeting that the group had created a ‘black only healing space for the students to share, decompress, be vulnerable & real.’”

En time i selskab med demonstranter, der med tårer i øjnene og grøde i stemmerne bekræfter hinanden i alvorligheden af den kamp ingen andre kan se. Vanviddet stikker dog klart i øjnene, men sært underholdene er det

Og så er der virkeligheden, som er lige så sørgelig som universiteterne

Racismeanklagerne mod Missouri universitet er endnu en negerhistorie

Akademia, Campusradikalisme, Diverse, Postmodernisme, Racisme, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on November 15, 2015 at 5:21 am

Forleden henviste jeg til nogle artikler og videoer om campusradikalisme, som det vist hedder, i USA. De konkrete årsager til forskellige protesterende grupper studerende og undervisere ignorerede jeg og henledte mere opmærksomhed mod den evigt forurettede og selvhævdende mentalitet som venstrefløjen har produceret.

Den ene sag handlede om hvorvidt studerende på universitetet Yale havde krav på at blive vejledt i politisk korrekte halloween kostymer. Den anden fra universitetet i Missouri, handlede om systemtisk OG anekdotisk racisme. Her med det venstredrejede Huffington Posts ord

On Oct. 10, a group of black students interrupted the Mizzou homecoming parade. Wearing T-shirts that read “1839 Was Built On My B(l)ack,” referring to Mizzou’s founding and slave labor, the students stopped right in front of the convertible that Wolfe was traveling in as he waved to parade watchers. The students took out a megaphone and one by one began speaking about incidents of systemic and anecdotal racism from the founding year 1839 through 2015.

A crowd of mostly white people watching the parade began to yell at the black students within one minute to “move on” and get out of the street. Many chanted “M-I-Z, Z-O-U” in an attempt to drown out the activists.

Ja, når man een gang har sagt at noget er racisme, er enhver kritik af spielverderbere selvfølgelig udtryk for racisme. Men “mostly white people” betyder vel, at det også var andre end hvide, der fandt de unge menneskers opførsel utålelig. Og den opfattelse på tværs af ‘race-skel’ ligger muligvis i sammenblandingen af århundred gammel historie om systematisk racisme med det så svært håndgribelige anekdotiske, som påskud for at ødelægge en god parade.  Man kan se optrinnet Mizzou hjemkomstparade på nogle videoer som Huffington Post. Det er svært at tage unge mennesker med det privilegium det er at gå på et sikkert glimrende universitet seriøst når de tudende som piskede påstår at de praktisk talt selv har bygget deres universitet for 176 år siden.

missouri-uni2

After three minutes, two white men came out and tried to move the students aside, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Then the driver of Wolfe’s car tried to drive around them. The students moved their line, arms linked, to block the driver, who continued to try to push forward. The driver again tried to get through a moment later, coming in contact with one of the students.

At that point, an older white man came out and physically pushed several of the students away with his body. A few other white men and women then came out and formed their own human chain, linking arms and standing between the students and the car to allow Wolfe’s vehicle to get through.

It took about 11 minutes before a couple of police officers intervened and asked the black student activists to step aside to allow Wolfe’s car to drive. White people cheered when this happened.

Det var 10 oktober.

Wolfe did not address the incident for nearly a month. It wasn’t until Butler was on his hunger strike, calling for Wolfe to resign, that the president finally issued a statement on Nov. 6 apologizing for just sitting there as his driver tried to steer around the students.

missouri-uni-oversigt

En ring er slået ned om det område, hvor sultestrejken foregår. Offentligt sted er demonstrativt inddraget så det kan foregå i et 'sikkert rum'.

Wolfe fratrådte kort derefter sin stilling efter krav fra de studerende og universitets sorte fodboldspillere, slutter Huffington Post tilfredse. En måneds hysterisk pres gav pote. Men, som de mange neger-historier fra USA så er der en twist. Med al den strukturelle racisme til disposition ser Butler, det fremhævede offer for sin egen sultestrejke, ud til at blive endnu en Trayvon Martin, Freddie Carlos Gray, Michael Brown og hvad de nu hedder. Butler gik nemlig i sultestrejke fordi Wolfe ikke ville give ham en undskyld for at have ladet sin chauffør påkøre Butler. Med så mange kameraer til stede skulle man tro det var en modig påstand, men de selvretfærdiges hysteri kan overdøve de fleste sandheder.

#ConcernedStudent1950 protester Jonathan Butler claimed multiple times that he was hit by the driver of a car carrying President Tim Wolfe at the University of Missouri’s homecoming parade.

Is Butler telling the truth? Watch this video and decide for yourself. Leave you verdict in the comments section.

Forskning og kvinder

Det er lang tid siden Frederik Den Vise og Wilhelm Humboldt. I dag er det masseuniversiteter underlagt taxameterordningernes konstante underminering af faglige standarder. Som fagligheden forsvinder låner universiteterne sin opsparede prestige til stadigt mere ilde maskerede ideologiske dagsordner der paraderer som forskning. “Den britiske modtager af Nobelprisen i Fysiologi eller Medicin, Tim Hunt, er blevet tvunget til at forlade sin stilling på University College London” skriver Ugeskrift

Det sker, efter at den 72-årige biokemiker ved en konference for journalister i Sydkorea i tirsdags kom under beskydning for sexistiske bemærkninger – og for en efterfølgende undskyldning, der kun gjorde tingene værre.

Hunt modtog i 2001 prisen for sin forskning om “cellecykluskontrol” sammen med sin landsmand Paul M. Nurse og amerikaneren Leland H. Hartwell. IPå konferencen i Seoul sagde han ifølge forbes.co.uk:

”Nu skal jeg fortælle jer, hvad der er problemet med piger. Man forelsker sig i dem, de forelsker sig i én, og når man kritiserer dem, græder de!”, skriver

Hunt luftede angiveligt også det synspunkt, at laboratorier burde være kønsopdelte.

Hunt undskyldte senere i BBC Radion 4-programmet Today og sagde her: ”Jeg beklager, at jeg sagde, som jeg gjorde. Det var meget dumt med alle de journalister til stede”. Han stod dog ved meget af, hvad han havde sagt:

”Det er rigtig vigtigt, at man kan kritisere folks ideer uden at kritisere dem. Hvis man bryder ud i gråd, er man mere tilbøjelig til at holde igen med at få den absolutte sandhed frem. Videnskab handler udelukkende om at finde sandheden, og alt, hvad der kommer i vejen for det, trækker efter min mening videnskaben ned”.Se hele Tim Hunts forelæsning på Panum 21. april i år (videoklip)

Folkeskolen.dk skrev i forrige nummer om to kvindelige forskere, Malou Juelskjær og Dorthe Staunæs der klagede til deres universitets ledelse over at få deres arbejde kritiseret af en mandlig forskerkollega.

Det hele begyndte med, at Rømer på folkeskolen.dk og i sin blog skrev en kritisk analyse af en forskningsartikel af Staunæs og Juelskjær, »Klasseledelse - all inclusive: Læringscentreret ledelse af sanser, affekter og rytmer«.

Rømer opfatter artiklen som et eksempel på en aktuel tendens i skoleforskningen, som han er optaget af: »nemlig spørgsmålet om, hvordan dansk Foucault-inspireret tænkning, den såkaldte neo-strukturalisme, som jo normalt opfatter sig selv som en kritisk bevægelse, er havnet i en situation, der ikke blot accepterer, men ligefrem radikaliserer accepten af den i forvejen radikale tænkning, som ligger i skolereformen«, skriver han indledningsvist i sin analyse af Staunæs’ og Juelskjærs artikel.

»Klasseledelse handler dermed om, at hele børnelivet og faktisk også familielivet, herunder fritiden og søvnen, underlægges et læringsmaksimeringskrav. Det hedder ligefrem: ‘Intet er for småt til læringscentreret klasseledelse. Det er klasseledelse all inclusive’. Fuldstændigt totalitært efter min mening, men der er ikke den mindste reservation i Staunæs’ og Juelskjærs tekst undtagen et lille bitte besværgende skvulp til allersidst, hvor de spørger: ‘Hvad er så faren?’ uden at give antydningen af et svar«, skriver Rømer videre i sin analyse.

“I deres klagebreve til ledelsen kommer Staunæs og Juelskjær ikke med konkrete eksempler på fordrejning af deres forskning” og klagen blev afvist, men dekanen lovede “…at han vil have fokus på arbejdsmiljøet”. Godt arbejdsmiljø er at lade dilletanter våse videre til de får held til at lukke munden på kritisk tænkning.

Tendensen er Jødehad

Det kan godt være at Politikens Tarek Hussein mener at gravskænderiet på den muslimske gravplads i Københavnsforstaden Brøndby. Det “voldsomme angreb” med de ”forfærdelige billeder” kommer “i slipstrømmen på en tendens, hvor det danske Politi slet ikke har forstået alvoren af hadforbrydelser”. Zenia Stampe kaldte det en “rædselsfuld nyhed” og så det som kulminationen “efter en periode med angreb på kvinder med tørklæde, hærværk mod moskéer og et stigende nethad” og erklærede “I dag er vi alle danske muslimer”.

Men endnu kender ingen identiteten på gerningspersonen/erne eller motiver. Sunni/shia konflikt og gangsteropgør er stadigt kandidater og muslimernes lukkede og endda fjendtlige samfund er næsten umulige for politiet at efterforske. En 19 årig araber der angiveligt havde kæmpet for islamisk stat blev dræbt med knivstik på Nørrebro, måske som led i internt muslimsk opgør kunne man læse i Ekstrabladet, der også henviste til Syrienblog. Og hvad tæller som en hadforbrydelse? En 21-årig mand var kommet til at få øjenkontakt med et par arabere og en somalier i en bil og straks blev han overfaldet og stukket med kniv. Var det sket for en rettroende?

Omar sad og lyttede til sin imam fortælle, hvorledes jøder er aber og svin. Dagen efter gik han ud og skød sig en jøde. Det er slipstrømmen, tendensen og det er stigende. I Amsterdam udstillede en palæstinensisk venskabsforening billeder af døde børn, som Benjamin Netanyahu satte sin vampyrtænder i.

60977630992100490361no

Som det ikke var nok at israelerne i deres jødiske blodtørst myrder for mange palæstinensere, så er deres beskyttelse af civile palæstinensere endnu værre, da den sætter en umulig standard for terrorbekæmpelse skriver Israel News

The IDF went to extraordinary lengths last summer to prevent civilian casualties while fighting Hamas terrorists in Gaza, achieving a remarkable 1:1 civilian to combatant ratio, but according to international legal experts it went too far in avoiding casualties among the enemy population.

Willy Stern of Vanderbilt Law School, in an article to be published next Monday in the Weekly Standard, details what he found while spending two weeks with attorneys in the IDF’s international law department dubbed “Dabla” as well as front-line commanders, and documents the IDF’s “legal zeal” which as he notes has not stemmed the deluge of international criticism against it.

Stern listed how the IDF bombarded Gaza residents with thousands of telephone calls, leaflet drops, TV and radio messages, as well as calls to influential citizens urging them to evacuate residents, and in doing so gave the terrorist enemy detailed information about its troop movements.

It was abundantly clear that IDF commanders had gone beyond any mandates that international law requires to avoid civilian casualties,” writes Stern. He reported how Dabla attorneys have to sign off on a “target card” for each airstrike on terror targets, with the cards enumerating all of the relevant data about the planned strike.

In contrast, the Hamas “doctrine manual” captured by the IDF in the Shejaiya neighborhood early last August documents how the terror group urges its fighters to embed themselves among civilians in hopes that the IDF will kill civilians.

Hamas’s playbook calls for helping to kill its own civilians, while the IDF’s playbook goes to extreme? - ?some say inappropriate? - ?lengths to protect innocent life in war,” reads the article.

“IDF harming fight against terror”

Indeed, international legal experts quoted in the article argued that the IDF’s actions do go to inappropriate measures, and may end up harming the ability to fight terrorist organizations.

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a military law expert at European University Viadrina in Frankfurt, Germany, was brought by Dabla to train IDF commanders about armed conflict laws.

Heinegg was quoted saying the IDF went to “great and noble lengths“ to avoid civilian casualties, but warned the IDF is taking “many more precautions than are required.”

As a result, he expressed his fear that the IDF “is setting an unreasonable precedent for other democratic countries of the world who may also be fighting in asymmetric wars against brutal non-state actors who abuse these laws.”

Sharing his assessment was Pnina Sharvit Baruch, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and former Dabla chief.

She said legal advisers from other militaries around the world confront her with “recurring claims” that the IDF “is going too far in its self-imposed restrictions intended to protect civilians, and that this may cause trouble down the line for other democratic nations fighting organized armed groups.”

Michael Schmitt, director of the Stockton Center for the Study for International Law at the US Naval War College, also agreed that the IDF is creating a dangerous state of affairs that may harm the West in its fight against terrorism.

The IDF’s warnings certainly go beyond what the law requires, but they also sometimes go beyond what would be operational good sense elsewhere,” he warned.

People are going to start thinking that the United States and other Western democracies should follow the same examples in different types of conflict. That’s a real risk,” said Schmitt.

Og terrorbekæmpelse er også tendensen på vej op i slipstrømmen på den voksende muslimske befolkning. I Frankrig blev en terrorgruppe netop opløst skriver Telegraph

Fourteen members of a banned Islamic group stood trial in Paris on Monday on terror charges after police found a “hit list” of Jewish stores marked “targets” in files belonging to its leader.

Several of the stores belonged to the Hyper Cacher chain, like the one in which four people were killed in a hostage drama two days after the Islamist killings at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly.

The 14, all members of a now-banned Islamist group called Forsane Alizza (”The Knights of Pride” in Arabic), are charged with “criminal conspiracy related to a terrorist enterprise”. Some also face charges of illegal possession of weapons. All face prison terms of ten years if found guilty.

The group was dismantled amid a crackdown on radicals shortly after a 2012 killing spree in southern France by Mohamed Merah, who attacked a Jewish school and soldiers, killing seven people before being gunned down by police.

The “hit list” was found during a March 2012 raid on the home of group leader Mohamed Achamlane, 37, in which they also seized an English-language manual on how to build a nuclear bomb, along with three demilitarised assault rifles, three revolvers and “easy recipes” for home-made explosives.

On Achamlane’s hard disk, investigators found a file called “target.txt”, containing the names of ten Jewish stories, five of which belonged to Hyper Cacher.

Achamlane, who has previous convictions for offences related to weapons and violence, denies any plans to carry out attacks and said the group’s aim was simply to “unite young Muslims“.

Som en lille krølle på halen, skriver Le Figaro, her i Elder of Ziyons oversættelse, at omtalte terrorgruppe Forsane Alizza fik personoplysninger om jøder fra en muslimsk medarbejder i det franske telefirma Orange

Thanks to “Dawoud”, an acquaintance working for Orange, Mohamed Achamlane, the self-proclaimed “emir” of Forsane Alizza, also received a “small gift”, specifically a list of names, addresses, landline and mobile telephone numbers of political personalities such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Roselyne Bachelot, Édouard Balladur, Jean-Louis Boorlo, Dominique de Villepin, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Jean-Louis Debré and even Philippe Douste-Blazy. Forsane Alizza also obtained details of media figures such as Éric Zemmour [Jewish anti-immigration commentator] or Silhem Hachbi of the movement “Ni pute, ni soumise” ["Neither bitch, nor submissive", a sort of brown women feminist movement]. Insatiable, Mohamed Achamlane had even demanded details of “cops, judges, MPs, etc., so we have a big database to have a means of exerting major pressure.”

In a file called “UMP data.odt” [UMP was the major right-wing party in France, Sarkozy's party], the anti-terrorist judges also discovered that the Islamists had “personal data of members of the UMP, including MPs, former ministers and media personalities,” including “addresses, telephone numbers, electronic messages, vehicles, number of children, professions”.

Men så meget som muslimer arbejder på at dræbe jøder, så har det delvist statsejede Orange ikke berøringsangst over muslimer. Men de har derimod berøringsangst for jøder skriver Ari Lieberman i Frontpage Magazine

Last week’s rancid pro-BDS statements to an approving Cairo audience by Orange CEO Stéphane Richard, indicating his desire to immediately sever his company’s links to Israel, should come as no surprise to those who follow French politics. Orange, which maintains a licensing agreement with the Israeli cellphone company Partner Communications, is partly owned by the French government, making France at least indirectly complicit with Richard’s anti-Semitic, pro-BDS statement.

(…)

More disturbing than Richard’s initial repugnant comments however, were comments made by Gérard Araud, France’s ambassador to the United States. In response to a stinging backlash from Israel as well as its supporters, including prominent Democratic supporter and Partner shareholder Haim Saban and Republican mogul Sheldon Adelson, Araud tweeted the following; “4th Geneva convention: settlement policy in occupied territories is illegal. It is illegal to contribute to it in any way.” Rather than expressing revulsion over Richard’s Cairo comments, Araud seemed to be expressing support for them.

Naturally, Twitter goers pointed out Araud’s hypocrisy, noting that he was quick to criticize Israel while failing to acknowledge other, infinitely more egregious occupations like those of Tibet, Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus.  Others (including this writer) pointed out that Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israeli “settlements.” Prominent law professor and recognized international law expert Eugene Kontorovich noted that Araud’s position was not consistent with past legal precedent.

(…)

There is perhaps no country on the European continent that has done more to harm Israel’s political and legal standing than France. In fact, it is safe to say that France, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has caused more political harm to Israel than the entire Arab world collectively.

Both in private and public forums, French political leaders have consistently been dismissive of Israeli political concerns and insulting to its leaders. In private, French leaders have been caught on hot microphones bashing Israel or its leaders. In one such instance, President Nicolas Sarkozy, knowing that he had an approving audience, told President Obama, “I cannot stand [Netanyahu]. He is a liar.”

(…)

All this anti-Israel French activity is occurring as anti-Semitic attacks against Jews in France continue without letup. In May, two Parisian Jews were set upon by a mob of forty and beaten in broad daylight. A week prior, another Jew was attacked while leaving his synagogue. In April, a female Israeli journalist (identified as such by the Hebrew lettering on her equipment) reporting on a plane crash in the French Alps, was harassed by a group of French Muslims in full view of passersby who did nothing to intervene.

France’s rancid anti-Israeli foreign policies coupled with rampant anti-Semitism within its borders are demonstrative of a sick and diseased nation that has irreversibly lost its moral compass. It is difficult to imagine France plunging any deeper into the abyss but then again, up until a few days ago, I thought that France had hit rock-bottom. Clearly, I was badly mistaken.

Også i Tyrkiet stiger de jødehadende tendenser. En Erdogan-venlig TV station har luret tendensen i Erdogans taler og produceret den populære dokumentar The Mastermind” om hvorledes jøder ødelægger det for alle andre

The main theme of the film is the 3,500-years of “Jewish domination of the world.” It focuses on three “Jewish” historical figures (one of whom was not Jewish): the Spanish philosopher and Torah scholar Moses Maimonides, Charles Darwin (who was not a Jew), and German-American philosopher Leo Strauss.

Here are some narrative excerpts from the film, which opens with images of the Star of David and a replica of the Temple in Jerusalem:

The Mastermind, whose roots go back thousands of years, who rules, burns, destroys, starves the world, creates wars, organizes revolutions and coups, establishes states within states — this ‘intellect’ is not only Turkey’s curse, but the curse of the entire world. Who is this mastermind? The answer is hidden inside truths and facts that can never be called conspiracy theories. …

This story begins in the very old days, 3,500 years ago, when Moses brought his people out of Egypt to Jerusalem. The only guide he had was the Ten Commandments… We have to look for the mastermind in Jerusalem where the sons of Israel live. …

Maimonides… who lived in the Middle Ages believed that ‘the Jews are the Masters, and all other people are to be their slaves’”

The film then features several pro-Erdogan pundits, academics and journalists, commenting on the mastermind. “As they destroy the entire world, the Jews are searching for [the lost] Ark of Covenant.” says one. “The Jews use Darwin’s theory [of evolution] to assert that God created them – but everyone else evolved from apes,” says another. One claims that the Jews believe that they, the descendants of Isaac, consider themselves the masters, and that “all of us,” the descendants of Ishmael, are created to serve the Jews. And another blames “the mastermind” — whom he identifies as the Jews as well as the U.S. (which the film earlier claims is dominated by the Jews) for both the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and for the coups in modern Turkey aimed at ousting Islamist leaders and parties.

Finally, an advisor to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claims that all anti-government activity in Turkey was, in fact, attempts by “a mastermind” to bring down Turkey and its government.

I Vesten er de højere læreanstalter og venstrefløjen den antisemitiske tendens arnested

Antisemitismen er hverdag

TV2 skriver at en jødisk delikatesse forretning i København er blevet udsat for hærværk i nattens løb. Forretningen har ellers været under politibeskyttelse, som så mange andre jødiske forretninger og ejendomme siden muslimen Omar skød og dræbte en jøde udenfor synagogen i København efter at have skudt og dræbt en deltager ved et ytringsfrihedsarrangement tidligere på dagen.

Søndag morgen blev liget af en ung mand med et israelsk pas fundet ved et kloster i Berlin. Den unge mand var tæsket til ukendelighed, så politiet endnu ikke kan sige om han er passets ejer skriver Times of Israel.

Fans af den hollandske fodboldklub FC Utrecht sang “My father was in the commandos, my mother was in the SS, together they burned Jews cause Jews burn the best” og “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” under en kamp mod Ajax ifølge Jerusalem PostBosniske fodboldfans stødte til en pro-palæstinensisk demonstration i Wien og sang “Ubij, ubij Židove!”, ‘Dræb, dræb jøderne’!

En professor i filosofi ved Connecticut College er blevet truet væk fra sit job for at have forsvaret Israel på sin Facebook profil, skriver Breibart. Professoren var jøde og truslerne kom fra, øhm, rundt omkring i verden.

Schrödingers kvindekamp

Der er intet som minoritetsrettigheder til at holde venstrefløjen på dupperne. Nye kommer altid til, nye kan altid defineres og alle er de undertrykte af nogen. Det er krænkelsens paradis. Men når alle er minoriteter støder de deres rettigheder på hinandens manchetter. ”I fredags inviterede Kvinderådet til debat om, hvordan kvindebevægelsen kan blive mere synlig og slagkraftig” skrev Dagbladet Arbejderen. 150 deltog med forskellige bud

Der er ny interesse for ligestillingskampen efter en årrække med stilstand. Nye initiativer dukker op, bevægelsen sprudler, og flere unge kvinder kommer til. Det er i høj grad ligestillingskonferencen Nordisk Forum i Malmø sidste sommer, der har været med til at give nyt liv til kvindebevægelsen.

- I Malmø oplevede vi en ny energi. Det hele boblede derovre, siger Hanne Fokdal fra Kvinderådets styrelse i sin velkomst på mødet.

Hun opfordrer alle til at bruge den lange række af konkrete krav, som blev vedtaget med slutdokumentet på Nordisk Forum, i deres arbejde. Kvinderådet har fået dokumentet optrykt i en lille bog i lommeformat, som bliver delt ud på mødet.

- Dokumentet er blevet overrakt til ligestillingsministrene i Norden. Men de gør ikke noget ved det, før vi skubber til dem. Vi skal blive mere synlige og styrke vores sammenhold, lyder opfordringen fra Hanne Fokdal.

Blandt ligeløn, barsel og kvindevold (det var alle stærkt imod) blev der også talt om “Negativ individualisme”, hvordan man opnår inklusion af flere, nødvendigheden af at få mænd med i ligestillingskampen og så bebrejdelser af ligestillingsministeren (der ellers netop har opnået ligestilling med os islamofober, som fjende af islam).

Modkraft var man ligeledes interesseret i feminismefejringen og Nazila Kivi skriver

Der er mange måder at være feminist på. Man kan danse til Beyoncé, man kan kæmpe for flere poster i bestyrelser og for retten til at gå klædt som man vil – også for minoriteter.

Man kan kæmpe imod prostitution eller for sexarbejderes rettigheder. Man kan fokusere på individer, man kan kæmpe kollektivt, man tage sin krop tilbage eller sætte spørgsmålstegn ved, hvad en kvindekrop egentlig er.

Man kan være separatistisk, man kan være radikal eller man kan lære at stave til intersektionalitet og så tro, at det må være bevis nok på ens engagement.

Selv mener jeg ikke, at man kan have en feminisme, der ser bort fra kampen mod racisme, imperialisme og neoliberalisme.

Den feministiske metode handler netop om at udfordre gængse subjektpositioner, byde på alternative epistemologier og udfordre tvangsnormaliseringen af mennesker i patriarkatets og kapitalismens navn.

Racisme, kapitalisme og kolonialisme hierarkiserer individers og gruppers eksistens og legitimerer udnyttelse og udgrænsning af bestemte kroppe, der ikke indordner sig hierarkiet.

Vi har - med Dan Turells ord - længe været mandschauvinister, hvis vi lægger os en halv time på sofaen når vi kommer hjem fra arbejde.

_dsc0699

Det lykkedes Dagbladet Arbejderens fotograf helt at undgå at fange etniske minoriteter, der går klædt som de vil blandt de 150 fredag der eftermiddag var mødt frem i LiteraturHaus på ellers ganske etnisk spraglede Nørrebro i København.

Hvis man skulle få den tanke at “den feministiske metode” er en grød selvmodsigende kværulanteri er man ikke helt ved siden af. Nick Cohen skriver at den politiske korrektheds metastaserende selvmodsigelser, hvorunder feminisme kun er en del trækker venstrefløjens tænkning ned i en endeløs udskamning af andres og hinandens ytringsfrihed

A generation ago, a faction within Western feminism campaigned to ban pornography. They believed it caused harm by inciting men to rape, but couldn’t prove it. Despite decades of research, no one has been able to show that pornography brutalises otherwise peaceful men. So they added the argument that sexual fantasy should be banned because it spread harmful stereotypes that polluted society. Unfortunately, for them, they could not substantiate that claim beyond reasonable doubt either.

“You have no identity, no personality, you are a collection of appealing body parts,” the American law professor Catharine MacKinnon told her followers in the 1980s. Pornography ensured women were assessed only by their looks. It “strips women of credibility, from our accounts of sexual assault to our everyday reality of sexual subordination. We are reduced and devalidated and silenced.”

For all its faults, America has the First Amendment, which protects free speech and freedom of the press. The US Supreme Court duly struck down an ordinance MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin drafted for Indianapolis City Council in 1984 which would have allowed women who could say they were harmed by pornography to sue. It might have killed the law but it did not kill the movement. The impulse behind the original demands drives campaigns against sexist advertising and naked women in tabloids to this day.

Even if you think, as I do, that a wing of feminism degenerated into a puritanism not too far away from the God-given puritanism of the Christian Right, you should accept that debates about free speech are unavoidably ferocious because the urge to suppress is not some feminist peculiarity but a near universal desire.

(…)

I will go further and say that, regardless of colour or creed, most people who have suffered from insults have wanted their abuser silenced, even if what he said was true—especially if what he said was true.

The American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg attacked Mill by saying that we feel offence like a wound. You only have to think about the hurt from slights that have stayed with you longer than the pain from a broken bone to see the truth in his argument. Societies and individuals feel disgust, revulsion, shock, shame and embarrassment when they hear views that don’t physically harm them, Feinberg said in the 1980s. They can and should replace Mill’s “harm principle” with his “offence principle”—that the law can stop speech that causes serious offence.

Feinberg’s mild authoritarianism buttressed the illiberal version of liberalism that flourishes to this day. It supports the laws against “hate speech” which may not be so hateful it provokes its audience to violence, but is still grossly offensive. It provides the philosophical justification for the incessant Twitter storms and media fits about “gaffes”, “misspeaks”, or to use a modern phrase that reeks of the Victorian drawing-room, “inappropriate language”.

Go into the modern university and you won’t hear much about Mill or Milton or the millions around the world who have had to learn the hard way why freedom of speech matters. Instead, you will be fed philosophers far less rigorous than Feinberg. The New Zealander Jeremy Waldron, an Oxford professor from the American university system, which churns out authoritarian philosophers the way Ford churns out cars, suggests speech that attacks the dignity of others should be banned. Stanley Fish of New York dispenses with any pretence that we should respect universal human rights, and descends into power-worship and thuggery. “The only way to fight hate speech is to recognise it as the speech of your enemy,” he says. “And what you do in response to the speech of your enemy is not prescribe a medication for it but attempt to stamp it out.” Take a breath and think about his assumptions. This is the tyrannical language of an illiberal intelligentsia so lost in complacency it thinks it no longer needs the rights it once championed.We don’t care if we are being consistent, it says. We have the power to censor now and we will use it.

Few contemporary theorists grasp that people oppose censorship not because they respect the words of the speaker but because they fear the power of the censor. It is astonishing that professed liberals, of all people, could have torn up the old limits, when they couldn’t answer the obvious next question: who decides what is offensive?

If it is the representatives of a democracy, you have the tyranny of the majority to discriminate against “offensive” homosexuals, for instance. If it is a dictatorship, you have the whims of the ruling tyrant or party—which will inevitably find challenges to its rule and ideology offensive. If it is public or private institutions, they will decide that whistleblowers must be fired for damaging the bureaucracy, regardless of whether they told the truth in the public interest. If it is the military, they will suppress pictures of torture for fear of providing aid to the enemy. If it is the intelligence services they will say that leaks about illegal surveillance must be stopped because they might harm national security, just as pornography might harm women. Why should they have to prove it, when liberals have assured them that there is no need to demonstrate actual damage?

Den danske konsensus- og hyggekultur sikrer indtil videre at feminister kan kæmpe sammen om diamentralt modsatte målsætninger.

Boykot Israel? Ja’øh, gør I bare det…

Antisemitisme, Campusradikalisme, Diverse, Hamas, Israel, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on September 2, 2014 at 9:29 am

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

The supermarket skirmishes over the Palestine dispute, most of which occurred in Europe, target retailers who carry Israeli products, and even kosher foods produced domestically. The U.K.’s Tesco supermarket chain saw a mob of protesters ransack a store, clearing shelves of Israeli products and demanding the chain cease doing business with Israel. To avoid that fate, a London supermarket, this one belonging to the Sainsbury chain, pre-emptively stripped its shelves of kosher products, including those produced in Britain. In the U.K., the police recognize many of the anti-Israel protesters — they’re the same ones who show up at anti-fracking rallies.

In North America, anti-Israel protesters use barcode-reading smartphone apps to identify Israel-related products. These free apps, first developed by young leftists to target products that contribute to the bottom line of the conservative Koch brothers (Dixie cups and Stainmaster carpets are among the offenders), also help consumers boycott companies over causes now in vogue, such as the labelling of GMO foods.

Solomon er ikke imponeret over resultaterne over denne antisemitisme (som han med rette mener der er tale om), da Israels produkter er højteknologiske og uundværlige (Google, Intel, USB stick og sådan). Adam Reuter fra Ynet News tager den jødehadende boykot kampagne endnu mere roligt

Let’s start with the conclusion: Israeli exports are not affected by the present economic boycott, nor will they be affected in the future. This is not because certain European consumer groups and the like are not trying – it is because the unique nature of Israel’s exports simply does not allow for it. It’s a logical concept on paper, but simply does not hold water in reality.

The most obvious example of how the boycott concept is unsustainable is Israel’s trade relations with Turkey. In 2010, after Cast Lead, and the Mavi Marmara incident in particular, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (who is now trying to change the laws in his country in order to become something akin to a sultan) demanded a boycott of Israel at every opportunity.

And lo and behold - just the opposite has happened. Trade relations with Turkey, both exports and imports, have jumped dramatically and are now at the highest level – and almost 100% rise since 2009, long before the Mavi Marmara.

Og det er fordi…

Israel’s exports are driven by thousands of companies of all kinds, with the most diverse ownership and in a wide variety of markets, albeit with a low international profile. There is no Israeli company that is considered a global brand, and hence could be used as a clear indicator.

Many Israeli companies operate in niche areas, as an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) or as subsidiaries of foreign multinationals.

In addition, Israeli exports are almost never sold to the end consumer. In fact, this is the case for about 95 percent of Israel’s exports, almost all of which are involved in business-to-business (B2B) trade with the large international corporations who are only interested in the best product or service at the most competitive price.

With all due respect to what is happening there, the attacks in Gaza are not a consideration in the cold world of business, nor is really of any interest.

Og tak for det for som man kan læse på Forbes, ville det være en ulykke for de syge, hvis antisemitismen fik held med sit foretagende skriver From the Grapevine

The global health technology industry is booming as population levels and life expectancies increase around the world. Forbes recently named its picks for the top-10 most important health companies, from a start-up that enables doctors to provide patients with personalized instructions via easy-to-understand videos, to a  robotic exoskeleton that helps people with spinal cord injuries to walk. Five of the 10 companies have ties to Israel.

“It’s amazing that Israel – a country of only 8 million people – produces so many leading health technology companies,” David E. Williams, president of the the U.S.-based Health Business Group, told From the Grapevine.

“Israel’s highly educated technical and medical workers are reared in a society that prizes problem solving and innovation and that places tremendous value on curing illness and saving lives,” Williams added. “These conditions have generated a virtuous cycle that draws venture capital and contributes to a rich ecosystem that speeds innovation, lowers costs, and increases the likelihood for companies to succeed.”

Det er jo den gamle klassiker; når antisemitten bliver syg trygler han om at få en jødisk læge.

Brandeis konformerer gladeligt under pres

Akademia, Arabere, Campusradikalisme, Diverse, Multikultur, Ytringsfrihed, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 18, 2014 at 11:57 am

Det har vakt en del opsigt at Brandeis University trak en ærespris tilbage da de pludselig opdagede at den somalisk fødte Ayaan Hirsi Ali ikke blot kæmpede imod kvinders undertrykkelse, men også havde luftet negative holdninger til undertrykkelsens væsen, nemlig islam. Rex Murphy begræder i National Post den generelle indskrænkning af den akademiske verden

Why in Aristotle’s name do institutions dedicated to higher learning tolerate these rags of verbal flannel — uncomfortable, unwelcome — from putative adults? Damn it, a university exists to unsettle, to throw down established attitudes, to shine the searchlight of reason on all ideas. Universities are supposed to be bold, confident, courageous institutions, whose biggest duty to their students is to expand the range and depth of their ideas, not confirm their prejudices.

Brandeis, on this account, is a failure. It cringed at the first criticism. It suggested Ali somehow offended its “core values” — and what would those be? Surrender at first fire, perhaps, and gaudy specious rationalizations afterwards? — and had the gall to talk of respecting debate.  I agree absolutely with the American writer and editor of Commentary, John Podhoretz, who called the decision the act of a “gutless, spineless, simpering coward.”

Universities are losing their halo. They are now factories for reinforcing received opinions, what the market holds as right and true — so-called “progressive” ideas. They have a deep hostility to ideas and opinions that wander outside their small circle of acceptability. They choose which protests they endorse and which they deplore. Oprah can get 10 honourary degrees and a winsome reception for her third-rate psuedo-therapies. But a real warrior in the cause for woman’s rights — a woman who truly rose by virtue of her courage, intelligence and industry — must walk, shamed, away from the platform she was invited to.

Og Mark Steyn håner Brandeis rektor Frederick Lawrence

As for Brandeis president Frederick Lawrence and the others who took this decision, nobody’s asking them to be as brave as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They will never know what it’s like to have their associates murdered and to be forced into living under armed guard. They will never have to “share the risk” that Ms Hirsi Ali faces every day of her life. All that was required of President Lawrence & Co was that they not be total craven, jelly-spined squishes who fold like a cheap Bedouin tent at the first hint of pressure.

But Lawrence couldn’t even do that. Ayaan Hirsi Ali campaigns against female genital mutilation - that’s to say, the barbarous practice by which Muslim men deny women sexual pleasure by having their clitorises cut off. Lawrence and the other fellows who run Brandeis are in no danger of any equivalent procedure since it seems clear they’ve nothing down there to chop off anyway. The eunuchs of the American academy are the beneficiaries of western liberty, of the spirit of openness and inquiry that is the principal difference between us and the intellectually stagnant Muslim world. But they will not lift a finger to defend that tradition.

So getting an honorary degree at Brandeis, like serving on the board at Mozilla, is open only to those who make sure they never cross the Conformity Enforcers. And apostates to Islam, as Ayaan is regarded, must accept that they are apostates to American campus conformity, too, and be prepared to lead a life without the consolations of honorary degrees. Accepting the loss of A-list commencement gigs doesn’t take a lot of courage, but it still takes more than Frederick Lawrence has displayed. And ultimately, as I said re Brandon Eich, such a land will be bloody boring - and a society in decline.

skc3a6rmbillede-2014-04-18-kl-114420

Men det har ikke blot været onde højrefløjsere der har været ude med riven. Det ellers venstredrejede Daily Beast skriver indigneret på Hirsi Ali’s vegne

Unsurprisingly, it was Hirsi Ali’s former co-religionists who raised a stink about her. Upon the announcement that the school would honor Hirsi Ali, Brandeis’s Muslim Students Association announced on its Facebook page that she was guilty of “hate speech.” Like clockwork, an op-ed in the Brandeis student newspaper by two leaders of the organization accused her of “Islamophobia,” a catch-all term employed to smear any criticism of Islam as akin to racism, without regard for the fact that the former is a freely chosen belief system while the latter is an innate trait. Refusing to engage her arguments about Islam on the merits, the Brandeis students dismissed her views as purely the result of personal experience. They acknowledged that Hirsi Ali had undergone “terrible things in her life,” the likes of which they could never imagine, their idea of a rough time being “minorities at a predominately white, Jewish university, [where] many of us feel isolated and unwelcomed.”

Today, “no platform” has gone from being a consensual means of expressing disapproval to an all-out assault intended to castigate and muzzle unpopular opinions.

Well, they certainly can’t complain about that any more. “We will not tolerate an attack at our faith,” the MSA declared, in a thinly veiled ultimatum to the school (a tip for Muslim students angry at alleged Muslim stereotypes: Stop acting like Muslim stereotypes). The MSA persuaded the school to rescind its honor (so much for the all-powerful, right-wing “Jewish Lobby,” which can’t even get its way at Brandeis). Lawrence, sounding like a re-education camp functionary, maintained that Hirsi Ali was still welcome at Brandeis, where, presumably, she could be lectured to by aggrieved Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers. “In the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University throughout its history,” Lawrence patronized, in a line that must have Louis Brandeis rolling over in his grave, “Ms. Hirsi Ali is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.”

(…)

Ali is but the latest victim of a newfangled version of the “no platform” phenomenon. Initiated by British anti-racist groups in the 1970s to dissuade mainstream figures from debating fascists, “no platform” started out as an attempt to avoid the conferral of respectability upon the far right, not to abridge their freedom of speech. The aim was to send a message about the illegitimacy of certain anti-democratic political movements by refusing to engage with them. Writing in the New Statesman, Sarah Ditum explains that the tactic “was traditionally about rejecting the rhetoric of violence—especially when that rhetoric was liable to inspire leagues of smash-happy skinheads.”

Today, “no platform” has gone from being a consensual means of expressing disapproval to an all-out assault intended to castigate and muzzle unpopular opinions. A growing, ecumenical constituency composed of the religiously devout, perpetually outraged Twitter activists, and eager-to-please university administrators operate under the belief that there exists a “right” not to be offended. When their bullying tactics to silence opponents doesn’t work, the no-platformers shout down their ideological adversaries, which is what would have happened to Hirsi Ali had she been allowed to participate in Brandeis’ commencement ceremony. One sees this silencing impulse in everything from Twitter busybody Suey Park (who launched the “#cancelcolbert” campaign over a joke she was either too stupid, or too cynical, to understand), to gay activists who say that opponents of marriage equality, like former Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, should lose their jobs.

Den sudanesiske journalist Nesrine Malik indvender i New York Times derimod dobbeltmoral når der ikke er samme støtte til antisemitter og homofober, som til islamkritikere

Hysterics aside, broad generalizations like this suggest that there is no Muslim mainstream made up of people who have the right to object to, and fear, language that stigmatizes them; there are only terrorists and their victims. The implication is that because some Muslims have a record of violence toward critics and apostates, that all Muslims have it coming to them. It’s an argument that boils down not to, “because of freedom of speech” but “because they deserve it.”

Swapping races and religions to gauge if the response to a particular incident would have been different is an imperfect counterfactual game, but in this instance it is instructive. Had Ms. Hirsi Ali been a widely acknowledged homophobe, or white supremacist, would free speech supporters have rushed so readily to their lecterns to defend her? Probably not, which is why the right to offend should be extended to all. Otherwise, our personal preferences will always dictate that there be exceptions.

Europe, and Britain in particular, are less covetous of the principles embodied in the American Constitution’s First Amendment. And their experiences in recent years demonstrate the dangers of a more limited allowance of expression, and how going down this slippery slope always ends in inconsistency and the selective justification of offensive speech based on its target and the national mood.

Earlier this year, a prospective British parliamentary candidate, who happened to be a Muslim, tweeted a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed, part of “Jesus and Mo,” an irreverent series depicting the two religious figures in everyday situations. Some Muslims saw this as deliberately provocative and there was a backlash, including death threats. When mainstream British media outlets such as the BBC did not show the cartoon, the British press branded them cowards, traitors and free-speech equivocators.

Unfortunately for these critics, a few days later, the infamous French comedian Dieudonné Mbala-Mbala was banned from entering Britain because of his anti-Semitic rants. From those who had penned thousands of words warning of the danger of muzzling our voices when it comes to criticism of Islam, I counted one tweet. In the British broadsheets, there was only one article criticizing Mr. Dieudonné’s banning.

It is clearly far more palatable, even popular, to muscularly stand up for the right to offend Muslims than it is to back those who offend any other minority in Europe today. Indeed, when the notorious American Islamophobe Pamela Geller was banned from Britain on account of her vitriol toward Muslims, her exclusion was met with a chorus of objections. This selective attitude toward freedom of speech allows such disparities to become entrenched.

The reaction to the Brandeis affair is a troubling harbinger. It suggests that America, like Europe, might also begin to pick and choose who deserves to be protected from offensive speech. Once that door is open, the Trojan horse of libertarianism will smuggle in intolerance.

Nu er islam netop også både antismitisk og homofobisk, for ikke at nævne kvindefjendsk, pædofil-fil, anti-intellektuel og anti-videnskabelig. Alt sammen noget der sikkert, i hvert fald i teorien, strider imod Brandeis’ værdier. Og så handler det ikke blot om værdier som ren æstetik, men om den reelle trussel der altid følger islam og muslimers krav. Counsil on American-Islamic Relations Cair (CAIR), der ikke tilskynder til dialog, beskytter civiles rettigheder eller fremmer gensidig forståelse, som de påstår, da deres mission er at styrke amerikanske muslimer, lagde nemlig pres på Brandeis. Og CAIr er ikke til at spøge med

In 1994, less than a year after the Philadelphia Hamas meeting, the Islamists unleashed their new organization: the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Just as the Palestine Committee by-laws had foretold, CAIR sprang from the womb of IAP and set up its headquarters in the nation’s capital.

Actually, CAIR was already in existence and firmly in the Brotherhood fold even before its incorporation was announced. We know that because, in preparing for a meeting held on July 30, 1994, the Palestine Committee prepared a written agenda that was later seized by the FBI. It stated that a top discussion topic would be “suggestions to develop work” for several named “organizations.” Included among these was “CAIR,” in addition to the IAP and HLF, among others. The agenda elucidated that “complete coordination” was sought among the various groups. Critically, it stressed that the effort was under Brotherhood direction: “This is not a separate movement from the mother Group.”

The principal aim of that Palestine Committee meeting was the development of a plan to counter efforts by Israel and American Jewish groups to normalize relations between Jews and Muslims. According to the Committee, such normalization would break what Edward Said, the late Islamist academic, called the “psychological barrier” — the mindset that prevents Muslims from accepting Israel’s right to exist.

The Committee was determined to fortify this barrier. The meeting agenda explains some of its plans toward that end. It would form “an internal Brotherhood committee to fight the normalization of relations and monitor brotherhood organizations.” It would activate the “MAS” [i.e., the Muslim-American Society -- the Brotherhood’s quasi-official presence in the U.S.] to conduct education programs in “all work centers, mosques, and organizations on the necessity of stopping any contacts with the Zionist organizations and the rejection of any future contacts.” And, relying on Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s strategy of using “Islamic Centers in major cities” as the axis of the Islamist movement, imams and administrators in these centers would “activate their role in confronting the [Jewish] infiltration of their organizations.”

The role of CAIR was already coming into focus: The last element of the Committee’s “Confrontation Work Plan” was “activating the role of the Association [IAP] . . . to take up its media role in this area.” Six weeks later, CAIR was incorporated and began appearing publicly as a new Muslim “civil rights” organization.

(…)

Numerous CAIR figures have been convicted of federal felonies, including terrorism offenses. For example, when the aforementioned Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, was found guilty in theHLF case, it marked his third time around the block. He’d been convicted in 2006 for funneling money to Marzook and Hamas, and in 2005 for illegal transactions with Libya and Syria. Randall Royer, aCAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator whose sideline was recruiting would-be jihadists for terrorist training in Pakistan, is now serving a 20-year prison sentence after his conviction on explosives and firearms charges in the “Virginia Jihad” case. Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s community-affairs director (and a founder of the Saudi-subsidized, al-Qaeda-promoting Islamic Assembly of North America), also makes this dishonor roll: He was deported to Egypt after convictions for visa and bank fraud. And then there’s Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s Ann Arbor chapter who was deported to Lebanon after a “charity” he founded, the Global Relief Foundation, was designated as a terrorist facilitator by the Treasury Department for providing support to al-Qaeda.

Despite its Hamas roots and terror ties, the most disturbing aspect of CAIR is its accomplishment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s precise aspiration for it. Thanks to its media savvy and the credulousness of government officials and press outlets, which have treated it as the “civil rights” group it purports to be rather than the Islamist spearhead that it is, CAIR has been a constant thorn in the side of American national defense. As Daniel Pipes has observed, CAIR’s unique role has been well summarized by lawyers for the estate of the former FBI counterterrorism official John P. O’Neill, who was killed on 9/11 — shortly after becoming security chief at the World Trade Center. In a class-action lawsuit that named CAIR and its Canadian affiliate as members of a criminal conspiracy to promote “radical Islamic terrorism,” they state:

both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

The invaluable Dr. Pipes further recounts that CAIR has consistently defended indicted terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Hooper, for example, rationalized al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as the unfortunate result of “misunderstandings of both sides.” CAIR also refused to condemn bin Laden for 9/11 until finally embarrassed into it by bin Laden’s own public boast that he had directed the attacks. The organization called the convictions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers “a travesty of justice”; labeled the 1995 extradition of Marzook as “anti-Islamic”; tirelessly defended al-Arian and slimed his accusers until he finally pled guilty to terror promotion; and squawked relentlessly when the government shuttered the HLF.

Fox News Megyn Kelly konfronterede CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper (måske derfor er Fox mere populært end deres venstredrejede konkurrenter?) og derpå interviewede hun Hirsi Ali selv

Et par udvalgte reaktioner på Thatcher død

68, Akademia, Campusradikalisme, EU, Historie, Politik, Politiken, Pressen, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Det var hendes modstandere på den anden side af Jerntæppet, der døbte hende “Jernlady’en”. De håbede at det ville være rigeligt til at defamere hende ud af billedet. Men tilnavnet tjente kun til at slå skræk i deres hjerter, for hvem turde dog stå op imod en jernlady? Jalving gør kort status af Thatcher’s arv, som vi…

…forvaltede [...] dårligt, for nu at sige det mildt. Grotesk dårligt. Hele postmodernismen, multikulturalismen og den sukkerdemokratiske korrekthed korrumperede os indefra og fratog os den af historien oplyste selvtillid. Vi ville være gode, og det blev vores skæbne, mens uddannelse blev til masseuddannelser, indvandring til masseindvandring og stater udviklede sig til gældssatte nannystater, mere og mere prisgivet arabisk aggressivitet. Resten kender vi kun alt for godt.

Desværre kender ikke alle arven særlig godt og forfalder i stedet til dyrkelsen af deres villigt indoktrinerede idiosynkrasier, som Daily Mail fortæller.

article-2305760-192e812e000005dc-990_634x423

Champagneproletariatet plyndrede også flere butikker - sådan er Thatchers kritikere. Punk-klenodiet Johnnie Rotten (whom you might have forgotten) kaldte ifølge Daily Mail den slags dansen på andre menneskers grav for “Loathsome“. Den slags almindelig anstændighed er det langt fra alle kendisser, der har. I Politiken kan man således læse at Margaret Thatcher har rekord som offer for flest hadesange og Politiken citerer bl.a CV Jørgensen’s sang Postkort fra Port Stanley: “Nu smiler lady Margaret Thatcher / blottende tre plomber og en bro / sit liderlige iskolde ligblege smil”. Men det er de engelske, der er mest bitre, selvfølgelig, som Morrisey’s “The kind people / Have a wonderful dream / Margaret on the guillotine / Cause people like you / Make me feel so tired« efterfulgt af fem gentagne linjers »When will you die?“. Og Daily Mail fandt eksempler på hvorledes venstrefløjen kom kravlende ud af murværket for at spy galde - deres metier

DEREK HATTON: The former Liverpool councillor said: ‘The issue isn’t about whether she is dead. I regret for the sake of millions of people that she was ever born.’

‘She promoted a form of greed in business that we’ve never known before and it’s continued ever since. She actually changed the whole face of this country in a way, that you know, people wouldn’t have even anticipated.

‘Even her successors got away with murder, literally, for example Blair in Iraq, that they wouldn’t have got away with had it not been for what she did.

JOEY BARTON: The footballer posted: ‘I’d say RIP Maggie but it wouldn’t be true. If heaven exists that old witch won’t be there.’

FRANKIE BOYLE: The comedian tweeted: ‘All that Thatcher achieved was to ensure that people living in Garbage Camps a hundred years from now will think that Hitler was a woman.’

IRVINE WELSH: The author wrote: ‘So, if u take out Orgreave, destroying communities, Belgrano/Falklands, Hillsborough, protecting nonces, child poverty, Pinochet, she was ok.’

MARK STEEL: The comedian wrote: ‘What a terrible shame – that it wasn’t 87 years earlier.’

ROSS NOBLE: The comedian tweeted: ‘Bloody typical that Thatcher dies when I am in  Australia. I hate to miss a good street party.’

ALEX CALLINICOS: Professor of European Studies at King’s College, London, and member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party, he said: ‘Murder was Thatcher’s business. Sometimes the murder was metaphorical – of industries and communities. It still destroyed people’s lives. Sometimes the murder was real. Thatcher over-saw the ongoing dirty war in Ireland.’

BBC fejrede det også på deres egen subtile facon da de ifølge Daily Mail meddelte at “…former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dies following a strike.” frem for et “stroke”. Og Geri Halliwell, en form for sangerinde, skrev “‘Thinking of our 1st Lady of girl power, Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter who taught me anything is possible…x’” på Tvitter. Hun fortrød dog hurtigt overfor sine fans og erstattede sin udmelding med “I’m sorry if I offended u. X”. Ikke ligefrem Girl Power, som Daily Mail ironiserede.

Politikens leder hæfter sig ikke ved at Thatcher redde England fra afgrundens rand, brød fagforeningernes magt og knækkede Galteries diktatur, opløste klassesamfundet eller indsatsen under den Kolde Krig. Politikens leder er meget mere optaget af at sprede prosaiske løgne

Men den britiske jernlady er desværre stadig, selv efter sin død i forgårs, uhyggeligt nærværende som ideologisk kraft.

Den ultraliberalisme eller thatcherisme, som bærer hendes navn, er og bliver ødelæggende. Minimalstatens, egoismens og ulighedens ideologi.

(…)

Men thatcherismen er en ideologi, som fremelsker alt andet end det storladne: små tanker om samfundet, indskrænkede forestillinger om økonomi, usle ideer om at slække på solidaritet, ansvar og mange andre af de værdier, som engang før Thatcher blev betragtet som samfundsbærende og forfægtet ikke mindst af ’konservative’ – i mange lande og mange partier.

Jyllands-Posten fandt det vigtigt at spørge Galteri’s tabende soldater

Adskillige argentinske veteraner fra konflikten i 1982, der står som et af højdepunkterne i Thatchers politiske karriere, reagerede med glæde efter meddelelsen om hendes bortgang.

- Gud velsigne den dag, hvor denne frygtelige kvinde døde, siger den 71-årige Domenico Gruscomagno.

- Hun var en afskyelig person. Hun førte krig for at vinde valg i Storbritannien.

I det mindste havde britterne et valg, hvilket var en del af sagens kerne. Det siger i øvrigt en del om den argentiske soldat at han regner en engelsk sejr for givet.

I usually make up my mind about a man in ten seconds, and I very rarely change it” har Thatcher sagt. Og det var der vel heller ikke grund til når hun var så præcis. Tidligere udenrigsminister Niels Helveg Petersen af radikal observans mindedes ifølge BT’s overskrift at “Thatcher kaldte mig et fjols“. Men det gjorde hun nu ikke helt så direkte, som overskriften påstår, men hun sagde “Only a fool would give up one’s currency” da Helveg med munden fuld af mad ævlede om sine idiotiske eurosværmerier.

At Thatcher ikke kunne “fordrage det europæiske samarbejde og talte aldrig pænt om det“ falder ikke i god jord hos radikale som Helveg som derfor mener at hun “må bære en del af ansvaret” for at “opinionen i Storbritannien i dag er eurofjendsk“. Enten det, eller at euroen blot er så meget crap at det kræver en radikaler eller en akademiker at fornægte det idiotiske i at opgive sin egen valuta. Det var trods alt englænderne der valgte hende fordi de kunne lide hvad de hørte. En årsagsammenhæng, som ofte undslipper eurokrater, sjovt nok.

Apropos eurokrater,  også tidligere udenrigsminister Uffe Ellemann Jensen, ligeledes af radikal observans, omend ikke indrømmet, mindes Thatcher , som “havde en både imponerende og irriterende evne til ofte at få sin vilje“. Imponerende fordi hun reddede den engelske økonomi og fik “...givet en argentinsk diktator en blodtud på Falklandsøerne“. Men irriterende fordi “…hun var meget vanskelig at have med at gøre i et europæisk samarbejde, fordi hun var meget besværlig at forhandle med“. Ja ikke nok med det: “Hun var slem“. Man hører nærmest et lettelsens suk fra Ellemann.

D’herrer tidligere udenrigsministre demonstrerer begge samme smålighed når nogen, selv en af efterkrigstidens største statsmænd, står i vejen for deres store projekt. Og de demonstrerer den samme foruroligende manglende forståelse for at man først og fremmest tjener det land og de vælgere, der har belønnet een med et embede. som EU’s lande kaster sig desperat over er en art Thatcherisme står det klar med Sly’s ord at EU er sygdommen og Thatcher er kuren.

Jeg har ikke fundet tidligere udenrigsminister Mogen Lykketoft af socialdemokratisk observans reaktion, men sidste år mindede socialdemokraten Peter Humlegaard Thomsen i Politiken om at “Der er stadig grund til at hade jernladyen“. Ja, hade. Og ja, stadigvæk.

Selv om konen er blevet gammel og senil, lever hadet til hende i bedste velgående. Det har den britiske arbejderklasse god grund til, det har vi grund til i Danmark – og jeg melder mig som en af dem.

Humlegaards grunde til at ‘melde’ sig til hadet (???) er dog så originale, såsom at “thatcherismen [har] et direkte medansvar for krakket i 2008″ at jeg lige vil dvæle lidt ved dem.

I dag er vi mere end nogensinde underlagt bankernes magt. Selv efter en krise, som de finansielle markeder har skabt, er det svært at pålægge dem nye regler og skatter, som kan disciplinere deres adfærd.

Det fremgår ikke hvorfor Thatcher er skyld i at det er svært for socialdemokrater 20 år efter hendes afgang som premierminister at “pålægge dem nye regler og skatter”. Socialdemokrater i alle partiafskygninger er jo ellers nærmest virtuose udi disciplinen ‘pålæggelse af nye regler og afgifter’ for alt og alle andre end Thornings leasebil og husbond.

Thatcher brugte den ‘hårde medicin’ på at tøjle inflationen, og i dag bruger Merkel, Sarkozy og resten af Europas højrefløj samme medicin til at tackle statsunderskuddene. Selv om erfaringerne i Storbritannien var katastrofale, sværges der i dag til den samme politik, som var den sendt herned af vorherre.

Og, må man jo nu tilføje, den siddende socialdemokratiske regering. Humlegaard fortæller at han i 2010 var i valgdistriktet Barking-Dagenham i det østlige London for at føre valgkamp for Labor - altså belære englænderne om hvorledes de skal indrette et samfund, som Thomsen slet ikke er en del af. Finanskrisen havde ramt hårdt, fortæller Thomsen; “Kun få år tidligere havde bilfabrikanten Ford lukket en fabrik, der beskæftigede 40.000 arbejdere” - Knap 20 år efter Thatcher forlod premierministerposten!

Thatcher slog velfærdsstaten ihjel, udsultede uddannelsessystemet, nedlagde det sociale arbejde og fordoblede kriminaliteten. Derodover støttede hun blindt apartheidregimet i Sydafrika i 80′erne, Pinochets diktatur i Chile og “kastede sig ud i en uforklarlig krig på Falklandsøerne“. For at citere Thatcher selv er svaret; No! No! No! Men sådan er de røde, uforstående over at en regeringsleder ser det som sin pligt at forsvare sit land og sine statsborgere mod tyranni. Hurrah for Thatcher og skam dig Thomsen, der helt originalt vælger forkert efter at historien har afgjort ret fra vrang.

Lidt skønne billede til sidst. En svensk journalist kalder Thatcher Hitler. Thatcher kalder Sverige “neutrale”. Hmm, måske bunder svenskernes neutralitet i at de ikke kan skelne mellem Hitler og Thatcher, men se selv

Og en top 25 over Thatcher citater

My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.

Akademiker efterlyser “a new kind of democracy”

Akademia, Campusradikalisme, Godheds-industrien, Klima, Politik, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 3, 2013 at 8:21 am

Helen Camakaris er akademiker og det er alt, hvad man behøver at vide for at forstå hvorfor hun skriver, som hun gør i Shaping Tomorrows World - et ildevarslende navn til et ‘news site’.

Cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling we have when we know we should invest in solar panels but the 46? wide screen TV wins out; we know we should catch the bus but we take the car anyway. It’s that sense of discord that arises when emotion and reason don’t get along. And unfortunately, it’s alive and well, sabotaging the climate change debate.

We’ve evolved to feel a single sense of self, but our minds consist of multiple voices. Our emotional brain has first go at making sense of our world, instantly telling us how to behave and what to believe, based on instincts reinforced by upbringing. Sometimes our rational brain is then called upon to endorse our intuitions, which then become beliefs. Problems that are unusually difficult or surprising will recruit our rational brain, but reasoning takes effort and we avoid it when we can.

Unfortunately our emotional brain is encouraging us to pursue perceived self-interest even if that means trashing the planet. This leaves our rational brain to try to justify our actions, even while the walls come tumbling down and the temperatures keep rising.

If we are to have any chance of a future we need to understand why our intuitions are so poor, and how we might temper them by engaging our ability to reason.

We haven’t evolved to be successful in the modern world. Civilisation arose only 12,000 years ago; in evolutionary terms that’s just the blink of an eye. Ninety-nine per cent of human evolution occurred during the Stone Age, so our evolved instincts, personality traits, and even some of our cognitive “short-cuts” are much better suited to this Pleistocene world.

Evolution didn’t care about the future; it was simply driven by those who survived and left the most descendants. So our ancestors were the ones who were best at competing for food and status, securing mates and having babies. They were materialistic, living very much in the present and rarely constrained by sustainability. They ate a broad range of foods, and if resources became depleted they could expand their territories or move on, behaviour that led to the extinction of many animals and to extensive migration.

A level of altruism did evolve, but it was circumscribed by benefits to kin, expectations of reciprocal reward, and an obsession with fairness. Altruism can often therefore be trumped by self-interest.

We might expect that intelligence and language would have been game-changers; they were, but not necessarily for the better. We learnt to tame nature and harvest its bounty, to build great cities, and to harness the laws of physics and chemistry. We may celebrate the Industrial Revolution as the beginning of modern civilisation, but it also ushered in burgeoning overpopulation, resource exploitation, pollution and climate change.

So if we evolved to exploit nature, and to be blind to the consequences, what now? Our only chance is to wrest control away from our emotional brain, and construct a new reality where our rational brain can take control.

Og så foretager fru Camakaris springet fra det underfundige til det undergravende

We need to design a new kind of democracy where many government decisions are made cooperatively, with multi-party representation and the input of experts. Such think tanks must have strategies in place to promote critical self-analysis and to “frame” policy to reflect the long-term reality. The cost of climate change mitigation can then be shown to be minute compared to the cost of inaction.

If we value a sustainable world, the GDP must be replaced by a measure of a country’s wealth, including resources, social capital and the cost of pollution. Costs should reflect the inclusive cradle-to-grave value of products and services, so that choices reflect out true long-term interests. Conspicuous consumption might be curbed further by offering workers the choice of more leisure rather than a salary increase, and by rewarding excellence with honours and privileges, rather than fat pay packets and obscene bonuses.

Education must produce adults who can think critically and understand what’s at stake and why our judgement is flawed. To counter self-interest, the government should use incentives and disincentives to guide public behaviour. We need to encourage altruism by instituting reciprocal, incremental improvements, and by showing leadership.

We are at the crossroads. Unless we recognise the less-adaptive aspects of human nature and devise ways of keeping them in check, the world we bequeath to our children will be a diminished one. We have the means to do this, but do we have the will? Evolution may have made us the most intelligent animal on Earth, but it makes no promise that we will be survivors.

Man skal have læst på universitetet for blive så dum.

Human Engineering: Should We Change Our Bodies To Battle A Warmer Climate?

Campusradikalisme, Diverse, Politik — Drokles on October 27, 2012 at 11:38 am

Campusradikalismen er ufrivillig morsom

Akademia, Campusradikalisme, Godheds-industrien, Multikultur, Postmodernisme — Sobieski on May 20, 2011 at 7:46 pm

Nyd denne vignette af stupiditet når akademikeren Luam Kidane fra “No One Is Illegal” ruller sig ud på Canadisk fjernsyn. (”No One Is Illegal” er vel en pandang til Ingen Människa är Illegal, Minoritetspartiet, Bedsteforældre for… osv).

Via Snaphanen:

Jeg forstår ikke intervieweren kan beherske sig så længe.

Læg mærke til modsætningen i Kidanes påstande: Canada er besat territorium som naturligvis skal afleveres igen, og så det at der ingen grænser må være. Oven i købet modsiger den første påstand selve navnet på den organisation hun repræsenterer. Det er, selv for en forhærdet kyniker som mig, en “first”.

Jeg må dog på en måde beundre hendes insisteren og frækhed ved absolut ikke at godkende præmissen for interviewerens spørgsmål, ren ‘Penkowa style’. Det er virkeligt absurd teater. Heldigvis har disse universitets-udklækkede distanceblændere i flere år overspillet deres kort, og det er en fornøjelse at se dem blive skudt ned på åben skærm. Der er et seismisk skifte på vej i den akademiske verden; Henrik Dahls bon voyage til venstrefløjen er blot et af symptomerne og jeg tror en hel akademisk tradition inden for humaniora er dømt til undergang. Dog har jeg medlidenhed med de forældre og skatteydere der har betalt i dyre domme for en sådan gang ikke-lærdom.

God Storbededag!

Monokultur kører på WordPress