Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 520

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 18

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1244

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1442

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 306

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/cache.php on line 431

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/class.wp-dependencies.php on line 31

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/http.php on line 61

Warning: explode() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-content/plugins/bannage.php on line 15
Monokultur » USA


Kan Trump overvinde the pussy generation?

Donald Trump står som det bedste håb, for at stoppe den nedbrydning af Vestens frihedsforståelse, som Hillary Clinton ser ud til at ville forsætte i sporet efter Barak Hussein Obama. Men selv om han skulle vinde over Hillary, kan Donald Trump også sætte det hele over styr, som en anden Glistrup, hvis hans retorik viser sig kun at være fantasterier, som det konservative tidsskrift National Review slår til lyd for igen og igen. Her er lidt Trump kritik og perspektiv fra den mere afdæmpede og altid skarpe Thomas Sowel, som man kan læse i Townhall

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

Og efter en hurtig gennemgang af Obamas og Hillary Clintons forhold til magtudøvelse og ytringsfrihed (hvor muligheden for at kriminalisere skepsis til klimafortællingen afsøges konstant)(Dennis Prager kommer til lignende konklusioner) konkluderer Sowell

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.

Russisk roulette indeholder muligheden for et positivt udkomme, så jeg krydser alligevel fingre for Donald Trump. Trump kan næppe frelse den Vestlig Verden, men han kan sætte en afgørende anden dagsorden ved at punktere den vestlige fortrængning af det ondes eksistens og blinde tro på at behandle sig ud af konfrontationer om nødvendigt ved selvopofrelse. Måske kan Trump fravriste venstrefløjen deres definitionsmagt over debatten, som Clint Eastwood fortæller Breitbart

“He’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” Clint Eastwood said in an interview with Esquire. “That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”

Eastwood specifically cited Trump’s comments criticizing a judge who was born to Mexican parents, but indicated he was tired of the media fueled controversy

“He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides,” he said “But everybody —the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

(…)

“I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps,” he said, calling Clinton “a tough voice to listen to for four years.”

Eastwood criticized political figures who were using their position to make money, citing “too much funny business on both sides of the aisle.”

“She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,” he said, referring to Clinton.

Som et eksempel kan vi se på Trumps svar til en journalist fra CNN om det fortstående besøg fra selveste Pave Francis. Transcribtionen er fra Washington Times fordi jeg ikke kan stave til særligt meget på engelsk

Mr. Cuomo asked what Mr. Trump would say if a translator said to him: “‘The pope believes that capitalism can be a real avenue to greed. It can be really toxic and corrupt.’ And he’s shaking his finger at you when he says it. What do you say in response to the pope?”

“I’d say ISIS wants to get you,” Mr. Trump said. “You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that — you know, that’s a dream of theirs to go into Italy, you do know that.”

Medierne ææælsker at sætte modsætninger op, men de hader at stille de relevante modsætninger op. Paven er moralsk uangribelig, Paven ser anderledes på lengesager fordi han aldrig har skulle tjene dem selv, så hvad har Trump at sige til sit forsvar? Intet, Trump hamrer istedet den relevante dagsorden igennem, islamisk terrorisme breder sig fra alle steder, og det er Paven og hans ligesindede der er i en tilstand af fortrængning. Så spørgsmålet er nu ikke længere hvad Trump har at sige til Paven, men om Paven har noget at sige til realiteterne. Dette, sammen med Brexit og et fornuftigt valg i Frankrig og andre steder kan sætte en helt anden dagsorden og give mod til retskafne politikere på at det nytter at tale de fine fornemmelser midt imod fordi folkedybet er større end den den definerende klasse som er et med mediernes verdensbillede.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

omvendt

Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

Kommer det nye USA nu?

Man kunne tro at Donald Trump var arketypen, eller en lidt vulgær variant, af den amerikanske drøm, men i New Yorker kunne jeg læse at Obama mente at Trump er uamerikansk. Kristeligt Dagblad assisterede min bedagede forståelse det amerikanske og præsenterede “det nye USA der hepper på Hillary Clinton

Demokraternes præsidentkandidat skal samle et kludetæppe af mindretal for at vinde over Donald Trumps hvide vælgere ved USA’s valg i november

Det Demokratiske Partis nye ansigt er folk som Zak Davidson fra Columbia, Ohio. En hvid, veluddannet ateist på bare 22 år.

Det er 64-årige Norma Davenport, der har levet hele sit liv i et traditionelt afroamerikansk arbejderkvarter i Philadelphia.

Det er den homoseksuelle flådeveteran Ron Helms og hans jødiske veninde Joanne Goodwin fra Florida.

Og det er Sue Langley fra Virginia, der for 34 år siden immigrerede fra Thailand til USA med sine forældre.

Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud

At råbe “Intifada! Intifada!” og “Death to the USA!” mens man brænder israelske flag er i sandhed langt fra, hvad den negerlignende Steven W Trasher kalder “a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate” af Trump støtter. Trasher er bange for at de rabiate, svindende, vrede hvide vælgere er nok til at bringe Trump til Det Hvide Hus til november fordi Hillary ikke kan begejstre, “just watch Hillary Clinton being booed at her own party convention”. Den slags intern dissens får man ikke indtrykket af i medierne, især ikke de danske, men Townhall forsøgte at opgøre omfanget af udvandringen fra konventet, da Hillary blev nomineret

The level of media bias in reporting the Democratic National Convention is as high as I have ever seen outside of North Korea and the old Soviet bloc. The GOP convention was declared a disaster many times during its four-day run, but the DNC, reeling from revelations of the rigging of the primary contests, is getting far more benign descriptors, as the media avert their eyes from unpleasant realities.

Among the most unpleasant realities for Democrats and the media is the anger of Bernie supporters now that it is clear the campaign into which they threw their hearts and souls was fixed all along. Somehow, that anger must be minimized, trivialized, and eventually extinguished if Donald Trump is to be stopped. And in the eyes of the media, that threat is so overwhelming that no restraints whatsoever are justified in making the case against him as propagandists rather than honest observers and reporters.

So the focus last night at the DNC was “history being made,” (no Y chromosomes at the top of the ticket) and a soft focus look at Hillary’s record as a left wing activist using children as a front for demanding leftist policies and selected aspects of her personal relationship with Bill Clinton, the most popular living Democrat (if you ask Democrats).

As propaganda, it was skillful.

Godt dog at ISIS overhovedet blev nævnt for ifølge Breitbart blev det eller jihad eller terror slet ikke nævnt på konventets første dag. Til gengæld blev andendagen åbnet med af islamisten Sherman Jackson, der mener, om ikke sit, så hvad islam lærer ham om del af det nye USA der er homosexuelle, jøder etc. Man skal helst ikke nævne islam, ifølge Obama, ikke blot fordi det er “offensive to Muslims”, men “the kinds of rhetoric that we’ve heard too often, from Mr. Trump and others, is ultimately helping do ISIL’s work for us”. Omvendt med Hillary “She will stand up to ISIS”, som Martin O’Malley (ham er der spræl i) uambitiøst erklærede. Men at stå op imod ISIS er alt man tør på et demokratisk konvent, hvor al tale om faktisk at bekæmpe kalifatet fører til protester fra salen.

Jeg er ikke helt klar over hvorfor befollkningsudskiftning er blevet så salonfähig i medierne. Men det nye USA kommer måske til at vente four more years, da Trump fører i meningsmålingerne og Assange truer med at der er mere slim i røret.

Daily Show manipulerer med virkeligheden

Jon Stewart var god til det, Trevor Noah er det ikke. Satire er svært fordi det er indhold og ikke blot en ironisk form. Men når man driver et dagligt satire-program bliver presset på at finde nok satirisk materiale oftest så stort at man alt for ofte presser det materiale man nu engang har ind i den opøvede ironiske form. Og dette bliver uhæderlighed.

Noget af det sjoveste er at udstille repræsentanter for sine idiosynkrasier så alle kan svælge i, hvor tåbelige og usammenhængende de er. Men det kræver at man finder dem. Hvis ikke man finder dem, men i stedet er så uheldig at rende ind i intelligente velovervejede mennesker lidende af en anden politisk observans end ens egen må man manipulere med sit offer. Ved det republikanske konvent faldt en medarbejder fra Breitbart over en sådan manipulation i sin skabelse

A crew from The Daily Show — which plunged in the ratings after Trevor Noah took over as host— set up outside the event and approached people as they left the party, asking them for interviews.

At 12:30 a.m., Pollak was leaving the party when The Daily Show approached. “I was on the phone anyway,” Pollak recalled, “so I ignored them, but then I saw them pulling someone aside, so I stopped to watch.” The Breitbart senior editor-at-large ended his call, and turned on his video camera.

The Daily Show didn’t like that. Their attempt to stop Pollak wasn’t funny, and included physical intimidation and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.

“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.

“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.

“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”

(…)

The actions of the thugs from The Daily Show are shocking, and they rip the lid off the real purpose off the show: political propaganda disguised as entertainment. They weren’t trying to hide their “jokes” but were trying to keep their dwindling viewership from seeing how they make the sausage.

It’s as ugly as (insert politically incorrect Leslie Jones joke here) — and it’s no laughing matter.

Men metoden er ikke ny og den er ikke opfundet at Trevor Noah. Daily Shows Jon Stewart var dygtigere end Noah, men han kunne også lyve om virkeligheden for at passe sin ironiske form og lefle for sine tilhængeres idiosynkrasier. Og Stewart er et rimeligt præcist udtryk for hvorledes en stor del af venstrefløjen ræsonnerer, undvigende virkeligheden uden at stå til regnskab, som Daniel Greenfield skrev i Frontpage Magazine

It was Bush’s victory that took a flailing cable show hosted by an irritating little standup comedian with more neurotic tics than a flea-bitten Woody Allen and turned him into the voice of liberalism. Stewart’s nervous smirk and his passive aggressive mockery became the zeitgeist of urban Democrats nervously responding to Bush’s popularity and the rise of American patriotism after September 11.

The Democratic Party was out of ideas. The politicians who would become some of Bush’s most fevered critics were still following the president’s cues. A newly serious America was confronting a world war.

Stewart’s disingenuousness, veering from ironic detachment to self-righteous hectoring, undermined real sincerity with fake sincerity. The Daily Show’s audience of hipster yuppies cheered their newfound faith in sincere cynicism while the calculated ironic distance of his comedy kept him safe from critics. Even while he attacked the media’s dishonesty, his own routine was the most dishonest of them all.

His fake news was real news, biased and spun with punch lines. It was fake news that was real and just as fake as the rest of the news. The truth was that the lie was still a lie.

What Stewart offered a party dragged down by a morose Gore and Kerry was the promise of cool. Their former figurehead had started out playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show only to decay into a bloated red-faced mess. With towers burning and wars rising, Stewart was to be their bridge to a cooler and younger 21st century that an aging Democratic Party no longer seemed able to grapple with.

Jon Stewart didn’t actually have cool, but he could offer it up inversely by way of mockery. Like a school paper’s drama critic, he might not be cool, but by railing against others, he could deny coolness to them.

(…)

What Stewart offered Democrats was an evasive viewpoint without accountability. And nothing quite appeals to the cowardly instincts of a political hack like being able to take a political position without being held accountable for it. But it was Obama who truly embraced politics without accountability, transforming every issue into a joke or referencing it back to his own biography.

While he may have come out on the stage with a unique personal story, what kept Obama competitive was his skill at refracting everything through layers of irony and self-awareness. His approach was to borrow Stewart’s own routine without any of its ambiguity. Stewart’s pretense of triangulation became Obama’s obsession with turning his radical left-wing politics into an imaginary middle ground.

Stewart and Obama had come out of a political movement trying to respond to September 11 without having the first idea how to do so. Stewart’s comedy paved the way for minimizing the threat while inflating the absurdity of those trying to fight it. It is an approach that Obama continues to embrace.

(…)

Generation X cynicism fused with millennial brand awareness to create a political monster who might not be able to lie to the people all the time, but who cynically made the existence of his lies irrelevant.

Stewart’s Daily Show had offered an antidote to the Bush era of patriotism, sincerity and decency. Its antidote was passive aggressive ridicule and political satire as sincerity. After the Bush era ended, Stewart and his fellow comedians had little left to do except take on the job of defending Obama, while occasionally critiquing him. They had become the official court jesters of the Democratic Party.

Et eksempel. Under Israels seneste krig med terror-regimet Hamas i Gazastriben latterliggjorde Stewart Israel for ikke at beskytte fjendens civilbefolkning helt lige så meget som sin egen civilbefolkning. Som David Horovitz beskrev i Times of Israel

Stewart: “Both sides are engaging in aerial bombardment, but one side appears to be bomb-better-at it. (Studio laughter at the wordplay.) Most Hamas rockets are neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome technology, and Israeli citizens can even now download a warning app. (Cut to clip of Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer explaining how Israelis can know where and when they’re being attacked.) So Israelis seem to have a high-tech, smart-phone alert system.”

Let me see if I understand the point he’s making here: Having falsely implied that Israel is as keen on killing as Hamas is, Stewart now seems to be criticizing Israel for not being as vulnerable as Hamas would like it to be to those Hamas rockets that are sent to kill us. He seems to be bashing us for having those tech smarts. It’s a bad thing that we developed a unique, astonishing Iron Dome missile defense system, without which hundreds of us would be dead? It’s a bad thing that we developed an app to warn us that the rockets designed to kill our citizens are heading this way?

Stewart: “How are the Gazans notified? (Cut to a clip explaining that Israel carries out “a small mortar explosion” on the roof of a building that is to be bombed “which serves as an Israeli warning of an upcoming airstrike.” Back to Stewart.) “Hmmm. So the Israeli military warns Gaza residents of imminent bombing (pause for comedic effect), with a smaller warning bombing! (Laughter). An amuse-boom, if you will.” (Studio laughter, clapping, cheering.)

What’s my problem with that bit (once I’ve registered the witty play on amuse-bouche). Oh, where to start? Stewart fails to explain which buildings in Gaza are being targeted: This is not the mirror image of Hamas’s arbitrary rocket attacks on any and every Israeli target. These are Israeli airstrikes on Gaza homes where Israel says terror chiefs live, where weaponry is stored, from where rockets are fired.

Furthermore, whereas Hamas, out to kill, does not generally warn Israel of imminent rocket attacks (thus rendering every missile fired at Israel from Gaza “a crime against humanity,” according to the Palestinian Authority’s own UN representative), Israel, trying not to kill noncombatants, fires that warning mortar shell to alert civilians — even though it knows this is more than likely to lead to the terrorist fleeing. Would Stewart rather Israel not warn Gazans that, in its efforts to prevent rocket fire on its civilians, it is about to strike back?

Mark Levin luftede dengang også sin harme over Stewarts manipulerede virkelighed.

Trumps sammenhængende tale

Donald Trump fører ifølge CNN i meningsmålingerne over Hillary Clinton. Der skal tages det forbehold at Trump har fået ekstra opmærksomhed som han blev kåret til Republikanernes præsidentkandidat på der republikanske konvent. Nu er det så Hillarys tur til at højne opmærksomheden om sit kandidatur, men hun skal tage højde for en opmærksomhed der indtil videre er centreret om hvorledes Demokraterne har modarbejdet Bernie Sanders den anden kandidat til Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i en blanding af almindelig Clintonsk korruption og generel venstreorienteret antisemitisme (og så er der den almindelige dyrkelse af race-deling). Hillary har allerede ansat Demokraternes skandaleombruste partiformand til (forsat?) at lede hendes kampagne.

Og man kan håbe at Trump ender med nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Muligvis er han en charlatan og muligvis vil han være en katastrofe, men i forhold til alternativet, så har vi brug for en mand der kan sige sandheder. Om terror-angrebene mod Frankrig - og man kan inkludere alle europæiske lande i denne ligning - siger Trump

- Det er deres egen skyld, fordi de i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium, siger han.

Det gør ondt at læse og nogle er faldet over ham for at bebrejde ofrene. Men det er desværre sandheden. Hvis ikke man værger for sig inviterer man problemerne ind i sit land. Man kan meget vel beskylde “eliten” eller “venstrefløjen” eller “venligboerne” eller “politikerne”, men alt i alt har de europæiske nationalstater, og de er jo summen der indeholder elite, folk og fjolser, ikke taget var på sig selv. Det er tid til at se virkeligheden i øjnene.

- De er blevet kompromitteret af terrorisme. Her er, hvad jeg vil gøre: Ekstremt grundige undersøgelser. Det er et hårdt ord. Ekstreme undersøgelser. Vi skal stille hårde krav. Hvis en person ikke kan bevise det, de skal kunne bevise, kommer de ikke ind i det her land, siger Trump, der dog ikke besvarer mere uddybende spørgsmål om hans model for undersøgelserne.

(…)

- Folk blev så vrede, da jeg brugte ordet muslim. Uh, man må ikke sige muslim. Og det er okay, for nu taler jeg om territorier i stedet for muslimer, siger han.

Det er en helt anden indstilling end den europæiske, der klart spejler sig i crooked Hillary. Jean-Claude Juncker “the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump”, skriver Breitbart. Tro mod sit formål ræsonnerer formande at uanset omkostningerne er åbne grænser et gode

Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

(…)

Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

Det verdensfjerne udsyn, renset for de grimme realiteter gennemsyrer både ekspertise, medier og myndigheder. Her sad jeg med kaffen og læste en ganske almindelig artikel på Danmarks Radio om noget af det seneste terror

Der er åbenlyst ingen sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland. Men for mange tyskere føles det som terror, selv når det ikke er det, siger DR’s Tyskland-korrespondent Michael Reiter.

- Det giver en følelse af, at man ikke kan gå ud i det offentlige rum uden at blive ramt af et eller andet forfærdeligt til hver en tid, siger Michael Reiter og tilføjer, at utrygheden kommer til udtryk på de sociale medier, i de tyske avisers ledere og hos dem, han taler med.

- Der en udpræget følelse af, at verden er at lave. Sådan var det allerede efter i fredags, hvor tyskerne oplevede blodbad nummer to på en uge.

Angreb gavner højrefløjen

De voldomme begivenheder kan meget vel give den islam- og indvandringskritiske tyske højrefløj ekstra vind i sejlene, vurderer Michael Reiter. For alle gerningsmænd har anden etnisk baggrund end tysk.

- For det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschland er det vand på møllen, når der er tale om terror. For det bekræfter dem og deres vælgere i deres meget heftige kritik af kansler Merkels flygtningepolitik, siger Michael Reiter.

Det er altså kun for det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschlands vælgere at der er en sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland alle begået af indvandrere og at denne sammenhæng har at gøre med Merkels flygtningepolitik, hvor man “i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium”. Det borger jo ikke godt for det samlede elektorat.

Skæggede mænd lavede tumult på nøgenbaderstrand” var en overskrift på Ekstrabladet, der i artiklen gav et lille hint ved at disse skæggede mænd “beskrives som værende ’sydlandske’ og som værende omkring 25 år gamle.” Som Møller på Uriasposten spekulerer i “kunne det godt være et efterspil til en fugtig kongres for kristen-arabiske julemænd, men nej”. Møllers sarkasme er desværre sørgelig præcis, hvis man læser de svenske medier, hvor det i ægte Camusks ånd er solen der var skyldig i de mange voldtægter. Midt i al det gejl kan man ikke fortænke den almindelige borger i at miste sin sunde fornuft

forkert-gc3a6t

Myndighederne i både Tyskland og Frankrig har haft travlt med at dække over problemets omfang og essens.

Der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem muslimsk indvandring og terror og vold. Trumps tale er sammenhængende, mens europærernes, med et engelsk udtryk er unhinged.

Obama: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant Death to America does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe”

Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.

Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

(…)

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.

Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.

Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”

Mere blod på Obamas hænder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama har vist ikke “helet nationen”

Politico skriver

The head of a law enforcement advocacy group lashed out at President Barack Obama in the wake of the Dallas shootings that left five police officers dead, accused the president of carrying out a “war on cops.”

“I think [the Obama administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,” William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.

(…)

“It’s a war on cops,” Johnson also said. “And the Obama administration is the Neville Chamberlain of this war.”

obama-black-lives-matter-meeting-getty-640x480

Billedet viser Obama der takker Black Lives Matter for deres “degree of focus and seriousness and constructiveness“, flankeret af grundlægger af Black Lives Matter, Brittany Packnett og DeRay McKesson. I samme ånd kunne han kun svinge sig op til at bemærke at det var kontraproduktivt at myrde politifolk

“Whenever those of us who are concerned about fairness in the criminal justice system attack police officers, you are doing a disservice to the cause,” Obama said at the Moncola Palace in Madrid.

Obama said that police and activists need to work together and “listen to each other” in order to mobilize real change in America.

The President added that in movements such as Black Lives Matter, there will always be people who make “stupid” or “over generalized” statements, but that a truthful and peaceful tone must be created on both sides for progress.

Og Hillary, der relativerede terrortruslen fra Islamisk Stat et al. med alt, inklusive politibrutalitet kommenterede  “White Americans need to do a better job of listening”. Og det, skriver Joel Pollak er “exactly the wrong message. It frames racism as the fundamental problem in American society, and encourages people to interpret events through that lens. It sows seeds of mistrust, when racism had largely been overcome.

And the answer is that our leaders made a deliberate choice to radicalize our politics, unnecessarily. The racism and mistrust followed, because they are necessary to sustain that radicalism.

The Tea Party arose not because of racism, but because President Barack Obama made clear he was going to push through his agenda regardless of the wishes of the opposition or the constraints of the Constitution, and because voters realized that the Republicans, left to their own devices, were not going to stop him.

That’s all. That had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but Obama and his party found it convenient to invent it — like the lies about the N-word being shouted at black legislators in 2010.

The reason Donald Trump exists as a political phenomenon is that there is a sizable constituency of conservatives who are tired of losing to that. They were tired of losing in 2000, too, but Republicans worried at the time about the moderate middle, and so a “compassionate conservative” like George W. Bush was their response.

The left demonized Bush anyway — partly because the 2000 recount convinced them they could, because he was “illegitimate” — and Obama rode that wave to office.

Trump fights back (though his statement about Dallas was remarkably measured, even presidential). The problem is that there is only so much more fighting the country can take. We abuse social media to fantasize about a dystopian America, and  in the process we are bringing it about.

Sheriff David Clarke uddyber den pointe. Ikke at der ikke er problemer i USA, et land med 320.000.000 indbyggere. David French skrev om forholdene i Ferguson, hvor Politiet grundlæggende holdt de mennesker, som de skulle “protect and serve” som gidsler og Reddit Hudson fortæller hårrejsende anekdoter her. Men de fleste steder udsætter politiet sig for gevaldige risici

[L]et’s go with the Washington Post’s study of police shootings in 2015. The Post found that 990 people, almost all of them men, were shot and killed by law enforcement last year. Before you start calling them victims, however, note that the Post also found that in three-quarters of these incidents, police were defending either themselves or someone else who was, at that moment, under attack. That leaves around 250 cases that were not obvious self-defense or defense of a third person. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those shootings were unjustified.

What was the racial breakdown of those who were shot by police in 2015? The largest number, 494, almost exactly half, were white. 258 were black, 172 were Hispanic, and the remaining 66 were either “other” or unknown. (Interestingly, Asians are rarely shot by police officers.)

The 258 blacks represent 26% of the total. That is about double the percentage of blacks in the American population. Is that prima facie evidence of racism on the part of law enforcement? Of course not. It is common knowledge that blacks have an unusually high rate of contact with the police, both as victims and as perpetrators. In 2012-2013, the Department of Justice found that blacks were the perpetrators of 24% of all violent crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known (in 7.8% of violent crimes, it was unknown).

So the percentage of blacks fatally shot by police officers (26%) is almost exactly equal to the percentage of blacks committing violent crimes (24%). Indeed, given that the black homicide rate is around eight times the white rate, it is surprising that the portion of blacks fatally shot by policemen is not higher.

Liberals might argue that blacks are disproportionately the victims of unjustified shootings by law enforcement, but I have not seen anyone try seriously to make that case. The Post took a pass at supporting the liberal narrative by arguing that “unarmed” blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites. But the Post failed to note that, according to its own data, blacks are much more likely to attack police officers while unarmed. I don’t know why this is, but in general, I think that unarmed people who assault police officers are likely to be high on drugs.

Mere kan læses på Power Online. Det er de progressive, der selv skynder på racespændinger

Endnu en historie om dødelig og racistisk politivold fra USA

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Pressen, Racisme, USA — Drokles on July 8, 2016 at 6:10 am

Politiet beskytter os hver dag mod en syndflod af kriminelle og barbarer. Men det sker at politiet kommer til at skyde uskyldige mennesker. En politibetjent gik tilsyneladende i panik og skød og dræbte den 32årige Philando Castile, der ikke syntes at følge hans instrukser. Det tragiske optrin blev filme af Castiles kæreste Lavish Reynolds, kan man læse på Kristeligt Dagblad

Reynolds fortæller på videoen, at kæresten havde en våbenlicens, men da han rækker ud efter sit kørekort og bilens registreringspapirer, bliver han uden varsel skudt.

- Han forsøgte at hive sit kørekørt og pung op af lommen, og han lod betjenten forstå, at han var i besiddelse af et skydevåben, og han ledte efter pungen, og betjenten skød ham i armen. Han skød simpelthen hans arm af, fortæller hun til kameraet.

- Fuck, jeg sagde til ham, at han ikke skulle lede efter det. Jeg sagde til ham, at han skulle række hænderne op, kan man høre politimanden sig.

De næste minutter kan man på videoen høre Reynolds græde, indtil hun bliver hevet ud af bilen og lagt i håndjern og ikke længere kan filme.

Men da Castiles var sort bliver det straks en sag om racisme. Og Kristeligt Dagblad perspektiverer således

Videoen kommer dagen efter en filmet episode i Baton Rouge i staten Louisiana, hvor en sort mand og far til fem børn bliver overmandet af to betjente og herefter skudt af flere omgange og dør.

Torsdag indledes under stor bevågenhed en retssag i Baltimore i Maryland. En politimand er tiltalt for at være skyld i en sort mand, Freddie Grays død. Grays rygsøjle brækkede, mens han blev ført væk i et af politiets salatfade.

En stribe sager, hvor sorte er dræbt af politiet, er de sidste to år kommet til offentlighedens kendskab og det har fået det amerikanske justitsministerium til at rejse tiltaler. I flere tilfælde er det påvist, at der har eksisteret en racistisk kultur i lokale politistyrker.

Det burde nævnes at Freddie Grey var en narkohandler og ikke en almindelig bilist med en knust baglygte, som Philando Castile. Og det burde også nævnes at racismen i Baltimores politistyrker var mere konpleks, da 3 af de seks tiltalte i sagen om Freddie Grays voldsomme arrestation var negre, hvor den ene var en kvinde. Men journalister kerer sig ikke om fakta, men om historier og fortællinger. Mens vi endnu ikke ved, hvad der præcist skete, da Castiles blev skudt og dræbt af en politibetjent, der havde stoppe ham for en defekt baglygte, så kan Town Hall i hvert fald slå lidt koldt vand i blodet på fortællingen om det hvide racistiske USA, der mejer negre ned for et godt ord

Let’s start with 2014, the last year for which there are official records. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the police killed 261 whites and 131 blacks. The CDC also found that from 1999 to 2013, the police killed almost twice the number of whites compared to blacks, 3,160 and 1,724, respectively.

Activists promptly note that whites account for nearly 65 percent of the population and that, therefore, one would expect whites to comprise most of those killed by cops. And we are told that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, represent a much greater percentage of those killed by cops. Institutional, systemic, structural racism!

Here’s what those promoting the “police disproportionately kill black people” narrative consistently omit. Whites, despite being almost 65 percent of the population, disproportionately commit less of the nation’s violent crime — 10 percent. Blacks, at 13 percent of the population, disproportionately commit more violent crime. As to murders, black commit nearly half. Yet whites are 50 percent of cop killings.

Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were black. “Adjusted for the homicide rate,” says Moskos, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” So if anything, whites have more to complain about than Mr. Williams.

What about traffic stops and race? Surely cops racially profile blacks, wrongly and disproportionately stopping them? Not according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice. In its 2013 report, “Race, Trust and Police Legitimacy,” the NIJ found that 75 percent of blacks admitted that they were stopped for “legitimate reasons.” And it turns out blacks disproportionately commit traffic offenses, whether speeding, driving without a license, driving with expired tags, driving without the seat belt on or without a car seat for a baby, and so on. Numerical disparities, said the NIJ, result from “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

What about 2015, a year in which Black Lives Matter protested a number of high-profile police/black suspect encounters? According to The Washington Post, the police killed 965 people. But the Post found that “white police officers killing unarmed black men represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.” Remember, a black man, extremely popular among blacks, has been president for over seven years. He has nominated, and Congress has approved, back-to-back attorneys general. Nothing stops the Department of Justice from filing civil rights charges against the officers for “murder.” But the DOJ has not done so.

Lavish Reynolds udtalte senereNot black lives matter – all lives matter – every single life out here matters, no matter the color, the race, the nationality, we all deserve to be heard!” men i Dallas, Texas er 3 betjente blevet dræbt i, hvad der ligner en hævngerning.

Brexit forstyrrer en filmanmeldelse

Brexit, Diverse, Kunst og kultur, Politik, USA, venstrefløjen, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 4, 2016 at 11:13 am

Det er svært at læse venstresnoede medier uden at blive konfronteret med deres chok og afsky over at et flertal af briter ikke mener det er en god ide at være medlem af suprabureaukratiet EU. I The New Yorkers filmanmeldelse af Steven Spielbergs seneste børnefilm, Big F****** Giant, sniger galden sig ind med en næsten parodisk forståelse af samspillet mellem børn og fiktion

Children’s worst new lesson in the British political process comes not from the Brexit fiasco but from Steven Spielberg’s live-action adaptation of Roald Dahl’s “The BFG.” When the titular Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance) and the little girl, Sophie (Ruby Barnhill), who lives in his lair need the help of the British Army, they visit the Queen (Penelope Wilton), who summons her generals and orders a commando raid on behalf of the beleaguered duo—but before she does so she makes phone calls to two political leaders. She lets “Boris” know that she might need airspace clearance and tells “Nancy” that she needs to talk with “Ronnie.” (“Well, wake him!”) Yet Spielberg offers no sense whatsoever that the British have an elected government and that it’s the Prime Minister’s job, not the monarch’s, to call out the troops.

Maybe Spielberg is just being subtly subversive. It’s easy to imagine a child, after seeing this movie, wondering why—with Great Britain facing a traumatic withdrawal from the European Union and its own possible even-more-traumatic internal breakup into independent countries—the Queen doesn’t just put her foot down and bring an end to this nonsense. And, if Her Majesty (or, as the language-garbling giant says, “Her Majester”) can’t or won’t do so, then why have a monarchy at all?

Vreden over at et andet folkefærd har afholdt en folkeafstemning over hvilken retning, de gerne ser deres land bevæge sig i (mod suverænitet, nu beder jeg dem fru Heilbundt) er så indgroet at den endda forkludrer evnen til at forholde sig sagligt til fiktionens univers. Kan man virkeligt undre sig over at Spielberg ikke forvandler et eventyr for børn til en politisk thriller? Skulle der være noget særligt eventyrligt ved at følge en eventuelt nedsat kommisions arbejde eller måske høre oppositionens indveninger i forhold til økonomiske omkostninger og sikkerhedspoltiske analyse særligt med henblik på forholdet til allierede og samhandelspartnere. Måske man kunne snige en charmerende gennemgang dans om de socioøkonomiske konsekvenser ind?

Negerderoute: “Black fathers matter”

Fight Turns into Madness” hedder en af mange, mange videoer på Liveleak, hvor sorte amerikanere slås som galninge. Deres venner og naboer hujer og ægger på løjerne, der optages på smartphones. Alle slås, men negerkvotienten (et glimrende udtryk jeg har lånt) er tårnhøj. “FIGHT* ?-DOWNTOWN NEWARK MADNESS“, “Another Fight In The Hood* (10 Minutes Of Hood Madness)“, “ghetto fight“og måske en opfølger “epic ghetto fight part 2“, eller er det “another ghetto fight“? Og er “Woman Ghetto Fight” en spinoff? Piger er godt med og eksemplerne følger på hinanden i en sørgelig playliste.

Kay S. Hymowitz beskrev for City Journal sammenbruddet af den sorte familie og betydningen for adfærd

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.

Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.

Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.

Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.

Overklassens forælede unge er færdige med at grine ad Little Britain

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

inforgraphic

Og historiske refererencer

medieval-reactions

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

brexiters-er-nazier

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

channel-tunnel

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

jermain-pennant

Psst, EM afholdes næste gang i 2020.

Donald Trump tilbage i kampen?

Demografi, Diverse, Forår?, Politik, USA, Ytringsfrihed, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on June 23, 2016 at 6:42 pm

Der er noget South Park over Donald Trumps fremtoning. Men han er ingen grå politiker, ingen bureaukrat. Han taler klart når det kræves af ham og denne tale menes at bringe ham tilbage i kampen mod Hillary Clinton om præsidentposten.

Breitbart har samlet nogle bekræftelser på anklager fremført i den kommende dokumentarfilm Clinton Cash

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.

Jeg stoler ikke på Trump, men han siger sandheder, som så desperat trænger til at blive sagt og det i sig selv kan rykke den politiske diskurs. Og han kan måske stoppe Hillary Clinton fra at begrave USA i en sump af vest-europæiske sygdomme.

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

The Establishment strikes back

Der synes at være et skred i vesterlændingenes erkendelse, som Kim Møller beskriver på Uriasposten

Norbert Hofer fra Haiders frihedsparti var blot 31.000 stemmer fra at blive præsident i Østrig, og med Marine Le Pen i Frankrig og et muligt Brexit i England er nationalstaterne så småt ved at vågne. En meningsmåling giver sågar Donald Trump en svag føring over Hillary Clinton, og man kan roligt sige at status quo har rykket sig til højre for midten. Måske er der noget apolitisk politikerlede over det, i lighed med Pegida-bevægelsen, men kræsenhed er en luksus vi ikke har råd til at have. Den stemning, følelse eller populisme der kan mindske skaderne ved masseindvandringen er den rette. Uden forbehold.

Herhjemme er Nye borgerlige det bedste bud på et paradigmeskifte, for selvom Martin Henriksen på sin vis er skarp nok, så har partiet valgt ikke at satse med ultimatummer, der i værste fald, kunne sætte partiet femten år tilbage. Et DF der ikke er medansvarlig for masseindvandringen, er desværre også et DF helt uden indflydelse. Problemet er ikke bare, at et ultimatum risikerer at gøre Mette Frederiksen til statsminister, men at Thulesen-Dahl hermed også gør sig selv til statsministerkandidat for en mulig mindretalsregering uden mandater til at vedtage andet end velkomstflyers på arabisk.

Men det etablerede giver sig ikke uden kamp. For den er magten blevet sit eget indhold og den den ser ud til at ville ofre alt, selv befolkningen, for en forlængelse. “The President of the unelected executive arm of the European Union (EU) has vowed to block all right wing populists from power across the continent, shortly after acquiring the power to exert “far-reaching sanctions” on elected governments.” hedder det på Breitbart

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote.

“There will be no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” the liberal bureaucrat told AFP.

The FPÖ has been Austria’s top-polling political force for some time. However, after leading the pack for most of the presidential race, the right-wing candidate lost out by 0.6 per cent to the Green party, after the inclusion of postal votes, and months of Europe’s mainstream media calling the centre-right populist “far right”.

Right wing populists are periodically topping the polls across the continent – in France,SwedenHolland, and now Austria – and anti-migrant populists are already in power inHungaryPoland, and the Czech Republic.

Mr. Junker’s definition of “far right” is somewhat broad, noted by him previouslydescribing Hungary’s conservative president, Viktor Orbán, as a “fascist.”

With the continent-wide democratic surge to the right, the anti-democratic Commission could be in for a challenge in their attempt to exclude each and every elected government they deem to be “far right.”

However, as of 2014, the Commission was handed a batch of new powers that it could plausibly use to do just this – powers already being mobilised against Poland’s elected, conservative leaders.

The Commission can now trigger a “rule of law mechanism” (Article 7 TEU) againstnations it perceives as deviating from “the common constitutional traditions of all Member States.” Ultimately, “far-reaching sanctions” can be exerted, and a country can be stripped of all voting rights in the EU and have funding blocked.

Og for at puste til min egen snigende paranoia, så kan det se ud til at man undgik at gøre brug af “Article 7 TEU” ved at håndtere problemet på et nationalt niveau

The election victory of Alexander Van der Bellen, former head of the Austrian Green party, against Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) candidate Norbert Hofer, saw one of the tightest results in Austrian electoral history.

The former Green leader won the vote by a mere 0.6 per cent after postal ballots had been counted. Some are sceptical of the results and one case in particular has given pause.

The town of Waidhofen an der Ybbs has, on the Austrian Interior Ministry website, a stunning result: 146.9 per cent of the town voted, Stern reports.

According to the Interior Ministry website a total of 13,262 people had voted with 12,559 of the votes cast being regarded as valid which is still estimated to be more people than actually reside in the town.

The Interior Ministry came out and claimed that the entire result was simply a technical glitch and Robert Stein, chairman of the Electoral Department of the Interior, said the problem was an input error on behalf of one of their staff.

Man tror efterhånden det værste, men muligvis var det blot en fejl med alle de stemmer. I USA møder mange døde mennesker op for at give deres stemme

See, for example, this story out of Florida. Or this story out of North Carolina. Or this story, wherein a convicted fraudulent voter and poll worker in Ohio was cheered at a Democrat-sponsored anti-ID rally in Ohio. Or these instances of elected Democrats being charged and convicted of illegal voting. While you’re at it, don’t forget about Rhode Island’s voter ID law, passed by a Democratic legislature and co-sponsored by black Democrats who stated that they’d personally witnessed fraud. The anti-voter ID crowd must be forced to explain just how much fraud they’re willing to accept.  Double voting, non-citizens voting, dead people voting, etc.  I’ll leave you with a friendly reminder that there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in support of these common sense laws.

Men man behøver nu ikke vække de døde, hvis man kan importere en zombiehær, til at udslette de sidste rester af folkets vilje, hvis det står til Hillary Clinton, der ser ud til at ville ophæve grænsen til Mexico, skriver Breitbart

“I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either,” Clintondeclared in March. Clinton’s pledge not to enforce U.S. immigration law as President represents an essentially unprecedented departure from the nation’s history of enforcing immigration law.

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian described Clinton’s pledge as “a breathtaking step toward open borders.”

As the Washington Post reported: “Clinton’s pledge not to deport any illegal immigrants except violent criminals and terrorists represents a major break from President Obama, and it could vastly increase the number of people who would be allowed to stay in the country.”

Clinton’s vision erases entirely the protections that U.S. immigration laws are supposed to afford American citizens: such as protecting Americans from losing a job to an illegal immigrant, preventing the sapping of school and hospital resources, as well as defending the voting privileges and enfranchisement of U.S. citizens (giving citizenship to illegal immigrants allows them to cancel out the votes of native-born American citizens).

The implication of Clinton’s platform– i.e. that illegal entry is not in and of itself a deportable offense–represents a central pillar of the open borders credo: namely, that millions of people can illegally come to the country, take jobs, attend U.S. schools, receive affirmative action, apply for federal benefits, and give birth to children who receive birthright citizenship.

Moreover, waiting until after a violent conviction has been obtained to deport an illegal alien means that immigration laws were enforced far too late–i.e. they were not enforced until after an American was victimized, raped, or murdered by a criminal alien. A federal policy that waits to enforce immigration laws until after there is a criminal conviction would mean admitting and releasing criminals by the hundreds of thousands, and letting them roam free until after they have committed a crime, and have been apprehended, tried, and convicted for that crime.

Samme vision om international socialisme har Københavns Sundheds- og Omsorgsborgmester Ninna Thomsen, der vil give asylansøgere stemmeret til kommunalvalg. Begrundelsen er følgende

- København er en international storby, hvor der er mange, som kommer til. Det er både internationale studerende og folk, som i kortere eller længere perioder skal arbejde her. Og så er vi begyndt at modtage flygtninge igen.

- Nu er det på tide at sige, at de mennesker, som bor i byen, skal have indflydelse på Københavns udvikling fra dag ét, siger hun.

Uh, en dejlig leg med begreber, som venstrefløjen kitter deres logik op på. Man kan sagtens beskrive København som en international storby ud fra en eller anden betragtning om dens forbindelser til omverdenen og den kuturelle, videnskabelig, kulturelle osv output. Det er beskrivelser, men faktuelt er København en dansk by. Faktisk er København nationens hovedstad.

PS: Det tidligere medlem af det etablerede Helle Thornings tidligere rådgiver Noa Reddington foreslår i Politiken i samme angst for folket at spærregrænsen hæves fra 2 til 4 procent så man undgår at skulle forholde sig til “Nye Borgerliges balstyriske formand” Pernille Vermund og Dansk Samlings ’sammenbidte og svedende’ formand Morten Urhskov Jensen.

Negerrevolte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizen Donald?

Det ellers glimrende og konservative National Review mener at Trump er lige så slem som Hillary Clinton mens ellers venstreorienterede Susan Sarandon frygter Hillary mere end Trump. Hillary, hun har også sit at slås med, hvilket medierne og især de danske glemmer. Den anarkistiske hackergruppe Anonymous truer Hillary med at “afsløre alt” fordi løgn er blevet hendes “natur” og minder om 30.000 slettede e-mails og 1/2 mio. døde irakiske børn i Irak, som de mener hun må stå på mål for. Og der er da også et hashtag, #DROPOUTHILLARY.

Vores egen David Trads kalder Trump “den fascistoide reality-stjerne”, “en notorisk løgner”, “gal”, og “den største trussel mod vores sikkerhed – fordi han med sit vanvid, sit had, sin fjendtlighed over for muslimer, mexicanere, kvinder, handicappede, sin begejstring for Putin, sine udfald mod Kina, Mexico og verden” og sammenligner Trump med Titanics forlis, som det tog sig ud gennem Mikael Wihes fakta-fattige men klassiske protestsang. Alt sammen baseret på “indslag, [han] har set i TV-Avisen og TV2 Nyhederne, og det, [han] har læst i de danske aviser” og en Hillary Clinton reklame. Det fortæller alt væsentligt om Trads - og danske medier.

Trump er “the ultimate outsider“, som taler direkte til folket, skriver Piers Morgan i Daily Mail, som to af ti grunde til at Trump har rystet det politiske parnas i Washington. Og sandt er det at Trump ikke har haft behov for en større kampagnemaskine i modsætning til hans modstandere, som man kan se i denne New York Times grafik

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-05-05-kl-123846

Hvis man skal tro meningsmålingerne er Trump ikke populær blandt vigtige demografiske grupper, som kvinderne, latinoerne, afroamerikanerne (negrene), bøsserne, de handicappede og de kriminelle. Men er han populær blandt vælgerne? Bruce Thorntorn giver sit bud på Frontpage Magazine

Trump has consistently disproved conventional wisdom. The old electoral truisms may not apply. Take the clichés about Hispanics. For nearly a decade we’ve been told that the Republicans needed to cultivate this “fastest growing demographic group,” as Obama warned everyone in 2012. The party wise men counseled Republicans to drop the harsh rhetoric about illegal aliens and reach out to the 9% of voters who are Hispanic and allegedly “natural conservatives.” Heeding this advice, Senate Republicans toyed for a while with “comprehensive immigration reform,” which many voters decoded as “amnesty” for lawbreakers stealing their jobs. Yet in most polls, “immigration reform” is consistently low on the list of issues that concern Hispanics.

That didn’t stop some in the party from angering much of the white working class, 36% of the electorate, just to pursue this electoral will-o-the-wisp. About a third of those voters voted Democrat in 2012, but evidence suggests that many are shifting to Trump this year. So Trump speaks to their concerns about ICE’s “catch-and-release” of felons, the hundreds of Americans murdered by illegal aliens, the quality-of-life crimes making many neighborhoods and cities unlivable. Trump promises to put a stop to “sanctuary cities” that blatantly disregard federal law and get away with it.  He gets their anger at seeing protestors, like those in Irvine last week, attempting to stop their right to assemble and waving Mexican flags, or the demonstrators in Indiana Monday arming their children with F-bombs to hurl at Trump supporters.

And he especially understands how sick many Republicans and Democrats are of the snotty rhetoric from some leaders and pundits of both parties. From their tony enclaves far from the daily disorder and mayhem caused by our immigration failures, they suggest that such complaints reflect bigotry and xenophobia. So Trump promises to round up the illegals, build a wall on the border, and make Mexico pay for it. And I’ll wager that the pollster’s net doesn’t catch significant numbers of voters who sit at home and shout their approval at the television screen and will pull the lever for Trump come Election Day.

In fact, despite his hard words for illegal aliens, there is growing evidence, much of it anecdotal at this point, that significant numbers of Hispanics and blacks like Trump and may vote for him. Here in the San Joaquin Valley, ground zero for Mexican immigration, one more and more frequently runs into working-class Mexicans who admire Trump for his macho bluster and willingness to slap down politically correct gringos with their superior airs and class snobberies. It’s not just white conservatives who have grown sick and tired of the credentialed class telling them how to live and then demonizing them for disagreeing. No one knows how many Hispanics will vote for Trump, but I’ll wager it will be more than voted for Romney.

But Trump is ignorant and incoherent when it comes to policy, the critics say. Contrary to the commentators cocooned in their social and cultural enclaves, elections are not about policy. The majority of voters don’t carefully study the issues, pore over policy papers, and objectively weigh various proposals in order to arrive at the best choice. They are motivated by their “passions and interests,” as Madison understood. “Interests” are about “property,” or in our time, jobs and the economy. Years of sluggish growth, lower workforce participation, and the investor class waxing fat the whole time have angered a lot of people, including Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Trump’s tirades against free-trade-agreements and China’s currency manipulation speak to these frustrations.

The “passions” we see seething through a Trump rally are the anger at elites of both parties who for years now have talked down to the people, dismissed their legitimate concerns, and sneered at their ignorance, even as they pander to privileged minorities or appease the Democrats. They see criticism of Trump, whether intended or not, as criticism of themselves, yet another patronizing dismissal of their grievances. The backlash against political correctness that Trump has brilliantly exploited is the obvious focus of this anger at politicians who are supposed to be on their side, but who always find excuses to cede the high ground to the other side. Why else would the Senate confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, especially after she told the Judiciary Committee that she viewed Obama’s unconstitutional amnesties as “legal”? Was it because she was eminently qualified, or because she is a black woman?

Some will dispute these assertions as misleading or false, but whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Politics is about perception. How else did a cipher like Barack Obama get elected twice? In 2008 he was perceived to be a racial healer, the smartest president ever, a “no red state, no blue state” unifier, and a brilliant orator. None of these perceptions turned out to be remotely true. The second time it was partly because 81% of voters perceived him to “care about people like me,” while only 18% felt the same about Mitt Romney, one of the most fundamentally decent and kind men ever to run for president. Trump seems to get that perceptions and passions come first, and policy can be figured out later. To a greater or lesser degree, this has pretty much been true in all presidential elections. Trump has simply discarded the decorum that camouflages the truth about political sausage-making.

Trump er sikkert usmagelig, men det er hans modstandere der griber til politisk vold

Den vandrende muslim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

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

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

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

Shia mod sunni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress