Pigen der råber hyrdehund

Fra Berlin til Bogota samledes feminister for at demonstrere mod at amerikanerne har valgt at indsætte en heteroseksuel mand som deres præsident. Bogota er lidt en sjælden by i, hvad der næsten er en liste over byer i USA, Australien og Europa. New York Times har dog samlet en flot billedserie, der viser en imponerende opbakning. Men synet bedrager, venstrefløjen tabte valget, de er ikke i flertal. Men de er gode til at gå på gaden.

trump-svarer-feministerne

Formanden for Concerned Women for America, en pro-life (anti-abort) organisation, Penny Nance havde på CNN bidt mærke i, at Women’s March on Washington ikke inkluderede kvindelige pro-life aktivister

“March for life, been going on for 43 years, will have about, 400,000, 500,000, next weekend,” she said. “[I] will need all of you back here to have the same conversation next weekend, because that [March for Life] is ignored on a regular basis. This is not new.”

“It’s not about women, it’s about liberalism” svarede CNNs analytiker Bakari Sellers. Og det er rigtigt, det handler om venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Og i den selvforståelse giver det god mening at skrue op for den identitetspolitik, der kostede Hillary Clinton valget. Her et billede fra Pajamas Media

womens-mach

En god ven sagde at der er noget “beroligende at se manglen på noget som helst relevant eller konkret kritiserbart hos Trump i de mange demonstrationers skiltning og grafik“, det er helt indforstået. Tag feministen Ashley Judds (ja, det er der åbenbart en feminist der hedder) opsang til folket

Negre er stadig slaver og stadig i lænker, men nu som indsatte i fængslerne, siger Judd og kvinder hujer i begejstring så højt at ingen kan høre om nogen indvender; Jamen, det giver jo ingen mening. Negerslaver arbejdede for at den hvide mand kunne blive rig, negrene i fængslerne er derimod en enorm udgift for den hvide mand.

Så Judd er fri til at føle Hitler i gaderne og inden nogen siger, ja de forbandede venstreradikale med deres politiske vold, understreger Judd at hun tænker på Trump; overskæg skiftet ud med en toupe. Trumps hår er nu hans eget, han klipper det endda selv. Hun er indigneret over at Scarlett Johanson ikke tjener endnu flere millioner på sine film, hendes løs er skåret af testosteronslebne knive, som også lønnen for latino- og negerkvinder er markant lavere end… hvide kvinder? Ikke helt, den hvide MANDS privilegerede datter.

Den muslimske kvinde i baggrunden er sharia og Hamas tilhænger og mange af arrangørerne bag Women’s March on Washington er sponseret af George Soros. Men her er arrangørernes egne ord, hvorfor de marcherer

En pige vil være tryg i skolen, en negermand er feminist, hvilket ikke er et skældsord ifølge en aldrene negerkvinde, mens to andre supplerer at deres liv har betydning førend en asiatisk kvinde peger på sin gravide mave og siger “And so does hers!”. Stop!

Var det ikke meningen at pro-life aktivister ikke måtte være med?

Men sådan fortsætter det. En udefinerbar person vil ikke defineres af et badeværelse. Diversitet er smuk, en kvinde er ud af en immigrantfamilie (altså ikke en indianer) og med gråd i stemmen kan ikke forstille sig, hvor hun ville være, hvis ikke hun havde fået den chance - at dømme efter hendes asiatiske træk sikkert ikke et sted, hvor man fik chancen for et frit valg med den risiko at ens favoritkandidat kan tabe. En kvinde i hijab mener USA handler om frihed, en lille hvid pige vil smadre glasloftet, en anden gør det for sine mødre - sejt, hun ikke er en hvid MANDS privilegerede datter! En kvinde vil marchere fremad og ikke tilbage og en vil have sin stemme hørt på den mest irriterende måde og en gammel negermand vil marchere fordi han ikke kan trække vejret.

Det kan jeg snart heller ikke. Mens kampen mod ethvert udtryk for maskulinitet antager mere hysteriske toner, står feminister i Tyskland og skriger Allahu Akbar, ikke for andet end at være i trods til deres beskyttere.  Der er intet andet end en forsværgelse af den hvide kristne mand og alle hans gerninger og alt hans væsen. Og der bliver hvidt sort og op bliver ned.

american-hijab

Gør det bedre

Jeg vil anbefale at man udstår at se nedenstående video (bare rolig, der er en sund modgift til slut på denne post). Den er på sin egen måde morsom.

Selv om du har sorte venner, kan du sagtens være racist og i Politiken forklarer en farmor til en 22 årigt barnebarn, hvorledes hun er blevet et bedre hvidt menneske da hun indså at hun var “så dum som de (…) dumme, uvidende, ubehøvlede mennesker, som man ikke behøver at tage sig af” og den smerte de forvolder. Farmoderens barnebarn, der “over sine hvide gener () også [har] nogle afrikanske” og “er derfor brun i huden og har dreadlocks” var nemlig kommet hjem fra USA, hvor sorte liv betyder noget, og blev i en række situationer konfronteret med racismen i Danmark

Situation 1:
Barnebarnet køber ind hos den lokale grønthandler, men kan ikke få lov at betale, før hun svarer på, hvordan hun kan have så langt hår, om det er hendes eget, hvilket betvivles.
Der røres ved håret, både med hænderne og kuglepennen. Herefter slipper hun væk. Hun slår beskrivelsen af sin oplevelse op på Facebook og giver klart udtryk for, at det hændte er et udslag af racisme.
Jeg læser hendes opslag og afviser racismeteorien, men mener, at det handler om dårlig opførsel og dårlig opdragelse.

Ja, mange tyrkere har sikkert ikke set en neger, men lige netop de grønthandlende tyrkere er blandt dem der ikke opfører sig dårligt.
I situation 2 spørger en “nydelig ældre bedstemor” det yngste barnebarn “om hun har fået sit hår i Afrika!“, hvilket gør barnebarnet “tydeligt rystet“. Ja, det var grusom blot at læse om det. Men det er kun indtil det rene Holocaust i situation 3

Min mands nevø og hans kone har været til kaffe og julebag, og da vi står i entréen og tager afsked, griber nevøen (som er over 60 år) fat i barnebarnets hår og siger: »Det er godt nok blevet langt, det er meget flottere end det der kunstige hår, nogle af de danske piger får sat på«.
Han har kendt pigen, siden hun var helt lille, og hans handling er bestemt kærligt og anerkendende ment, men jeg kan se, at hun stivner, og hun får fremstammet: »Rør aldrig mit hår«.
Hun går ind på sit værelse, vi vinker farvel, og jeg går i gang med forberedelserne til aftensmaden.

Det skal her siges at barnebarnet stadig er i live og i god behold - en af de få onkel-overlevende. Farmoderen forsøgte nemlig at forstå barnebarnet, der udsøgt trak “linjer til den tid, hvor afrikanere blev indfanget, bragt til Europa og vist frem som mærkværdigheder”

Det er det samme som, hvis du bliver taget på brysterne og bliver spurgt, om de er ægte. Håret er også en del af min krop. Ingen kan bare ud af det blå røre det eller tage fat i det. Du har aldrig prøvet det, farmor, du ved ikke, hvad det vil sige.
(…)
Hun siger: »Vi (underforstået mennesker med afrikanske gener) er nødt til at have hjælp fra den hvide del af befolkningen for at forklare alle dem, der overskrider grænserne, at det føles som at være degraderet til et dyr, når de bare går hen og befamler vores hår. Det svarer til, at man går hen og klapper en hund, men her spørger man jo ofte om lov hos ejeren, for måske bider den?«.

Først og fremmest, hvis du er farmor og bliver taget på brysterne og spurgt om de er ægte, så er din dag reddet. Og hvis man ikke er bange for at negre bider når man klapper deres ikke-gyldne hår er det måske netop fordi, man ikke ser dem som hunde? Med en tåre i mit øje, vender jeg mig istedet mod den ovenfor lovede modgift fra både Paul Joseph Watson og Gavin McInnes, begge i hopla

Uriasposten fortæller om en kampagne hvor “sorte amerikanere boykotter produkter produceret af hvide amerikanere” og fremkommer med “den ret så interessante oplysning, at initiativtageren for ‘We Buy Black’-bevægelsen er en imam tilknyttet ekstremistiske Nation of Islam”. Interessant bliver det også, hvorledes de vil holde deres imponerende mordrate kørende uden deres guns.

Postfaktualitet: Black Friday Matters

I danske medier gengives fra tid til anden påstanden om at sorte amerikanere er mere udsat for politiovergreb end hvide amerikanere. Det er sjældent et egentligt selvstændigt emne, men tages for givet når venstrefløjen og sorte race-baiters hærgen skal bortforklares (det er altid problematisk at blive opfattet som en bølle). Men der er intet belæg for den påstand, hvilket bekræftes i endnu en omfattende undersøgelse begået af to forskere ved College of William and Mary. National Review skriver at undersøgelsen endda viser at “white police officers may be less likely than their black counterparts to use deadly force against black suspects”

The Black Lives Matters movement has staked their claim on the assertion that police “hunt down” black Americans or systematically deprive them of life. Activists have charged that racism led to the deaths of Michael Brown, Philando Castile, and others, but Lott and Moody examined 1,333 more cases than are in the FBI data set and their findings show that white officers’ use of force is generally “race neutral.”

They gathered statistics that expand on the FBI data from the same period, incompleteness of which has limited previous studies, and they provide a more general picture than even Fryer, who studied eleven localities and drew conclusions about officers’ use of lethal force from Houston alone. Those surprised by Fryer’s findings should appreciate the efforts by Lott and Moody to provide data that is more generalizable for the entire country.

Additionally, the fact that body cameras do not appear to affect the use of force undercuts a key point that activists and the media often make, namely that body cameras will deter the current high levels of racial bias. Lott and Moody named body cameras as a “potential deterrent” of discriminatory violence, saying “When a shooting is recorded by a body cam, officers know that it will become a central focus of the public debate.” But their data did not show body cameras having any effect. Again, racism is not showing up as a serious factor in the data.

Racismen præmis for venstrefløjens racisme

Akademia, Diverse, Identitetspolitik, Postmodernisme, Race, Racisme, venstrefløjen — Drokles on November 28, 2016 at 1:13 am

Følgende amerikanske vox-pop understreger den underliggende racisme i den progressive antiracisme. For hvis man skal tolke ligestilling som ufavorabelt for negre må negrenes udgangspunkt antageligvis være ikke konkurrencedygtigt.

We asked liberal elites about voter ID laws and black people. Then we asked Harlem residents their thoughts on what they just heard. Crazy!

Den store løgn

Venstrefløjens medier har siddet så længe på den offentlige mening at de ikke længere kan acceptere debat og ser dissens som kontroversielt og det kontroversielle er altid et skridt fra racisme, nazisme eller en eller anden metastaserende fobi. Som de presses af faldende tillid og spirende alternativer, gør de hvad de gør om ikke bedst så hvad de magter, og skruer op for defameringen af, ja alle efterhånden. Frank Gaffney skriver i Breitbart

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

(…)

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, herehere and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, hereherehere and here).

Af en eller anden grund, skal disse udskammelser af meninger ‘vi foragter’ gentages i danske medier. Danmarks Radio spørger i en “slår Trump stadig konen” overskrift “Trump afviser at omstridt rådgiver er racist” og beretter

Demokrater, borgerrettighedsorganisationer som Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer og selv en række republikanere kritiserer Trump for at have valgt den stærkt højreorienterede Stephen Bannon som sin chefstrateg.

Kritikerne siger, at Trump dermed lukker en racist, antisemit og fortaler for hvidt overherredømme ind i Det Hvide Hus.

Bannon blev hentet ind i Trump-valgkampen sidst på sommeren fra det højreradikale Breitbart News. Det er et medie, der har fremmet alt-right-bevægelsen.

Breitbart News beskrives af amerikanske medier som eksempelvis radiostationen NPR for at være en løs gruppering af racister, nynazister, antisemitter og folk, der arbejder for hvidt overherredømme i USA.

Det er altså den yderste venstrefløj, der i sin nederlagsforbitrelse fremturer med beskyldningerne. Så lad os lige kontekstualisere lidt - det bliver vigtigt længere nede. Middle East Forum sammensatte en top 10 over “campaign contributions from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS” for 1015-16 sæsonen. Og ikke overraskende var der “nine Democrats, one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285), and no Republicans

Hillary Clinton tops the list, raking in $41,165 from prominent Islamists. This includes $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirateson November 15, 2014.

For example, Mrs. Clinton has accepted $3,900 from former CAIR vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras, who has defended numerous Islamists in Ohio indicted – and later convicted – on terrorism charges.

Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250. Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

Og Rådet for Amerikansk-Islamiske Relationer (CAIR) er selvfølgelig ikke en borgeretsorganisation, men en islamisk pressionsgruppe med bånd til HAMAS, der, som alle muslimske organisationer, kun har til formål at drage omsorg for islamiske interesser, omsorg som at sikre at ordet ‘jihad’ ikke indgår i en negativ sammenhæng. Grundlæggeren af CAIR, Omar Ahmad, har sagt følgende om de amerikansk-muslimske relationer

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Derfor var det også naturligt at CAIR drog omsorg for San Bernadino terroristens familie PLO-style, som det er naturligt for deres formand at ville styrte den amerikanske regering, som det var naturligt at de propaganderede for Ahmed the Clock Boy, som man betvivlede faldne amerikanske soldater deres ære

Hvad angår radiostationen NPR, så skylder Danmarks Radio måske at fortælle at det er en offentligt finansieret radiokanal, blot så man ved, hvor man har den i det politiske landskab. Og fordi offentligt finansierede medier ikke behøver at repræsentere andre interesser end de politikere, der skaffer finansieringen, så bliver det nødvendigt med en Ombudsmand der officielt skal sikre institutionen mod at blive overrendt af lange marcher, men som i realiteten selv er marcheret ind i institutionens hjerte til sikring af den officielle fortælling. Og denne ombudsmand Elizabeth Jensen, var så bestyrtet over at Breitbarts Joel B Pollack i et live interview fik chancen for at forsvare Trump og Bannon fermt mod nazi-, og sårn’ beskyldninger, at hun foreslog aldrig at lave live interviews med folk med kontroversielle holdninger. Og hvad der er kontroversielt ved vi fra Danmarks Radios liste af anklagere mod Bannon/Trump er dissens fra venstrefløjens fortælling. Breitbart skriver

Pollak, who serves as Breitbart’s Senior Editor-at-Large and In-house Counsel, defended its Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon from false and defamatory claims of antisemitism and “white nationalism.” He also turned the tables, pointing out that NPR has “racist programming,” including a story that called the 2016 election results “nostalgia for a whiter America.”

NPR listeners were apparently outraged that anyone from Breitbart News had been given an opportunity to defend the website and its chairman.

In her response, “Listeners: Two Recent Interviews Are ‘Normalizing Hate Speech’,” Jensen concluded that the live format had allowed Pollak to get the better of host Steve Inskeep.

She suggested that future interviews be taped: “In addition, in my opinion, these interviews should not be done live. Inskeep is an excellent live interviewer, but live interviews are difficult, especially when there is limited time. A little contextualizing never hurts.”

Jensen went on to argue that “contextualizing” had worked for a similar interview with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, as well as for an interview Nov. 17 with white nationalist Richard Spencer. (Pollak responded to the latter interview in an article Nov. 18 rejecting NPR’s attempt to link Bannon and Breitbart with white nationalism.)

(som en sidebemærkning så havde BBC, endnu et offentligt finansieret medie en overskrift der lød “The Trump resistance movement builds” og indholdet skuffede ikke overskriften) Venstrefløjen og dens medier er en selvforsynende fødekæde af defameringsmaskiner.

Hvem skal betale for minoriteterne?

“Who’s gonna pay for my kids?” råber en kvinde vredt til en hvid mand, der tæskes på åben gade af et par sorte yngre mænd. Den hvide mand, der også får sin bil stjålet i samme ombæring, bliver beskyldt for at have stemt på Donald Trump.

Donald Trump er en hadefuld, verdensfjern, sexistisk islamofob og jødehader” skrev Zenia Stampe, selv blottet for had, på sin Facebook væg. Jeg vil ikke fortabe mig i en diskussion om alle disse udsagn. Had er en følelse og jeg kender ikke The Donald godt nok til at udtale mig om Zenia har ret. Jeg synes også det er lige vel friskt nok at beskylde en mand, der har tjent mia. - og tro mig, Trump er rig. Jeg mener virkeligt, virkeligt rig, okay? - på noget så jordnært, som sine mange forskellige forretninger, for at være verdensfjern. Men jeg vil dvæle lidt ved modsætningerne i udtrykket “sexistisk islamofob” efter lige først at have anholdt beskyldningen om Trumps jødehad med et citat fra en alt andet end venlig artikel i det venstreorienterede jødiske Tablet Magazine, hvor det hedder

Trump has an intimate familiarity with Jewish practice and Jewish life. His daughter, Ivanka, converted to Orthodox Judaism in 2009; if elected, Trump would be the first president to be the parent and grand-parent of observant Jews. Ivanka’s husband, real-estate magnate Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew and one of Trump’s top advisers. The Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer and general counsel are both observant Jews, and Trump has the support of perhaps the single most important political donor in the American Jewish world—Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Though he is a deeply repellent political figure to many American Jews, Trump can plausibly claim that Jews and Judaism are closer to the center of his life and work than they are for his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s favored Jews have a seemingly limitless confidence in their benefactor’s personal qualities. The Trump they know is decisive, serious, tolerant, and generous, and they’ve formed their impressions out of years or even decades of personal experience with the man. Despite this special access, their belief in Trump himself—which is often independent of any deep ideological kinship—helps demystify exactly why the real-estate developer, who is so blatantly and viscerally unpalatable to tens of millions of Americans, appeals to tens of millions of others.

The Trump Jews also hint at some of Trumpworld’s defining organizational tendencies. With the possible exception of Sheldon Adelson, every one of the major Trump Jews has known Trump for years, is personally friends with Trump, or is connected to his family through marriage. One of Trump’s Jews is known to be a registered Democrat. One of them was a leading Democratic donor who has a tortured history with one of Trump’s most dedicated surrogates.

Trump talte til amerikanerne som amerikanere, et hele, modsat Hillary, der hele tiden talte om allehånde minoriteter, som skulle tilgodeses. Hillarys beskrivelse af halvdelen af Trumps vælgere som ‘irredeemalbe’ og ‘deplorable’ (fortabte og begrædelige), som Obamas beskrivelse af mange amerikanerne som klyngende sig til deres bibel og skydevåben udkrystaliserer den pointe. Trump vil have det fælles og det kræver lige muligheder og det kræver overholdelse af samfundskontrakten, som er ens for alle borgere, der er frie til at vælge en identitet i privatlivet.

Hillary lover mange forskellige vælgergrupper at tilgodese deres behov og fremtiden står på et evigt ekspanderende vælgerkorps af minoriteter. Det er globaliseringen, det er hvad de unge vil have, det fortæller fokusgrupperne og det kommer væltende over grænsen. På sigt vil der ikke være grundlag for at være konservativ, andet end at leve isoleret i en udørk, fortabt med sin bibel og knugende sit skydevåben. Men problemet er, at man tilgodeser kun nogen på andres bekostning. Så hvor Trump vil tilgodese amerikanerne som et hele på bekostning af Wall Street og konkurrerende nationer, der udnytter de unfair aftaler, så tilgodeser Hillary sine mange minoriteter på bekostning af flertallet. Det kan Hillary kun gøre så længe flertallet er til at dræne for flere specielle rettigheder.

Efterhånden som flertallet, amerikanerne flest, eroderes via indvandring og metastaserende identitetspolitik skal minoriteterne tilgodeses på bekostning af hinanden og der bliver nu ikke længere tale om at tage fra de rige/mange for at give til de fattige/mange få, men om omfordeling af de resterende ressourcer. Og omfordeling slider på den gensidige loyalitet for alle var med da alle ville få. Og selv blandt de dele af flertallet, der holdt ved at dele ud af arven vil det akademiske spørgsmål, om det er appropriation at lære så meget af dem, trænge sig på. Det kulturmarxistiske paradigme vil bryde sammen under vægten af egne indre modsætninger. Og her er vi tilbage til det besynderlige “sexitiske islamofob”, for hvis man har et problem med sexisme og misogyne holdninger har man et problem med islam og så er man islamofob.

Problemet for Stampe, Hillary og venstrefløjen er at der ikke er noget, der kan samle minoriteternes interne modsætninger andet end had. De hader the Donald og Dansk Folkeparti og højrebølgen, den hvide mand, historien og den klare tanke og tankens ærlige sprog. Og det er hvad der kitter venstrefløjen sammen, had. De hader ikke at have noget at indvende mens der stadig er forpligtelser, så opfinder nye definitioner på sig selv og på undertrykkelse, som fritager dem deres forpligtelser. Så de hader majoriteten, der holder fast på den virkelighed ingen kommer udenom. De hader at tabe, men de ville gå til grunde hvis de vandt. Vi andre prøver at begrænse ødelæggelserne.

Do it by the book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvorfor fører Hillary ikke med 50%?

Ifølge analyseinstituttet Rasmussen fører Trump med 5 procentpoint over Hillary. Andre analyseinstitutter har mere dødt løb eller Hillary i et snævert førersæde. Måske vil mange amerikanere ikke indrømme at de har tænkt sig at stemme på Trump på grund af en social stigmatisering, manden er jo Hitler. Trump fører en god kampagne, men meget har at gøre med Hillary Clinton selv, skriver Marc A Thiesen i Washington Post

She lied repeatedly about her emails. She lied when she said she had “turned over everything I was obligated to turn over” (FBI Director James Comey said the FBI “discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not among the group of 30,000 e-mails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014”). She lied when she said there was “no classified material” in her private emails .?.?. that there was nothing “classified at the time” .?.?. and that there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails — all of which the FBI director said were untrue. And, to top it all off, she lied about her lies — declaring on national television that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people” — a claim The Post’s Fact Checker gave “Four Pinocchios.”

Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi. At 10:08 p.m. the night of the attack, she issued a statement that blamed the attack on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” with no mention of terrorism or al-Qaeda. But an hour later, at 11:12 p.m. she emailed her daughter, Chelsea: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.” The next day in a phone call with the Egyptian prime minister, Clinton said: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.” Yet two days later, as she welcomed the caskets of the fallen in Dover, Del., she blamed that attack on “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

She lied about a trip she made to Bosnia, claiming that she and her team arrived “under sniper fire,” skipped the arrival ceremony and “just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In fact, a video shows her being greeted on the tarmac by Bosnian officials and an 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, who read a poem in English and told Clinton, “There is peace now.”

She lied about her family history. In 2015, she said she could relate to illegal immigrants because “all my grandparents” immigrated to the United States. When BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski pointed out that three of Clinton’s four grandparents were born in the United States, a Clinton spokesman said “her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”

Ja, måske foretrækker vælgerne at Hillary råber, man kan altid prøve det, når alt andet ser ud til at kollapse om ørerne på en. Clinton Foundation ser også ud til at pakke sammen ifølge Politico, og fyrer mere end en snes medarbejdere. Imens er medierne på overarbejde for at forvrænge virkeligheden til Hillarys fordel. The Hill rapporterer at CNN opfinder Donald Trump udtalelser, til at forarges over. Når Trump taler om ‘profiling’ efter israelsk forbillede, tilsætter CNN ordet ‘race’, som i ‘racial profiling’

CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration and is running headlines reporting that the GOP presidential nominee spoke of using “racial profiling” to stop terrorism.

But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted shows that Trump never used the word “racial” in his comments to the network and only spoke of “profiling.”

“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”

Alligevel er der en ide om at valget ikke er uretfærdigt nok. En gæst hos den venstredrejede og islam-realistiske tv-værk Bill Maher, mente at medierne havde virket imod Hillary Clinton i strid med Konstitutionens ånd, skriver Breitbart

After Clinton’s struggles in the polls in Florida came up, Brooks said, “Yeah, but that’s not her fault. That’s because the media has forgotten what their constitutional duty is.”

He continued, “Well, the reason we have a free press, the whole reason it’s in the Constitution is to inform us, the electorate about what we’re voting on, and they’ve forgotten that. They think this is a circus. They think this is ‘dancing with the stars.’ And so, they have given Trump probably a trillion dollars’ worth of free press over the course of this campaign.”

Trump er ligeglad og har inviteret Gennifer Flowers, en af Bill Clintons tidligere udenomsægteskabelige affærer, til at overvære debatten fra ‘ringside’. Debatten skal afholdes stående, så vi krydser fingre for at Hillary er udhvilet og velmedicineret. For uanset, hvad der er gjort for at smæde Trump, virker amerikanerne mere og mere modstandsdygtige overfor mediernes bombardement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz skriver i øvrigt på en større bogserie…

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

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

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

——————————-

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

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

*** N-ordet er nigger.

Hillary falder i en kurv af begrædelige

deplorables

Hillary Clintons kollaps 11/9 til en mindehøjtidelighed for terrorangrebet på Twin Towers i 2001 ligner et søm i den nærmest bogstavelige ligkiste for hendes præsidentambitioner. Man kan argumentere for at det er en kedelig facon, hvorpå Trump ser ud til at vinde til november og det kan i så fald blive et problem at han ikke ville kunne legitimere sig med et positivt flertal af befolkningen i ryggen, når modkandidaten blot dejsede om, lige som det hele skulle til at starte for alvor.

Og det er faktisk ærgerligt for Trump havde allerede god vind i sejlende. Det var en bet, at det blev afsløret, at ledelsen hos Demokraterne havde undermineret hendes udfordrer til kandidaturet til præsident Bernie Sanders valgkamp. Hillarys karakter ville ikke kunne genrejses uanset hvor meget medier og kendisser taler hende op. Man stikker ikke sine egne i ryggen! Det hjalp hende ikke at argumentere for sin politik, da hun er fanget mellem en videreførelse eller et opgør med de seneste 8 år. Og det forspring hun havde fået foræret af Trumps små selvmål og den ekstremt ulige dækning i medierne forsvandt straks Trump tog sig lidt sammen. Når alle kortene er spillet af hænde, hvad så? Så sætter panikken ind i Clintons kampagne.

Offerkortet må trækkes af ærmet og modstanderen må dæmoniseres. Skytset blev først rettet imod “the Alt Right“, en udefinerbar konspiration af højrefløjsere og rigmænd (som hun har nurset før, og som Stephen Glass broderede videre på i Plotters), der kun kunne vække jubel hos de omvendte. Det var mere end lidt kedeligt, det afslørede også at hun ikke havde noget at sige. En tilhører sagdeI’d like to hear more about education versus, you know, what’s wrong with donald Trump“. Hillary kunne nu ikke længere beskylde Trump for at føre en negativ kampagne eller danse med konspirationsteorier.

Forleden afskar hun så sig selv muligheden for at kalde Trump uanstændig. I en tale til en samling kønsforvirrede angreb Hillary nemlig en stor del af vælgerbefolkningen med følgende ordvalg

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Det er aldrig godt at angribe en stor del af vælgernes etos. Begrædelige har alle venner og familie blandt de mange tvivlere, man søger at nå, som David P Goldman skriver i Asia Times

She apologized, to be sure, but no-one will believe her: she was chilling with her home audience and feeling the warmth, and she said exactly what she thinks. The “Clinton Cash” corruption scandals, the layers of lies about the email server, health problems, and all the other negatives that pile up against the former First Lady are small change compared to this apocalyptic moment of self-revelation.

You can’t win an American presidential election without the deplorables’ vote. Deplorables are America’s biggest minority. They might even be the American majority. They may or not be racist, homophobic and so forth, but they know they’re deplorable. Deplorable, and proud. They’re the median family whose real income has fallen deplorably by 5% in the past ten years,  the 35% of adult males who deplorably have dropped out of the labor force, the 40% of student debtors who deplorably aren’t making payments on their loans, the aging state and local government workers whose pension funds are $4 trillion short. They lead deplorable lives and expect that their kids’ lives will be even more deplorable than theirs.

Americans are by and large forgiving people. They’ll forgive Bill for cavorting with Monica “I did not have sex with that woman” Lewinsky in the Oval Office and imposing himself on any number of unwilling females. They might even forgive Hillary for losing tens of thousands of compromising emails on an illegal private server and then repeatedly lying about it in a way that insults the deplorable intelligence of the average voter. But the one thing you can’t do is spit on them and tell them it’s raining. They’ll never forgive you for that. They’re hurting, and they rankle at candidates who rub their faces in it.

Vloggen Sargon of Akkad har lavet denne glimrende gennemgang

Clintons støtter er faldet i forskellige lejre, skriver Vox, hvor nogle gav hende ret eller mente hun sagtens kunne gå hårdere til den for der er virkeligt mange flere begrædelige blandt Trumps tilhængere end blot halvdelen (og det er måske rigtigt, hvis man skal tro denne video, som jeg fandt hos Hodja), andre taget afstand eller forsøgt at nuancere

Writing at Slate, Ben Zimmer suggests that the “basket of deplorables” construction entered Clinton’s mind by way of analogy with the term “parade of horribles,” which, starting in the 1920s, “entered legal usage as a dismissive term for imagined concerns about a ruling’s negative effects.”

Eller, kunne man sige, hvis Clinton tænker som jurist, så kunne analogien også være til “basket case”. Den fortolkning lægger sig fint op af de mange formodninger blandt demokrater og Wall Street republikanere om, at Trump og hans tilhængere er et godt stykke fra de mentale koncepter. Men, skønt et grimt udtryk som “basket of deplorables” ser ud til at dominere debatten om hendes gode tone, så er det ikke, hvad der er mest interessant eller voldsomt ved hendes udtalelse, skriver Breitbart

ABC wrote up an article about her peculiar word-choice — “basket of deplorables” — but ignored the far more aggressive “irredeemable” description.

Clinton is a Methodist, and she knows that “everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and so she’s making, intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement,” said Kengor.

“Who is Hillary Clinton to say someone irredeemable? Jesus Christ didn’t even say it,” Kengor added.

When the Catholic Church criticized communists during the Cold War, it described them as “Satanic and  poisonous” but not irredeemable, Kengor said. “In Christianity, everybody who is alive and walking  on the planet can be redeemed,” he said.

Symbolically, getting exiled as a “irredeemable” is “worse than being exiled to Siberia [by the Soviet government] because you have the hope some day of being let out of Siberia … even in Siberia, hope didn’t die,” he said.

In September 2001, just after the 9/11 atrocity, Kengor said, George W. Bush was excoriated by Democrats for his hard-edged statement, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Liberals complained “‘How dare he use that kind of biblical language’ — but this is what Hillary is doing here,” he said.

But while Bush’s “with us” phrase assumed that enemies are human enough to choose to sides, Clinton’s “irredeemable” word denies that her political enemies have the human power of choice, he added. Bush “would never use ‘irredeemable’ … [because, for Christians] you can be a evildoer – and still repent and be redeemed,” Kengor said.

(…)

Clinton’s unprecedented use of the “irredeemable” term, said Kengor, “is not getting the attention that it should, maybe because in part, secular liberalism doesn’t really understand religious language … [irredeemable] is really worse than the word ‘deplorable.’”

“Everybody is within the mercy and forgiveness of God, and and she’s making — intentionally or not, what sounded like a religious condemnation, a literal judgmental statement… it really should get more attention than the ‘deplorable’ statements,” Kengor said.

Blottet for en selvstændig politik, moralsk overhøjhed, troværdighed og enhver aura af kompetence, skal Hillarys stærkt skrantende helbred gennemføre de sidste knap to måneders valgkamp tynget af skandaler, som løgnene om hendes helbred, hendes håndtering af angrebet på Benghazi, emailskandalen og Clinton Foundation skandalen. Men Goldmans ord; “Hillary is road kill”!

Pressens kamp mod Trump

Det går ikke godt for Donald Trumps kampagne, der synker i meningsmålingerne, mens Hillary Clinton får stadigt mere vind i sejlene. Trumps aggressive stil, som vandt ham republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandidat fungerer ikke med samme succes, når de mange midtervælgeres hjerter skal vælges. Trumps har skudt sig meget i sine egne fødder med upræcise eller fejlagtige udsagn, et udbrud mod nogle forældre til en højt dekoreret soldat, faldet i kamp og rygter om en foruroligende villighed til at bruge atomvåben som en ufrivillighed ved at være omgivet af spædbørn. Er Trump alligevel den charlatan, som flere, inklusiv jeg selv, mistænker ham som?

Måske, men en del af forklaringen er også en amerikansk presse, der i en helt forrygende grad fører kampagne på vegne af Hillary. For ikke alt er som medierne Situationen med spædbarnet, der forstyrrede en tale og fik irriteret Trump ligner en grov fejlfortolkning af situationen og faderen til den dræbte soldat, der kæk viftede med en udgave af den amerikanske forfatning, mens han beskyldte Trump for ikke at kende endsige indholdet, viste sig at være en ivrig sharia tilhænger og samarbejdspartner med både Clinton Foundation og Saudiarabien. Justin Raimondo giver i Los Angeles Times et par eksempler fra sine lokale medier

My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.

To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?

The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?

The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.

Since last summer, Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate.

Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War.

Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.

Jeg faldt tilfældigvis over dette klip fra CNN, det støtter Hillary Clinton, som nogle venstreorienterede havde fremhævet fordi det efter deres mening, viste en Trump støtte blive sat eftertrykkeligt på plads. Det tror jeg de færreste neutrale seere vil mene, men det er en fin demonstration af uhæderligheden i de venstreorienterede medier. Corey Lewandowski, der blev fyret som leder af Trumps kampagne kommer underangreb i fra først CNNs faste politiske kommentator Angela Rye, tidligere leder af det sorte kadaver (ok, det var en undersættelse af the Congressional Black Caucus) og siden værten

Uhæderligheden består i at værten ikke vil vedkende sig det emne han selv bringer på banen. Og for at dække over pinligheden, da Lewandowski holder fast sit logiske spørgsmål, som værten kender og nægter at svare på, skal Lewandowski selvfølgelig afbrydes og råbes ad med fornærmende barnagtigheder. Det giver værten tid til at samle sig sammen til at beskylde Lewandowski for at være racist. Og det sker instinktivt og umiddelbart. “Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn’t work so instead it’s death by a thousand cuts” skriver Matthew Vadum i Breitbart og giver nogle eksempler på den forskel, hvormed pressen behandler Trump og Hillary

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton’s emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton’s mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump’s statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation’s government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate’s path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. “Trump should be killing her on that point,” he said on the most recent installment of the “John Batchelor Show.”

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she’s destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum’s rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton’s lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman’s messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren’t asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate’s fall in December 2012 in which she suffered brain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don’t inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn’t held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

Hillary nu har faktisk holdt et pressemøde og det for journalister fra de sorte og latinske minoriteter. Dem takkede hun for deres gode arbejde for at hindre Trump i at føre en god kampagne

Clinton said, “Now I think journalists have a special responsibility to our democracy in a time like this. As Ida B. Wells once said, ‘People must know before they can act and there is no educator to compare to the press.’ Now many of you are showing the way.” (RELATED: No Whites Allowed, Clinton Speaks To Press For First Time In 260 Days)

“It’s a badge of honor when Jorge Ramos gets thrown out of press conference for challenging Donald Trump,” Clinton said, pausing for the applause from the journalists. (RELATED: Trump Kicks Out Univision’s Jorge Ramos At Press Conference But Later Lets Him Back In [VIDEO])

“Or when another news organization gets banned for reporting what he says. As Jorge said, ‘The best journalism happens when you take a stand. When you denounce injustice.’ So I hope you’ll keep calling it like you see it, keep holding all of us accountable.” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Emails Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])

“You know I have laid out all of these plans and I’m well aware that I have been sometimes made fun of for putting out these plans, about the economy and education and criminal justice reform and health care and gun safety measures and all the rest of it, but I do have this old fashioned idea, when you run for president, you ought to tell the voters of America what you would do as president.” (RELATED: Comey Confirms Hillary Clinton Lied To The Public About Her Emails [VIDEO])

“So, I am going to keep telling you what I would do because I want you to hold me accountable, press and citizens alike,” Clinton said. “Because the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been in our lifetimes. And we all have to do our part. So thank you for what you do every day. Thank you for inviting me to address you today.”

Godt man bor i Danmark

berlingske-om-trump

Nåh, ja. Det gør man jo.

Post traumatisk negersyndrom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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?

Islamisk trossamfund frasiger sig de islamiske kilder

Eller også binder de blot godtroende journalister fra Danmarks Radio en historie på ærmet. Danmarks Radio skriver

- Vi går ikke ind for stening som straf, hverken i Danmark eller andre steder ved nogen som helst form for situationer. Vores holdning er, at der kildemæssigt er belæg for, at profeten Muhammad ikke ønskede dette, men netop ønskede, at barmhjertigheden skulle komme i fokus. Og det er også vores holdning. Vi ønsker det ikke indført nogen steder, skriver talsmand for Islamisk Trossamfund, Imrah Shah, til DR Kultur.

Deres holdninger til det kildemæssige belæg ændrer ikke ved det kildemæssige belæg. Og her ser islam ud som islam nu er. På Quran Explorer kan man læse

Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 82 :: Hadith 816

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

Og man kan også læse

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 829

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (’Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.”

Det ville have været rart, hvis journalister fra Danmarks Radio ville læse lidt op på kilderne til Islamisk Trossamfund med nogle spørgsmål. Og for at tale om noget lidt andet, nu vi er ved kilderne, så ser det bare ikke godt ud med islam i det multietniske samfund, som David Wood forklarer

Satire 1997, virkelighed 2015

Kunst og kultur, Nazisme, Pressen, Race, Racisme, Satire, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on December 16, 2015 at 7:03 am

Fra satire i filmen Chasing Amy (1997) som PJ Media forklarer

In his third film, Chasing Amy, Smith wrote a scene in which a black comic book author masquerading as a militant racialist goes on a profanity-laced tirade against “the holy trilogy.” The whole saga was alleged to be about a “klan” of white people trying to take down the black Darth Vader.

What Kevin Smith presented as comedy two decades ago has just been replicated seriously by a cable news network Sunday morning host.

Til virkelighed på MSNBC i dette herrens år 2015 (fra News Busters)

On her eponymously named Sunday morning show, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry went into a mini-rant about racism in Star Wars as she complained about villain Darth Vader being “totally a black guy” when he was “cutting off white men’s hands” who did not “claim his son,” but then became a white man after he “claims his son and goes over to the good.”

Lækker detalje at den gode Harris-Perry harcelerer over Darth Vaders onde sorthed på en baggrund af kridhvide stormtropper. Apropos stormtropper, var naziernes fortrukne Hugo Boss jakkesæt i virkeligheden tekstil blackface?

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-12-16-kl-055506

Fjendtligboerne er flest

Danskerne vil ikke tage imod flere flygtninge, skriver TV2. Det vil Stine Bosse gerne. Hun får “en led smag i munden” af at følge debatten fortæller hun Berlingske Tidende og det er hun bange for, at den kvalificerede udenlandske arbejdskraft også gør, hvis de ser Støjbergs anti-immigrationskampagne. Vi har ikke andre valg end at åbne sluserne for folkevandringen konkluderer Jes Stein Pedersen med en blanding af apati og optimisme i Politiken: “Det er Europas helt store politiske og moralske problem, og vi slipper ikke for at tøjle vores egen skamløse forkælelse, hvis vi skal løse det”

Jeg vil til enhver tid gå på barrikaderne for, at den lille plet, der hedder ’Danmark’, forbliver et civiliseret sted. Problemet er, at Historien med meget stort H banker på, og at vi står foran enorme forandringer, som, uanset om vi vil det eller ej, vil ændre den måde, vi har levet på.

Vi står foran enorme folkevandringer og en enorm indvandring. Og fra både vores egen og andre folk og nationers historie ved vi, at det fra tid til anden kan være nødvendigt at udvandre og dermed befolke områder, som andre har haft for sig selv.

Men inden Politikens læser for pakket kufferten, afsted mod at fortrænge andre folkeslag, leverer Pedersen sit twist,

Se bare på USA, som i løbet af relativt få årtier har ændret kulør. Det nordamerikanske menneske er også rent genetisk ved at blive globaliseret med stor fart. Det sørger kærlighedslivet mellem hvide og sorte og indvandrere fra Latinamerika og Asien for. Det samme vil ske i Europa. Selvtilstrækkelige velstandsnationer som Norge og Danmark kan måske holde stand lidt længere end humane lande som Sverige, men prisen vil blive høj, fordi de lande, der kæmper mest mod indvandring, er dem, der vil lide mest under aldringens byrder. Når USA spås en glorværdig fremtid, er det netop, fordi befolkningen er ung og divers.

Ja, det er os der skal rendes over evne. Det er svært at vide, hvor man skal begynde. “USAs unge og diverse befolkning er ‘Genetisk globaliseret’ via “kærlighedslivet mellem hvide og sorte og indvandrere fra Latinamerika og Asien”… Hvorledes Norge og Danmark formåede at blive velstandsnationer i vores selvtilstrækkelighed forstår man ikke. Ej heller hvorfor folk flygter fra sekteriske konflikter frem for at lade sig blive genetisk globaliseret, der synes at være opskriften på fremtidig vækst, velstand og lykke. Derfor er følgende også uforståeligt

Det er ikke kun grækerne, der lever vildt over evne. Det gør hele Europa, og det holder ikke i længden, at vi ikke vil dele ud af trygheden og velstanden til folk i nød.

Det er således med folk, der lever over evne at de ikke har noget at dele ud af jvf at Grækenland derfor er et skrækeksempel. Politikens Peter Wivel mener ikke blot at Europa er nødt til at dele ud tryghed og velstand, men at folkevandringen ligefrem vil gavne Europa. Hvorfor? Hvordan? Det bliver aldrig forklaret. Det behøver man heller ikke når man kan skelne mellem god kynisme og populisme. God kynisme er ens egne meninger, mens populisme er det man ikke kan lide.

Og medierne kan lide Venligboerne, der straks rykker ud for at ordne haven for eksotiske syrere, noget de aldrig har gjort for forarmede danskere - ligesom venligborgmestrene. De fylder meget i medierne, i Information kørte man således sit eget lille kampagneindslag der med Café Venligbo som hovedperson skulle forsikre de eksotiske masser om at her var ressourcer nok at hente, blot man gider stå med hænderne i lommen. Venligheden oversteg Maher Hosin fra Syrien

»Før jeg kom til Danmark, hørte jeg dårlige ting, men da jeg kom hertil, blev jeg overrasket. Alle har været søde,«

Lader til Støjberg skal udtrykke sig i betydeligt kraftigere vendinger. Men venligboerne er ikke blot et dansk fænomen. Eller det er det måske, et rent dansk mediefænomen, men det rækker ud over Stevns og helt til Calais, hvor ph.d. og ekstern lektor ved Sorbonne-universitetet i Paris Caroline Sanchez Boe fortæller TV2, hvorledes civilsamfundet har taget godt imod de massende negre og hjulpet med bad, mad og telefoni. Dette til trods er de desperate for at komme væk fra venligboerne i Calais

- Der er mange grunde til, at de vil til Storbritannien, fortæller ph.d. og ekstern lektor ved Sorbonne-universitetet i Paris Caroline Sanchez Boe, som har besøgt flygtningelejrene i Calais, til TV 2.

- Hvis man tager afghanere, er det ofte fordi, der er mange afghanere der i forvejen. Men det er også et spørgsmål om sprog.

Den analyse bakker TV 2’s Petter Ettrup op. Han har netop besøgt Calais, hvor han talte med en række af flygtningene.

- Mange af dem, jeg mødte, talte engelsk. Og de ser det selvfølgelig som en fordel at komme til et engelsksproget land.

Det lykkedes ikke Daily Mail at få kommentarer fra de franske venligboere.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress