…brænder man også snart mennesker. Det citat er hørt mere end et par gange i forbindelse med en annonceret afbrænding af en Koran. En afbrænding af Mein Kampf havde givetvis ikke kaldt med samme styrke på det citat. Tanken er at hvis man ikke bryder sig om den frie tanke bryder man sig heller ikke om det frie menneske og vise versa og så ryger de begge op på bålet - bøgerne er blot et præludie. Men citatet siger BØGER og ikke EEN BOG. Denne skelnen kan måske synes lidt vel fluekneppende, men der er fanden til forskel på at forkaste alle andres tanker og så at forkaste een bestemt tanke.

Nok om det. Hvad gør man egentlig der, hvor man brænder dukker? F.eks. muslimer, der brænder en dukke, der forestiller George Bush?

Og her muslimer, der brænder en Obamadukke

Og her muslimer, der brænder en Foghdukke (pakistanere for at være mere præcis, netop de pakistanere, som nogen vil have os til at hjælpe)

Og hvad gør man hvor man brænder de flag, der jo repræsenterer hele nationen med alle dens indbyggere?

Åh lige til sidst. Nogle venstrefløjsidioter vil måske påpege, som et afsindigt alt-er-fryd-og-gammen eksempel, at man ikke ser bogafbrænder i den muslimske verden. Men dette skyldes selvfølgelig at der stort set ikke eksisterer bøger udover netop Koranen og Mein Kampf.

McHamgama giver i Berlingske Tidende en glimrende argumentation for ophævelse af racismeparagraffen.

Bag konventionens noble formål gemmer der sig således nogle bestemmelser, der er særdeles svære at forene med ytrings- og forsamlingsfrihed. Derudover står komiteen for en fortolkning af Konventionen, der søger at iklæde en multikulturalistisk dagsorden menneskerettighedssprog.

Af konventionen fremgår det bl.a., at staterne er forpligtet til at kriminalisere både racistiske ytringer og organisationer, selvom bl.a. Danmark oprindeligt var modstander af dette. Konventionen er den direkte årsag til, at den danske racismeparagraf blev voldsomt udvidet i 1971, og at hate-speech-lovgivning blev udbredt som en menneskerettighedsforpligtelse i Vesten i 1970?erne. Komiteen har bl.a. også kritiseret Frankrig for ikke at søge at forbyde Salman Rushdies bog ”De Sataniske Vers” da denne udkom.

(…)

Derudover er det værd at bemærke, at komiteens medlemmer sjældent har noget særlig intimt kendskab til de lande de bedømmer, og de læner sig derfor ofte op ad såkaldte skyggerapporter fra NGO’er. I Danmark er det typisk NGO’er som DRC, SOS Racisme og foreninger, der støtter asylansøgeres rettigheder, som står for disse rapporter.

Læs den endelig. Men jeg må dog erklære mig uenig i McHamgamas formålsbestemte grundargument for afskaffelse af racismeparagraffen, nemlig at det er den bedste metode til at bekæmpe racisme på. Om det er sandt er for mig at se ligegyldigt. Pointen er at racismeparagraffen hindrer vores selvindlysende ret til at sige vores forbandede mening.

En mor til tre fortæller i dag i Politiken at hun kapper forbindelsen til det omgivende multikulti-land Nordvest (i København) og trækker sig ind bag murene i sin velhavende danske oase af en boligforening. Virkeligheden lader sig ikke længere bortforklare efter et par overfald på hendes 12 årige søn samt en pædagog i hendes 3 årige datters børnehave. Flugten er ganske forståelig og helt logisk.

Hvad der derimod er uforståeligt er modstanden mod en erkendelse af den erfarede virkelighed.

Jeg turde ikke satse på skolerne i kvarteret, derfor går min søn på en privat friskole, hvor der desværre ikke er et eneste barn af anden etnisk herkomst end dansk. Det er en skam.

Det er en skam, at en skole, som har fantastiske værdier, engagerede voksne, rummelighed og kærlighed ikke kan tiltrække nydanskere overhovedet, endda på trods af en ekstraordinær indsats. Det ville være en vældig måde at integrere på.

Det er altså en skam at der ikke er nydanskere i hendes søns klasse når det netop er nydanskernes samfund hun desperat fjerner ham fra. En svale gør selvfølgelig ingen sommer og bevares et par stykker kan da bæres. Men dyrkes der i denne ævlen om “…en vældig [god, må man formode] måde at integrere på” ikke stadig en umoden og salonfähig drøm om det multuikulturelle?

Et par stykker kan man vel godt have i klassen? - som stafage, der kan understrege og vel også genoplive illusionen om det gode projekt. Lige netop de par stykker nok, der sætter de danske gutforældre i stand til med deres børn, som værktøj at vigte sig med deres egne integrerende evner og ideale intentioner. Lige netop de par stykker nok, der sætter de danske gutforældre i stand til at affærdige andres erfarede kvaler med det store multikulti projekt med at de ikke kender til den slags problemer på deres skole, for der har man ”fantastiske værdier, engagerede voksne, rummelighed“.

For det er den logik, der ligger i det sidste afsnit, nemlig at det er i det omgivne samfunds tilgang til problemet - i dette tilfælde skolen - hunden ligger begravet. Uden tanke på at “rummelighed“ er ulig meget lettere når man ikke konfronteres af anden etnisk herkomst end dansk. For så er alle enige om, hvad der er de “fantastiske værdier“. Nøjagtig, som hjemme i hendes boligforening med hendes “elskede naboer” - hendes ”danske naboer“!

Den manglende erkendelse ser den overfaldne søn heldigvis ud til ikke at komme til at lide af uagtet hans desillusionerede og forvirrede mors moralske formaninger

Vi drager omsorg. Vi forklarer. Vi trøster. Vi får dem arresteret. Vi appellerer til, at det ikke må blive til had. Men ’come on’, han er 12 år gammel!

Så lidt håb er der vel?

Fra Berlingske Tidende

Uvidenheden har vide grænser i vore dage. Kundskaber, der var selvfølgelige for en student eller en højskoleelev af min årgang, er nu ukendt land. Og de uvidende skammer sig ikke over deres uvidenhed. Jamen, er det så vigtigt at kende sin kulturarv? Ja, hvis vi ikke vil nøjes med at kende vores egen lille familie, men også vil høre hjemme i en stamme, et folk, så må vi kende dette folks grundlag, dets historie. Ligesom der er minder, vi er stolte af eller bedrøvede over i vores lille, biologiske familie, har folket, nationen, været udsat for skæbnesvangre begivenheder, der har været med til at forme hver enkelt af os til dem, vi er i dag. Den overdrevne sejrsrus efter første slesvigske krig, det overmod, der førte til dumhederne og det katastrofale nederlag i 1864. Besættelsen 1940-45. Osv.

Dannet os har dog endnu mere det sindelag, der kommer til udtryk i vore ypperste kunstværker, H.C. Andersens eventyr, Blichers noveller, Carl Nielsens symfonier og højskolesange, Herman Bangs humor, Lange-Müllers vemod. Hvis vi ikke kender vores kulturarv og vedkender os den som en del af vores eget sind, krakelerer vi og bliver usammenhængende reflekser af diverse tilbud fra TV-skærmen eller popscenen.

Vores måde at leve, tale og tænke på er skabt af kulturarven. Så sådan set har vi dens slutresultat inden i os. Men dens byggesten, rejst århundrede efter århundrede, bør være os velkendte. Det danske sprog i hele dets rige mangfoldighed kommer ikke til os af sig selv. Det skal øves. Især ved at vi læser dansksprogets mestre, H.C. Andersen, Blicher, Johs. V. Jensen, og alle sangskriverne fra Ingemann, Grundtvig, Sophus Claussen til PH, Sigfred Pedersen, Frank Jæger, Halfdan Rasmussen.

Nemlig!

Kurt Westergard har modtaget M100 Medieprisen og Politiken skriver 

Kurt Westergaard havde ret til at lave sin Muhammedtegning, erklærede den tyske forbundskansler Angela Merke, da den danske tegner fik overrakt en stor pressepris under en konference i Potsdam ved Berlin.

(…)

Det tyske dagblad, Frankfurter Algemeine, skrev, at Merkel løb en kæmperisiko ved at lade sig fotografere sammen med den danske tegner, og at det formentlig ville være det mest eksplosive møde, hun har haft i sin kanslertid.

Jeg hæfter mig ved det på alle måder sørgelige i at det at lade sig fotografere sammen med en dansk satiretegner med holdninger lidt til venstre for midten er at løbe ”en kæmpe risiko” og kan være en kanslers “mest eksplosive møde“.

Åh ja, det minder mig i øvrigt også om Uffe Ellemann, der i sine takketale for at have modtaget den mindre og kun rent danske Publicistprisen - ja tænk engang han fik Publicistprisen - spurgte om danskerne forstår ”…at håndtere ytringsfriheden?” fordi det at tegne for ham at se er et udtryk for “provinsiel fundamentalisme” - Hvis ikke man har god smag vel at mærke og han uddybede dette enestående Oplysningsideal med en tur ned af Memory Lane

Må jeg minde om det credo, som den frie presses anerkendte fyrtårn - New York Times - for over 100 år siden opstillede for sit virke: “All The News That’s Fit to Print” - alle de nyheder der er egnede til at trykke.

Egnede! Altså ikke “alt hvad der falder enhver journalist ind” - men kun det, der er “egnet” til at trykke.

Det er altså modsat Merkel, der slog fast at den slags ”gør ingen forskel. Har han lov at gøre det? Ja han har”. Merkel enkender nemlig modsat Ellemann at egnethed er et individuelt synspunkt. New Yourk Times skal kun redegøre sig overfor sine læsere og sætter altså ikke regler for hele samfundet. Hvis det havde været tilfældet ville bladet have heddet noget i retning af Pravda.

Også New York Bormester Bloomberg er enig med Merkel ifølge New York Daily News

“In a strange way, I’m here to defend his right to do that. I happen to think that it is distasteful,” Bloomberg said Tuesday.

“The First Amendment protects everybody, and you can’t say that we’re going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement,” he added.

“If you want to be able to say what you want to say when the time comes that you want to say it, you have to defend others, no matter how, how much you disagree with them.”

Her handler det dog ikke om Kurt Westergaard, hvilket jo netop også lige meget, men om en kristen prædikant, der har planlagt en offentlig afbrænding af det fascistiske skrift Koranen (som jo heller ikke er forbudt trods den opfordring til vold mod tænkende) på dagen, hvor muslimske troende med Koranen, som begrundelse myrdede i tusindvis af tilfældige mennesker. Denne Koranhappening har selvfølgelig fået muslimer op i det røde felt og Anders Fog Rasmussen og Præsident Obama advarer derfor prædikanten mod at ytre sin mening - af hensyn til dem, der ikke kan lide den. Og det er da også skandaløst at afbrænde de symboler andre holder af

Man forstår godt at de råber “Death to America!” ude foran ambassaden i Kabul.

Aviserne gav den hele armen af bekymring da boreplatformen Deepwater Horizon eksploderede og sank i den Mexikanske Golf. Under overskriften “Er Deepwater Horizon Vor Tids Titanic” skrev Politiken (tilfældigt valg af avis) f.eks.

Olieselskabet skriver i planen, at et olieudslip fra Deepwater Horizon »kan få konsekvenser« for dyreliv og naturreservater ved kysterne omkring boreplatformen. Men selskabet argumenterer samtidig med, at »på grund af afstanden til kysten(77 kilometer, red.) og den assistance, der ville blive implementeret, hvis et udslip skulle forekomme, forventer man ingen betydelige, skadelige virkninger«.

Det viser sig nu, at den påstand ikke holder stik, mens miljøeksperter lige nu kæmper for at beskytte de 34.000 fugle, der holder til i marskområdet.

Samtidig er fiskeindustrien i Louisiana indstillet mange steder, hvor nettene ellers plejer at være fyldte med især østers, krabber og rejer.

LÆS ARTIKEL Oliepøl truer hvaler og skildpadder

LÆS ARTIKEL Lokale fiskere: Olien kan blive værre end Katrina

Hmm. Sience & Enviromental Policy Project noterer tørt i deres The Week That Was

Number of the Week: 1826. As of August 13, 115 days into the spill, this is the total number of visibly oiled dead birds collected by US Fish and Wildlife. The statistic does not mean the oil killed the birds. The total number of visibly oiled birds collected, alive or dead, is 3727. The total number of visibly oiled sea turtles collected stands at 461, 17 of which were dead. The total number of visibly oiled mammals collected stands at 5, 4 of which were dead. (http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/collection_08132010.pdf)

SEPP henviser til National Review, der opstiller et lidt mere nøgternt billede af oliekatastrofen, der ganske tragisk kostede 11 mennesker livet end sommerens avisoverskrifter

Four months after the Deepwater Horizon spill — which President Obama called the “worst environmental disaster America has ever faced” — the oil is disappearing, and fisheries are returning to normal. It turns out that this incident exposed some things that are seriously wrong in the world of oil — and I don’t mean exploding wells. There was a broad-based failure on the part of the media, the science establishment, and the federal bureaucracy. With the nation and its leaders looking for facts, we got instead a massive plume of apocalyptic mythology and threats of Armageddon. In the Gulf, this misinformation has cost jobs, lowered property values, and devastated tourism, and its effects on national policy could be deep and far-reaching.

(…)

…late in May, NOAA did a study that was far less alarming. It found weak concentrations of oil in the area surrounding the Deepwater Horizon site: 0.5 parts per million, maximum. The median was a little over 0.2 parts per million. As with the “giant” spill that threatened the East Coast, that’s barely above the threshold of detection. And by late July and early August, BP, the federal government, and some independent researchers were saying they couldn’t find any plumes at all. “We’re finding hydrocarbons around the well, but as we move away from the well, they move to almost background traces in the water column,” said Adm. Thad Allen, the administration’s point man on the spill. Some 75 percent of the oil released is gone — and that’s based on new estimates that put the spill rate at the high end of earlier projections.

As with the bogus doomsday model, industry experts say the giant-plume threat was greatly overstated by scientists and further blown out of proportion by the media. According to Arthur Berman, a respected petroleum expert at Labyrinth Consulting Services in Sugar Land, Texas, the theory flunks basic physics. “Oil is lighter than water and rises above it in all known situations on this planet. The idea of underwater plumes defies everything that we know about physical laws and has distressed me from the outset about these unscientific reports.”

It also ignores the Gulf’s well-known ability to break down oil. Berman points out that the Gulf has for millennia been a warm, rich ecological gumbo of natural oil seeps, oil-eating bacteria, and marine life that subsists on the bacteria. His research, he says, suggests that the spill represents at most four times as much oil as seeps into the Gulf naturally in a year — in other words, it is eminently digestible by the native ecosystem.

Man har vel lov at være heldig.

En “uafhængig” rapport om arbejdsgangene i FNs Klimapanel (IPCC) fremkommer med lidt velkommen kritik. New Scientist konkluderer på den baggrund bl.a.

The IPCC has tried hard to preserve the normal rules of scientific discourse and to explain continuing uncertainty, but it has been pushed towards simple sound-bite conclusions. Some of this pressure has come from the desire of many scientists to underline their concerns about the dangers the world faces. Sometimes, in the process, “could happen” has become “will happen”, and analysis has veered close to advocacy. Journalists have been willing colluders.

IPCCs egen formand Rajendra Pachauri indrømmer ganske åbent det samme i et interview med Times of India

Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making.

Ja, hvis man skal sælge en vare må man først vide, hvad kunden vil have. Matt Ridley trækker en morsom parallel i The Australian

THIS month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour.

The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great; no policy had been based on his research.

This week, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prizewinning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest”.

 New York Posts Matt Paterson taler da også direkte om en nedsmeltning af Klimapanelet

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.

The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

 Eisenhower advarede i sin afskedstale om sammenblandingen af politik og videnskab: ”Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.“. Eller som Dr. Roy Spencer nærmest Churchillsk udtrykker det

Never in history have so many advocates with so little common sense held so much influence over so selfish a political class who were elected by so gullible a public for such irrelevant reasons.

Og han konkluderer

The IPCC is now at a tipping point. Will its self-destruct? Probably not. Dramatic organizational changes will be instituted, and at some point success will be declared. The IPCC will be refocused, leaner, meaner, more transparent, more open to the views of the deniers…er…I mean skeptics.

But the ultimate purpose of the IPCC will remain unchanged: to cherry pick and misuse climate science in order to eventually control humanity’s access to energy.

So, in order to put the IPCC out of its misery, it will take more than to just point out its selective use of facts and its biased science. Its demise will have to be the result of political pressure related to its biased political agenda.

And at least in the U.S., the current indications are that the citizens have had just about as much as they can take from those whose (arguable) good intentions force others to pay for paving that proverbial road to hell.

Tim Ball er heller ikke optimist og kommenterer i Canada Free Press nedslående

Nothing will change soon. Too many political, bureaucratic and academic careers are dependent on perpetuating the IPCC. Too many green industries have developed to take advantage of the billions governments have poured into alternate energies and other unworkable projects. Too many lobby groups are dependent on government funding, and use the IPCC message to shake funds out of a deceived and worried public.

Men noget vil alligevel ændre sig. Klimapanelet er ikke øverste autoritet og det er nu legitimt at fastslå. Selv om New Scientist hæfter sig ved, at der ikke er grund til kritik af den samlede forskning (misrepræsenteret, som den ellers er af IPCC ifølge dem selv) og det overordne CO2 paradigme røres der ved kernen af det påståede konsensus. Man skal kende træet på dets frugter og det er naivt at tro at man kan bevare frugterne, hvis man skifter træet ud. Klimahysteriet har mistet sin ryggrad.

No Frakking Consensus har sammenlignet Sundhedskapitlet fra FNs Klimapanels rapport fra 1995, som australieren Anthony McMichael var hovedansvarlig for med en vidtløftig bog, som samme McMichael havde skrevet få år forinden. Bogen Planetary Overload bliver ikke nævnt som kilde i Klimarapporten, selv om sammenfaldet i ordlyd er ganske påfaldende

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 150:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and in the Sudan have been accompanied by increased illness and death from bronchitis and asthma.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 578:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and the Sudan have been accompanied by increases in bronchitis and asthma.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 155:
In Egypt, for example, the water snails tend to lose their schistosome infections during the winter months (January-March). However, if temperatures increase, snails may spread schistosomiasis throughout the year, thus increasing the already heavy parasite burden in rural Egypt.

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 574:
In Egypt, for example, water snails tend to lose their schistosome infections during winter, but if temperatures increase, snails may mediate  schistosomiasis transmission throughout the year.

.

McMichael’s 1993 book, page 155:
Arboviral infections span a wide clinical spectrum, from those that cause mild feverish illness or subclinical infections to those causing severe and often fatal encephalitis (brain inflammation) or hemorrhagic fever. Under favourable environmental conditions, an arboviral disease can become epidemic (population-wide), from a local endemic base – in much the same way that cholera has recently broken out…

Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 575:
Arboviral infections span a wide clinical spectrum, from those that cause mild feverish illness or subclinical inflections to those causing severe and often fatal encephalitis (brain inflammation) or hemorrhagic fever. Under favorable environmental conditions, an arboviral disease can become epidemic (population-wide), from a local endemic base or by its introduction to a previously unaffected area.

Og der er flere eksempler, som jeg vil anbefale at læse, sammen med resten af indlægget. Det på dette vores politikere træffer deres skråsikre beslutninger.

Og så er det tid til lidt populisme - fra den rigtige fløj!

En gammel sag er blevet til en ny sag fordi den er blevet skrevet om i en bog. Fra Jyllands-Posten

- Vi ved endnu ikke, præcis hvilken rolle, det daværende Red Barnet spillede dengang, for der er stadig en undersøgelse i gang. Men uanset hvad, så vil jeg gerne på min organisations vegne sige uforbeholdent undskyld til de grønlandske mænd og kvinder, der på så barsk og ulykkelig vis blev tvangsflyttet som børn, siger Red Barnets generalsekretær Mimi Jakobsen i en pressemeddelelse.

“Ved ikke hvilken rolle (…) Red Barnet Spillede“, “uanset hvad (…) sige uforbeholdent undskyld“. Jamen det vil vi også gerne sig e her på Monokultur.dk. Undskyld! Undskyld for at de grønlandske børn ikke voksede op i et land, hvor børn med kønssygdomme og alkoholproblemer er reglen snarere end undtagelsen. Undskyld! Næste gang lover vi at vende det blinde øje til vanrøgt.

Forleden blev medarbejdere på TV-stationen Discovery udsat for en gidseltagning af en forstyrret ung asiatisk mand. Fra Fox News

A man known for protesting the Discovery Channel’s environmental programming stormed the network’s Maryland headquarters carrying a handgun on Wednesday, holding three people hostage for hours until he was shot and killed by police, according to authorities.

The hostages — two Discovery Communications employees and a security guard — were unhurt after the four-hour standoff. Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger said tactical officers moved in after officers monitoring the man on building security cameras saw him pull out a handgun and point it at a hostage.

The gunman was identified by Discovery Communications as James Jay Lee of San Diego, Calif., a man well-known to the building’s employees because of his history of protesting the network.

Selv om han var ganske forstyrret og hans liv endte tragisk (og heldigvis begrænsede politiet tragedien til Lee selv ved at skyde ham!) så var han også et udtryk for det menneskehad, der driver dele af miljøbevægelsen og venstrefløjen fremad. Fra den sunde bekymring over de skader vi, som producerende mennesker forvolder naturen og holdbarheden i vores brug af ressourcer er der en glidebane over i en ideologi, hvor mennesket er syndigt i sin blotte eksistens. Ja den uerkendte syndefaldsmyte er ligefor og farligere fordi den netop er uerkendt.

I et manifest, som James Jay Lee efterlod udtrykkes dette menneskehad ganske tydeligt og den stakkels Lee skiller sig kun ud fra sine miljø og venstreloonieallierede ved at være gået fra koncepterne og handle på egen hånd. (Fra Watts Up With That)

The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:

1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

Udtryk, som “filthy human children”, “parasitic human infants”, “human filth!”, “baby filth”, “disgusting human babies!”, “disassemble civilization”, “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is” og “The humans? The planet does not need humans.” viser os at vanviddet fra hans psykiske lidelser blev overgået af vanviddet fra det sammensurium af ideologisk tankegods, som er ganske comme il faut i de vestlige urbane miljøer.

Mrutyuanjai Mishra stiller sig op i den brogede kø, der forsvarer det “demokratiet i Sverige” i ved landet, hvor afstemningerne ikke er hemmelige. Og han trækker denne modsætning til Danmark

Handler ytringsfriheden kun om at komme med nedsættende og racistiske bemærkninger om minoriteter og mindre privilegerede borgere i samfundet?

Som følge af Lars Hedegaards snaldrede formuleringer om kvindeundertrykkelse og pædofili i det islamiske tankegods meldte flere sig ud at Trykkefrihedsselskabet i protest heriblandt Mrutyuanjai Mishra. Han mente at der var for meget plads til racistiske ytringer og ytringsfriheden handler nu engang ikke “kun om at komme med nedsættende og racistiske bemærkninger om minoriteter og mindre privilegerede borgere i samfundet“. Men det er nu rart at den også handler om det for ikke så lang tid siden skrev Mrutyuanjai Mishra nemlig på sin blog

I maj måned i år tog nogle få sunni-muslimske jihadister til Lahore. Det lykkedes dem at dræbe ca. 100 ahmadi-muslimer, som man i Pakistan slet ikke betragter som muslimer. Angrebet var endnu et indlysende eksempel på, hvordan muslimer er grundlæggende uenige og meget intolerante over for hinanden.

Ja for sådan er muslimerne, det hører Mishra hele tiden.

Fra San Francisco Chronicle

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means “boy player.” The men like to boast about it.

“Having a boy has become a custom for us,” Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. “Whoever wants to show off should have a boy.”

(…)

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can’t even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

“How can you fall in love if you can’t see her face,” 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. “We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful.”

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are “unclean” and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli’s team “how his wife could become pregnant,” her report said. When that was explained, he “reacted with disgust” and asked, “How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?”

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved.

Det har ellers været fremme før. Fra PBS Frontline

In The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi (Behind Taliban Lines) returns to his native land to expose an ancient practice that has been brought back by powerful warlords, former military commanders and wealthy businessmen. Known as “bacha bazi” (literal translation: “boy play”), this illegal practice exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11, whose parents are paid to give over their sons to their new “masters.” The men dress the boys in women’s clothes and train them to sing and dance for the entertainment of themselves and their friends. According to experts, the dancing boys are used sexually by these powerful men.

Og lidt af indslaget (hele filmen kan ses her)

Et af højdepunkterne er da en tidligere general betror intervieweren at siden han er et kultiveret menneske ville han spørge sin kone om lov til at flytte sin drengesexslave hjem hos sig. I modsætning til almindelige afghanske mænd, der altså gør, hvad der passer dem. Alt i alt en klam religion og en klam kultur.

“Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) er hhv. formand og næstformand i Center for Positiv Integration (CePI). CePI er en tænketank med et rådgivningscenter på Nørrebro.” og de har en blog på Jyllands-Posten. Her indleder de et forsvar for racismeparagraffen og kommer med følgende grundargument.

Racisme har, på grund af racismens basale anatomi, ingen steder hjemme i et liberalt, pluralistisk og demokratisk samfund. Og med udgangspunkt i demokratiets bærende principper om lighed og frihed, er der er intet til hinder for, at samfundet sanktionerer mennesker der - som i Langballes og Hedegaards tilfælde - aktivt vælger at sætte sig uden for de grundlæggende normer om lighed og frihed. Racisme er nemlig en strukturel magtudøvelse, der i sin essens søger at begrænse friheden for visse mennesker og gøre op med normen om alle menneskers fundamentale ligeværd. Dermed er det i sidste ende et forsøg på at indskrænke demokratiet.

Racisme er altså forkert fordi det er udemokratisk. Og det, der er udemokratisk kan man altså forbyde at blive ytret - i demokratiets navn. Det lyder slet ikke, som et totalitært skråplan.

Siden vi taler om Jesper Langballe og Lars Hedegaards venten på dom og at det hele derfor handler om islam og muslimer så kan man ifølge Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) med al ret sige

Islam har, på grund af Islams basale anatomi, ingen steder hjemme i et liberalt, pluralistisk og demokratisk samfund. Og med udgangspunkt i demokratiets bærende principper om lighed og frihed, er der er intet til hinder for, at samfundet sanktionerer mennesker der - som i Zubai But Hussein og Wahid Petersens tilfælde - aktivt vælger at sætte sig uden for de grundlæggende normer om lighed og frihed. Islam er nemlig en strukturel magtudøvelse, der i sin essens søger at begrænse friheden for visse mennesker og gøre op med normen om alle menneskers fundamentale ligeværd. Dermed er det i sidste ende et forsøg på at indskrænke demokratiet.

Og det gælder selvfølgelig også for nazisme, marxisme, feminisme og Radikale Venstre fordi de fornægter virkeligheden. Men siden Isalm jo er antidemokratisk og skal forbydes, hvorledes vil Jeppe (cand.scient.pol.) og Thomas (cand.jur.) da så dømme Langballe og Hedegaard for netop at advare mod de antidemokratiske tanker?

Tøger Seidenfaden indleder Politikens leder således

Siden Muhammedkarikaturerne satte verden i brand, har vi fået ytringsfrihed på hjernen.

Man henviser til den, selv når sager helt åbenlyst handler om noget ganske andet. Vi ser det, når V’s og K’s ordførere helt absurd vil have udsendt valgobservatører til et af verdens stærkeste demokratier, Sverige, fordi Sverigedemokraternas fremmedfjendske tendenser ikke nyder helt samme respekt blandt svenskerne, som Dansk Folkepartis ditto gør herhjemme.

Fra en anden artikel i Politiken

Journalisten, der har lavet den omstridte valgreklame for det indvandrerkritiske Sverigedemokraterne, har mistet sit arbejde som freelancer for det statslige Sveriges Radio.

Sveriges Radio begrunder opsigelsen af journalist Anders Königsson med, at det skader stationens troværdighed, hvis journalisterne ved siden af også arbejder for politiske partier.

(…)

En del af det tekniske arbejde blev udført i Danmark: Ingen svenske firmaer ville påtage sig arbejdet.

(…)

Den afvisning og den omstændighed, at svenske vælgere skal trække valgsedlerne til det parti, de vil stemme på, i fuld offentlighed har fået danske valgeksperter og politikere til at kritisere Sverige.

I det mindste kunne Tøger da læse sin egen avis.

I sidste uge kunne man på Danmarks Radio læse

Efter den seneste måneds ødelæggende oversvømmelser får Pakistans kristne en håndsrækning fra danske kirker og missionsselskaber, som har indsamlet op mod en million kroner til kirker i det katastroferamte, overvejende muslimske land, skriver Kristeligt Dagblad.

De danske kirker og missionsselskaber begrunder deres støtte direkte til trosfællerne med, at Pakistans kristne bliver diskrimineret - trods Vestens milliardbidrag til nødhjælpsindsatsen.

(…)

Dansk Røde Kors’ generalsekretær, Anders Ladekarl, er ikke begejstret for danske kirkers hjælp til Pakistans kirker.

- Det er i modstrid med vores princip om, at den humanitære bistand skal være neutral og deles ud til alle efter behov. Vi kritiserer jo også Taleban for at ville fremme bestemte religiøse holdninger ved at dele bistand ud, siger han.

Eller også har offeret mere brug for hjælp end gerningsmanden. Fra Christian Post

Pointing to alleged discrimination against minorities in distribution of humanitarian aid, Paul added that Christians in severely flood-damaged areas in Punjab Province have been neglected. The majority of the effected Christians in Punjab are in Narowal, Shakargarh, Muzzafargarh, Rahim Yar Khan and Layyah, he said.

“The Christians living around Maralla, Narowal, and Shakargarh were shifted to the U.N.- administered camps, but they are facing problems in the camps,” he said. “There are reports that the Christians are not given tents, clean water and food. In most of the camps the Christians have totally been ignored.”

Jeg ved ikke hvilken bistand Taleban deler ud ved siden af deres skolepigemassakrer men de holdninger Taleban vil fremme kan nok summeres op således

Authorities on Wednesday recovered the bodies of three Christian relief workers who had been kidnapped and killed by members of the Pakistani Taliban in the flood-ravaged country, area officials said.

(…)

“The Taliban had warned about attacks on foreigner aid workers and Christian organizations,” the ISPR source said. “All the international humanitarian organizations have been notified, and their security has also been increased.”

Og Taleban er jo ikke et løsrevet fænomen, som Christian Post også kan fortælle

The head of a Muslim village last week ordered 250 Christian families to leave their homes in Khanewal district, Punjab Province, local residents said.

Abdul Sattar Khan, head of village No. 123/10R, Katcha Khoh, and other area Muslim residents ordered the expulsions after Christian residents objected too strenuously to sexual assaults by Muslims on Christian girls and women, said a locally elected Christian official, Emmanuel Masih.

Most of the village’s Christian men work in the fields of Muslim land owners, while most of the Christian women and girls work as servants in the homes of Muslim families, said Rasheed Masih, a Christian in the village who added that the impoverished Christians were living in appalling conditions.

The Muslim employers have used their positions of power to routinely sexually assault the Christian women and girls, whose complaints grew so shrill that four Christian men – Emmanuel Masih, Rasheed Masih, his younger brother Shehzad Anjum and Yousaf Masih Khokhar – sternly confronted the Muslims, only to be told that all Christians were to leave the village at once.

Hvis Danmark absolut skal hjælpe muslimer i Pakistan kan vi sende dem tæpper og telte syet i Dannebrogsflag. Så kan de selv bestemme om de vil krybe i dem eller brænde dem for at få varmen.

Presset på at reformere FNs Klimapanel og fyre formand Rajendra Panchauri stiger, som følge af dets troværdigheds dalende tendens. Efter de mange skandaler, hvor anekdotiske kilder har lagt grunden til spektakulære forudsigelser, mest berømt er Himalayas gletcheres snarlige smelten og udtørring af Amazonas regnskov har man (formand Panchauri selv) i et forsøg på selvkritik af egne procedurer valgt at få foretaget et uafhængigt akademisk gennemsyn. Inter-Academy Council fik opgaven (af fomand Panchauri selv) og kom med deres rapport forleden her fra New York Times

The United Nations needs to revise the way it manages its assessments of climate change, with the scientists involved more open to alternative views, more transparent about possible conflicts of interest and more careful to avoid making policy prescriptions, an independent review panel said Monday.

The review panel also recommended that the senior officials involved in producing the periodic assessments serve in their voluntary positions for only one report — a statement interpreted to suggest that the current chairman of the climate panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, step down.

Nedenstående er klimapanelets mest berømte frembringelse i kampen for at vinde masserne.

Ross McKitrick, der sammen med Steven McIntyre afslørede Ishockeystav grafen som værende en konstrueret misrepræsentation af virkeligheden, udtrykte i Financial Post for nogle dage siden skepsis i forhold til rapportens uafhængighed og gav sine bud på nogle grundproblemer i IPPC

Rajendra Pachauri, asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) to review IPCC procedures. The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. It was a safe choice for Pachauri. The last IAC report was a glowing tribute to alternative energy schemes, coauthored by Pachauri himself, along with current Obama administration appointee Stephen Chu and a group of others. So I do not expect much independence of mind or hard-headed objectivity from the IAC.

(…)

Selection of Working Group Chairs and Lead Authors appears to be under the control of a small circle of people committed to a predetermined view on global warming. In combination with the fact that the review process is toothless, this guarantees that the report contents are predictable given the names of the Lead Authors. Indeed there is not much point even publishing the report anymore: Once the list of Lead Authors is known, we can all guess what the conclusions will be. I am sure that there are many areas in the IPCC report where the conclusions will be sound. But in the areas where I have detailed knowledge and experience, this has not been the case.

A major problem with the IPCC is that the assignments for Lead Authors (LA’s) often put them in the position of reviewing not only their own work but also that of their critics. There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process, and what few safeguards are in place are ineffective.

(…)

The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report.

In addition, no one is assigned the role of reviewing a particular section or chapter. It is conceivable that parts of a report might not be read by any reviewers: Nothing in the IPCC procedures prevents this.

Although there are more than 140 governments in the IPCC, only 23 governments submitted any review comments on the 2007 IPCC scientific report, and more than half of the comments were from only two countries: the United States and Australia. Not one African country submitted a comment, nor did any Middle Eastern or Arabic countries, nor did Russia nor the former Soviet states. Brazil submitted comments on three chapters and Chile commented on one chapter; other than that, there were no comments from any South American countries. None of the small island states in the Pacific submitted comments. In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic commented on one chapter, and Hungary commented on three chapters; other than that, there were no comments from any government in Eastern Europe.

Roy Spencer er på sin blog mere skeptisk end Ross McKitrick

The reason why is because the IPCC process was never created to achieve what the U.N. claims, and what most people believe it exists for.

The IPCC was created to use the scientific community to build a case for regulating CO2 emissions. Period.

While you might believe otherwise, climate scientists back in the 1980s did not get together and decide “let’s create the IPCC and investigate the evidence for and against manmade climate change”. Instead, politicians and politically savvy opportunists saw global warming as the perfect excuse for instituting policies that would never have been achieved on their own merits.

Maybe some scientists thought they helped dream up the IPCC to help save humanity from itself. But the process was instigated by politicians and U.N. bureaucrats who misrepresented what they were trying to accomplish. Some people are gifted in their ability to get others to think that they came up with an idea, when in fact they were artfully guided into it.

Det konsensus, som alskens politikere og aktivister hævder at IPCC repræsenterer er altså skabt af IPCC selv. IPCC er ikke et ledende organ for klimaforskning, men et ekkokammer.