Muslimske brødre dræber ikke hinanden

Jihad, Kristenforfølgelse, Terror, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 30, 2013 at 11:04 am

100 unge mødte op ved den metrostation ved Forum i København dels for at mindes Taha Saadaoui, den unge mand, der blev knivdræbt forrige uge, dels for at sprede et særligt ikke-volds budskab kunne man Søndag læse i BT (det er ikke alt journalister når at luge ud i)

- Vi vil vise folk, at det er nok med alle de drab. Vi vil have folk til at tænke over, hvad det betyder at gå med kniv og våben. Det er ufatteligt, at det er kommet så langt, at muslimske brødre dræber deres brødre. Som muslimer er det, det værste man kan gøre, sagde Tahas kusine Maryam Saadaoui til BT.

Vi så senest i Nairobi, hvorledes muslimer har forrang når der skal massakreres. Men det stærke sekteriske had er jo altså heller ikke til at styre indenbords, når dogmerne påbyder at gøre op, hvem, der er ægte muslimer. Samme dag som danske unge muslimer ikke fattede at muslimer ikke kun slagter ikke-muslimer kunne man læse hvorledes man rundt omkring i den muslimske verden havde finere distinktioner med, hvem der egentlig udgør en muslimsk bror. Danmarks Radio skriver

En selvmordsbomber dræbte mindst 40 personer, da han sprang sig selv i luften under en shiamuslimsk begravelse i en sydlig irakisk by søndag.

Eksplosionen ødelagde loftet i en moské i Mussayab, der ligger omkring 60 kilometer syd for hovedstaden, Bagdad.

Mindst 50 er såret, mens politiet siger, at der er flere lig fanget under murbrokkerne.

BBC

An explosion has ripped through a market in the north-western Pakistani city of Peshawar, leaving at least 33 dead and dozens wounded, officials say.

Police said a bomb had exploded in the Kissa Khwani market, with shops and vehicles set alight.

The blast comes a week after a double suicide bombing that killed at least 80 people at a church in the city.

On Friday, at least 17 people were killed in the bombing of a bus carrying government employees near Peshawar.

(…)

But the Pakistan Taliban have consistently rejected the country’s constitution and demand the imposition of Sharia law.

BBC kan man læse

Suspected Islamist gunmen have attacked a college in north-eastern Nigeria, killing up to 50 students.

The students were shot dead as they slept in their dormitory at the College of Agriculture in Yobe state.

North-eastern Nigeria is under a state of emergency amid an Islamist insurgency by the Boko Haram group.

Boko Haram is fighting to overthrow Nigeria’s government to create an Islamic state, and has launched a number of attacks on schools.

(…)

In July in the village of Mamudo in Yobe state, Islamist militants attacked a school’s dormitories with guns and explosives, killing at least 42 people, mostly students.

Boko Haram regards schools as a symbol of Western culture. The group’s name translates as “Western education is forbidden”.

Den store muslimske familie, hvor alle brødre er sorte får.

Reaktioner på klimaraporten

Diverse — Drokles on September 29, 2013 at 3:52 pm

En vejrmand tweetede ifølge Daily Mail, at han var brudt grædende sammen da han stod i lufthavnen og tænkte over den seneste klimarapports skræmmende perspektiver. Aldrig mere ville han tage en flyver, svor han og han overvejede endda vasektomi. Det kan jeg anbefale alle klimatosser, hvor ville vores børn få det rart. Men der har også været mere velovervejede reaktioner. Steven Goddard konstaterer tørt at klimapanelets overbevisning om global opvarmning er steget som den globale temperatur er faldet

screenhunter_1013-sep-28-00-13

Og Goddard konstaterer også at at der ikke har været global opvarmning i 70% af klimapanelets levetid! Dr. Det har været det helt store problem for klimapanelet, hvad skal man fortælle offentligheden når man ikke har noget at berette. Under forhandlingerne om de endelige formuleringer i klimarapporten var der stor uenighed, regeringerne imellem fortalte Telegraph. Tyskerne ville slette alle referencer til den manglende temperaturstigning, belgierne at man regnede fra et særligt statistisk fordelagtigt år og amerikanerne at man fandt på en masse bortforklaringer. Som Lubos Motl, ridsede op, så var europærerne for censur, mens amerikanerne ville lyve. Alle var de bange for, hvorledes skeptikerne kunne udnytte det. Det var et dilemma, som ikke havde nogen løsning og det er ikke så overraskende at resultatet er under kritik. Benny Peisler siger til Express

Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, branded the report “insincere hype” and “scare tactics”.

He said: “This is nothing but a political statement to cover up the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.

“This is a political attempt to divert attention away from the fact that they would otherwise have to admit they were wrong. This report is not a scientific, ­honest assessment of their performance in the past or the performance of climate.”

Marc Moraneo siger til Daily Caller

“You have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN’s political narrative on global warming,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a climate skeptic website.

Morano added that “[b]oth poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing,  wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity,  Gore’s organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day.”

Heller ikke den australske geolog Bob Carter er imponeret, som han fortæller i et interview med BBC ifølge Scottish Sceptic, mens han forsøger med lidt simpel indføring i basal videnskabelighed

That the IPCC has an idea. It is not actually their idea it was why they were set up. They were told to go away and consider the business, not of climate change in the round, but of climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. So what it does it that it goes out and looks for evidence, for humans having a dangerous impact on climate. Now real science doesn’t work that way.

Now as you probably know science proceeds in general by setting up what is called a null hypothesis which is the simplest hypothesis. And that is: we look out the window and we see everyday change in the weather and in the longer term the climate. The distribution and patterns of nesting and flowering and so on of animals and plants. So we know the real world is variable the whole time.

The null hypothesis therefore is: that those changes we observe are due to natural variation. And the NIPCC report tries to invalidate that hypothesis. And the really interesting thing is that after looking at several thousand papers just like the IPCC, we come to the opposite conclusion. One of our conclusions is that climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change: of temperature; of ice-volume; of sea-level, or of extreme weather events.

(…)

The problem with what you just said to me about 95% probability is that it is hocus pocus science. In science the phrase 70% probable or 90% probable had definite meanings. They imply controlled trials, they imply numerical quantitative information objectively assessed. If you ask the IPCC they will tell you that when they use the term 95% probable it is based on the expert opinion of a group of people gathered around a table. It is completely wrong to use probability terminology to describe what is albeit an expert opinion.

Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post

So what, says Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s Commissioner for Climate Action. “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

So, it’s come down to this — we now have widespread agreement from numerous true believers that the models — the only source of scary scenarios — are junk. But the true believers want us to take action on climate change regardless, out of prudence, on the mere possibility that the sky could be falling. It’s an “insurance policy,” Pindyck explains, with other true believers nodding in agreement.

This is a peculiar species of insurance policy, one where the premiums that we’re being asked to pay total literally trillions of dollars, where the perils that we’re being protected against are ill- or undefined, and where — should any of the perils ever materialize — no benefits will be paid out to us policyholders.

This is also a peculiar species of insurance because the insurance industry has traditionally insured on the basis of past experience — this is the tradecraft of actuaries, who ground their assessment of risks on the likelihood that “actual” events that have occurred will reoccur. But in all of known human history — some 5,000 years — and even what’s known of human pre-history — some 200,000 years — none of the many periods of global warming that we’re aware of has led to human harm.

Judith Curry er også direkte i sin vurdering af, hvor stort dilemmaet er for FN’s klimapanel, fortæller Fox News

Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was even blunter.

IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.

Og tvivlen breder sig midt i medie hysteriet. BBC’s seere blev nogle dage inden rapportens offentliggørelse konfronteret med denne simple sandhed (h/t Watts Up With That)

bbc_no_rise_1998

Og tyske Der Spiegel skrev

For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force.

The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased. A survey conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL found a dramatic shift in public opinion — Germans are losing their fear of climate change. While in 2006 a sizeable majority of 62 percent expressed a fear of global warning, that number has now become a minority of just 39 percent.

One cause of this shift, presumably, is the fact that global warming seems to be taking a break. The average global temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists’ computer-simulated predictions.

(…)

The researchers’ problem: Their climate models should have been able to predict the sudden flattening in the temperature curve. Offering explanations after the fact for why temperatures haven’t increased in so long only serves to raise doubts as to how reliable the forecasts really are.

Despite this, most Germans have not yet lost their faith in climate research. According to the SPIEGEL survey, 67 percent of Germans still consider the predictions reliable.

(…)

Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC’s response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

This despite the IPCC’s promise for more transparency after hair-raising mistakes in the last assessment report — from 2007 — emerged three years ago and tarnished the panel’s credibility. One result of that scandal was a commitment to avoiding future conflicts of interest. Yet scientists who previously worked for environmental organizations still hold leading roles in the creation of the IPCC report. This includes at least two “coordinating lead authors” who are responsible for individual chapters of the report.

Times skriver i sin leder bl.a

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an image problem. It appears unsure how to regain the trust of voters and politicians, but not of the science it is supposed to assess. This week’s report is expected to conclude with more confidence than ever that humans have caused more than half the planet’s warming in the past 60 years. This may seem provocative in the circumstances, but the truth is that the real question for scientists now is not whether climate change is happening but how fast. So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate.

Det bliver mere normalt for medierne at fortælle om global opvarmning, med den bemærkning at temperaturen ikke er steget i 17 år. Man vil spørge guruerne, i hvis skrækscenarier man tidligere har betrygget sin verdensopfattelse med og de vil i bedste fald væve og ævle udenom. I værste fald vil de optræde så tåkrummende pinlige at selv ikke medierne kan lade være med at blive ved med at spørge. Den anden Irakkrig huskes jo for Komiske Ali.

Den blodrøde tråd

Diverse — Drokles on September 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Fra Daily Mail

Soldiers told of the horrific torture meted out by terrorists in the Nairobi mall massacre yesterday with claims hostages were dismembered, had their eyes gouged out and were left hanging from hooks in the ceiling.

Men were said to have been castrated and had fingers removed with pliers before being blinded and hanged.

Children were found dead in the food court fridges with knives still embedded in their bodies, it was claimed.

(…)

Yesterday, soldiers and doctors who were among the first people into the mall after it was reclaimed on Tuesday, spoke of the horrifying scenes inside.

‘You find people with hooks hanging from the roof,’ said one Kenyan doctor, who asked not to be named.

‘They removed eyes, ears, nose. They get your hand and sharpen it like a pencil then they tell you to write your name with the blood.

‘They drive knives inside a child’s body.

‘Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers. Here it was pain.’

A soldier, who took pictures at a bread counter and at the ArtCaffe, said he was so traumatised by what he saw he has had to seek counselling.

I Jyllands-Posten kan man læse at Taliban tager ansvaret for bombningerne af nogle kristne kirker mens de erklærer “»Alle ikke-muslimer i Pakistan er vores mål«“. Ingen diskrimination fra den kant og det er endda på et helt andet kontinent. Det gør det svært at finde en sammenhæng mellem den slags voldelige udløsninger som vi desværre ser stadigt mere af. Volden er meningsløs og kan begås af hvem som helst mod hvem som helst og hvor som helst. Medierne har uden tvivl deres del af skylden ved overhovedet at dække den slags nyheder, der kun ansporer andre. Men også computerspil og høj musik må tages i betragtning. Jeg så gerne at en kommission blev nedsat til at se på, hvordan vi gennem nogle konflikthåndteringsredskaber kan forebygge af vores unge ikke reagerer med vold. Jeg tror også det ville hjælpe hvis vi forsøgte at komme tættere på de fremmede så vi kunne få dem afmystificeret og ophæve vores irrationelle frygt og aflivet den os-eller-dem diskurs, der desværre udgår fra højrefløjen.

Hvis din læge var en kvaksalver?

Diverse, Klima — Drokles on September 27, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Det er næsten ubærligt så meget vrøvl, der bliver væltet ud med FNs Klimapanels længe og med spænding ventede ca. 7 årlige rapport blev offentliggjort i Stockholm, hvor de sidste formuleringer også var forhandlet på plads. Ja, forhandlet, men mere om det senere. Connie Hedegaard kom med den slidteste af slidte klicheer ifølge Danmarks Radio

- Den dag hvor alle forskere er 100 procent enige om at advare mod klimaforandringer, så er det for sent. Hvis din læge er 95 procent sikker på, at du har en alvorlig sygdom, vil du med det samme lede efter en kur.

- Hvorfor tage større risici, når det er vores planets helbred, der er på spil, spørger Connie Hedegaard.

Det er ubærligt at en jernbanekonstruktør fylder en klimakommisær med så mange dumheder at hun til sidst tror at planeten har et helbred. Men las os se på patientens tal

screen-shot-2013-09-23-at-10-41-45-am

0916graphic

article-2294560-18b8846f000005dc-184_634x4272

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-03-13-kl-1158202

Patienten er så rask, som patienten altid har været, så hvorfor er lægerne så 95% enige om det modsatte? , hvad skal de have solgt (det er et retorisk spørgsmål). Judith Curry spekulerer også i de 95% sikkerhed, men hun havde den glæde at der faktisk var en journalist, der også undrede sig og spurgte hende

Yesterday, a reporter asked me how the IPCC came up with the 95% number.  Here is the exchange that I had with him:

Reporter: I’m hoping you can answer a question about the upcoming IPCC report. When the report states that scientists are “95 percent certain” that human activities are largely to cause for global warming, what does that mean? How is 95 percent calculated? What is the basis for it? And if the certainty rate has risen from 90 n 2007 to 95 percent now, does that mean that the likelihood of something is greater? Or that scientists are just more certain? And is there a difference?
.
JC: The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.  The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain.  How they can justify this is beyond me.
.
Reporter: You mean they sit around and say, “How certain are you?” ”Oh, I feel about 95 percent certain. Michael over there at Penn State feels a little more certain. And Judy at Georgia Tech feels a little less. So, yeah, overall I’d say we’re about 95 percent certain.”  Please tell me it’s more rigorous than that.
.
JC: Well I wasn’t in the room, but last report they said 90%, and perhaps they felt it was appropriate or politic that they show progress and up it to 95%.
.
Reporter: So it really is as subjective as that?
.
JC: As far as I know, this is what goes on.  All this has never been documented.
.
JC conclusion: Well, I have no idea what goes on in the sausage factory.  95% – take it with a grain of salt (or a stiff whiskey).  That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.  Uncertain T. Monster is not happy.

Donna Laframboise ved desværre godt hvad der foregår på pølsefabrikken kan man læse på No Frakking Concensus.

At the meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence.

The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept.

(…)

In 2010, IPCC insiders answered a questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of the world’s science academies). Their anonymized answers paint an unflattering picture of these meetings.

First, here are some general impressions. The remarks appearing below are all direct quotes:

I suspect that…anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business. (p. 114)

this was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments, falling farther and farther beyond a realistic schedule by the hour. In Brussels in 2007, the process ran all night on the two final days. (p. 334)

…I have observed the behaviour of the delegations from individual countries which certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again… (p. 43, a few typos edited out)

In my experience the summary for policy makers tends to be more of a political process than one of scientific précis. (p. 278)

This is a pure political process… (p. 373)

De er 95% enige fordi de har forhandlet sig frem til at det vil de gerne være fordi det lyder federe end kun de oprindelige 90%, der tyede på en svag usikkerhed og knap så selvsmagende som 100% der lyder som skråsikkerhed. Der er altid fare på færde når din læge forlanger alle dine penge for at kurere dig for en sygdom ingen kan se eller mærke.

Syriwood?

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, Kristenforfølgelse, Terror, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 27, 2013 at 11:34 am

Onsdag kunne man i Jyllands-Posten under overskriften “Obama: FN-rapport ændrer spillet om Syrien” se Obama citeret for at sige “Når man ser på beviserne, er det utænkeligt, at andre end regimet kan have udført det“. Blot nogle timer senere i samme avis kunne man under overskriften “Rusland: Vi har beviser på, at oprørere stod bag angreb” læse at Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergej Ryabkov mente at der er ““tungtvejende grunde” til at tro, at gasangrebet var “en provokation”“. Der står storpolitiske interesser på spil og sammen med krigen bliver sandheden bliver ikke lettere gennemskuelig. Men, hvad der måske slører billedet af, hvem der begik, hvilke forbrydelser er araberes og muslimers usømmelige omgang med både lig og beviser.

Rapporten kan findes her (men den er meget tung for computeren at håndtere)

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-26-kl-161302skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-26-kl-161327skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-26-kl-161311skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-26-kl-161333

Perspektiverne for, hvad der virkeligt hændte de alt for mange børn er for grufulde at tænke på.

Det arabiske efterår

En chokerende rejse - Hannah Ziadeh og det arabiske efterår” hedder en dansk dokumentarfilm fra 2013, som Danmarks Radio har haft liggende på deres hjemmeside og som de nu af mærkværdige grunde fjerner igen, skønt den allerede er betalt af alle licensbetalerne. Det er synd, filmen kan ellers anbefales også for små billeder af filmisk symbolik, som kameramanden fanger. I programomtalen hedder det

Mere end to år efter det arabiske forår i Mellemøsten begyndte er regionen stadig præget af uroligheder. Vi følger aktivisten Hanna Ziadeh og hans kamp for menneskerettigheder i gaderne i Cairo og Beirut, hvor mindretal kæmper en daglig kamp mod undertrykkelse. Hanna er homoseksuel, halvt libaneser, halvt palæstinenser, ateist - men af kristen afstamning og ved derfor alt om at tilhøre en minoritet. Hans tilgang til den arabiske verden er hårrejsende ærlig. Vi kommer helt tæt på fra svindlere, korrupte hjælpeorganisationer, professorer, eksministre og afstikkere fra Det Islamiske Broderskab til demonstranter, menneske- og våbensmuglere og oprørere i Aleppo, som alle har en afgørende rolle i krigen. Alle med et håb om, at drømmen om frihed bliver en realitet, og magten i sidste ende falder i de rette hænder. Instruktion: Theis Molin

Efter en indledende vignet af stemninger fra den film vi skal til at se, hvor vi hører en kriger i Syrien sige “Vi vil ikke have medicin eller våben. Vi vil bare have våben.“, en taxachauffør i Ægypten sige “This revolution, I think it’s bullshit!” og en ældre korpulent kvindelig kulturpersonlighed i Libanon råbe “Fuck you and your lessons!” ind i hovedet på en forbløffet Ziadeh, som er krydsklippet med Ziadeh pakke sin kuffert hjemme i sin stue i Danmark, hente post i Center For Menneskerettigheder og høre ham komme med et par godtkøbs betragtninger om at menneskerettigheder er ganske virkelige for mennesker ude i verden skønt de forekommer abstrakte i Danmark havner vi i første scene på gaden i Kairo. Ziadeh er taget til en demonstration, der dels er en mindehøjtidelighed for en muslimsk massakre på koptere (de kristne i Ægypten), dels er en demonstration mod den siddende præsident, der på det tidspunkt stadig hed Morsi.

Vi har fået nok af undertrykkelse” og “Hver kugle gør os stærkere” råber demonstranterne med en mund. Henunder aften forsøger Ziadeh at tale med en demonstrant, men en anden demonstrant blander sig straks og siger til den første “Jeg fortæller dig, hvad du skal sige“. De får fat i en kvinde uden tørklæde og Ziadeh spørger ”Hvad synes du om de kristnes situation og den massakre, som blev gennemført mod dem for et år siden?” Den kvindelig demonstrant svarer “Kopterne har det ikke dårligt. Jeg siger det af erfaring og på basis af mit samvær med mange kristne“. En lille ældre mand, der står i den forsamling, der altid opstår blander sig: “Hvad mener du med at situationen ikke er dårlig? Situationen er dårlig!” Der diskuteres ivrigt på arabisk og kvinden spørger den lille mand “Demonstrerer du mod hvad der skete for et år siden eller mod præsidenten?” - “Jeg demonstrerer mod begge dele svarer han!“. Der er en let agiteret stemning, som skal blive værre.

Ziadeh spørger endnu en demonstrant, en ældre herre “Foregår der en systematisk forfølgelse af de kristne i Ægypten?“. “Det gør der fra bestemte grupper.” svarer han. “Hvilke grupper?” spørger Ziadeh og den ældre herre svarer “Fra de herskende grupper, de stærkt religiøse muslimske grupper.” (…) “Det er fundamentalisterne der skaber problemerne“. Der klippes igen til stemningen under interviewet der er blevet ganske agiteret og en mandlig demonstrant kræver “Sluk for kameraet!“.

Senere følger nolge ældre hijabklædte kvinder, den ene med en megafon i favnen, efter Ziadeh og spørger “Hvorfor giver I et dårligt billede af vores land? Vi muslimer og kristne står sammen“. “Alt hvad jeg har gjort er at stille et spørgsmål.” forsvarer Ziadeh sig “Bliver de kristne forfulgt?“.

Det er jo mærkeligt,” siger Ziadeh lettere ophidset til kameraet da de er kommet væk fra demonstranterne “vi deltager i en demonstration som viser solidaritet med de kristne der bliver slagtet fordi de er kristne, men så bliver jeg forfulgt.” En ny demonstrant kommer hen og Ziadeh vil vide, hvad der nu er problemet. “Du må ikke filme!“. “Hvem er du? Hvorfor er du her?” forlanger demonstranten at vide, mens han skubber til kameraet og Ziadeh spørger “Hvad har jeg gjort galt?“. “Vil du følge med til en betjent og forklare, hvem du er?” fortsætter demonstranten ophidset.

Der klippes igen og Ziadeh taler igen til kameraet med forskellige demonstranter i nærheden “Det her kan hurtigt udvikle sig til tumult.“. Tilbageklip til slutningerne på de samtaler Ziadeh forsøgte at få med demonstranter, hvor de skændes højlydt indbyrdes med agiteret gestik. Klip igen til Ziadeh, der løber gennem trafikken, ud og ind mellem biler indtil kameramanden forpustet spørger “Hvad fanden skete der?” og Ziadeh svarer “Jeg ved det ikke. Det var fordi jeg stillede det der forbandede spørgsmål.” mens han ser sig hektisk omkring. “Det er dem der kommer dernede, er det ikke det?” siger kameramanden og nyt klip til løberi, mens de to råber efter en taxi, som de får fat i.

Taxichaufføren, der har boet i USA, siger de skal være forsigtige “Det her land er sindsygt [fucking crazy], Det er langt ude.“. Det er denne chauffør, der kalder revolutionen bull-shit og han forklarer at der er nogen bag den siddende præsident, der er den egentlige magt.

Senere mødes Ziadeh på hotelværelset med en solid islamist, der forklarer ham hvorfor en kristen mand ikke kan gifte sig med en muslimsk kvinde og samtidig også grundpræmissen for det Arabiske Forårs problemer “Sådan er islam, og der er intet, der kan ændre den islamiske lovgivning! Hverken i det 21. århunderede eller senere“. Det er en scene, der er set så mange gange og eksperterne lader sig altid forbløffe over at islamisterne er konsistente i at Allah’s lov trumfer alt i enhver detalje og tilskriver denne konsistens en form for fejl. “Sådan er islams natur. islam hersker over alle og ingen hersker over den!” slår islamisten fast sikker i sin logik om at det er uantageligt for mennesket at stille spørgsmålstegn ved Allahs intelligens og indsigt.

Hele det offentlige rum i Ægypten er totalt farvet af islam. Hvis de kunne farve træstammerne grønne og kalde dem for islamiske så havde de gjort det.  Alt er islamificeret” fortæller Ziadeh kameraen mens han passerer et spejl, hvori han kan få et glimt af sig selv i sin nye indsigt.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-25-kl-161609

Ziadeh er nu i Libanon og fortæller kameraet at han “tror at det arabiske forår har sat nogle kræfter fri og ingen anede hvilket omfang af forandringer det ville medbringe. Vi har alle haft en fornemmelse af, at islamisterne er stærke, men de er stærkere end vi har troet. Der er en afgrund af frustrationer og had i de arabiske masser, som vi er vidner til i øjeblikket. Det virker ikke som om at demokratiet har vundet revolutionen.

Ziadeh taler med en forsker, et dannet menneske viser det sig, ved navn Mammuth Shureikh, mens de spadserer ned af gaderne i Libanon

Mammuth Shureikh: “Landene i den arabiske verden blev uafhængige i 1940′erne. Nogle lande blev uafhængige i 1960′erne, andre i 1970′erne. Uafhængighed er et nyt begreb her. Hele tanken om demokrati, frihed og social retfærdighed er et europæisk koncept. Måske er den arabiske tankegang fremmed overfor de her moderne begreber.Det, der skete i Europa i 1848, og det, der sket i Frankrig i 1789 var en radikal og social omvæltning. Det samme sker muligvis ikke med Det Arabiske Forår. Vi har ikke en Rousseau, Voltaire, Kirkegaard eller Sartre.”

Hannah Ziadeh: “Vi har en Tariq Ramadan og Muhamad Sarhan og islamisterne, der taler til hovedløse masser”

Mammuth Shureikh: “Ingen har endnu skrevet om omfattende filosofi ud fra en solidt funderet analyse, som tager den social dimension i betragtning. Spørgsmålet er ikke kun det politiske”

Mens der tales om Rosseau og Kirkegaards Vesten og Østens Tariq Rammadan og hovedløse masser passerer Ziadeh og Mammuth Shureikh en burkaklædt kvinde der står kigger ind af et tøjbutiksvindue hvor tre mannequiner poserer i afslappet vestligt tøj.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-25-kl-102026

Det er uklart om de intellektuelt optagede herrer ser ironien, men kameramanden fanger den og panorerer ud for at holde den dagdrømmene burka i billedet. Et sørgeligt billede, der gemmer sig et menneske bag formummelsen.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-25-kl-171312

Ziadeh taler dernæst med den kristne libaneser Nedal Achqar, teaterchef og tidligere minister med en stori indflydelse på den offentlige debat får vi at vide.

Nedal Achqar: “Vi drømte om at den arabiske verden omsider slap af med sine diktatorer. Vi ønskede ikke islamiske love, eller at broderskabet fik magten. Men så opdagede vi, at i Tunesien, Ægypten Marokko og Algeriet… De sidder ikke endegyldigt på magten, men det er indlysende at det Muslimske Broderskab har organiseret sig i de sidste 50 år.”

(…)

Nedal Achqar: “I Frankrig var det hele planlagt. Der var alle de intellektuelle og Voltaire, der skrev før revolutionen. De visdste hvad de ville have. I Rusland vidste de, hvad de ville have. Alle de andre revolutioner… det var det samme i Spanien. Så det, der skete i den arabiske verden, var et stort rod. Hvis vi vender blikket mod Syrien… Syrien er noget helt andet.”

(…)

Nedal Achqar: “I Syrien havde de den politik at bekæmpe Israel. (…) Jeg er imod Israel, og jeg er imod ethvert europæisk land, som har sendt våben til Syrien. Dem alle sammen.”

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-25-kl-172752

Ziadeh på den anden side af skrivebordet, blottet midt i rummet.

Nedal Achqar: “Det vigtigste for mig er, at dette oprør altid kommer til at dreje sig om et oprør mod Israel. Det ønsker Vesten ikke at vi siger.”

(…)

Nedal Achqar: “Du må forstå, at vi prioriterer Palæstina over alt andet.”

Ziadeh: “Så det retfærdigør alting?”

Nedal Achqar: “Selvfølgelig gør det det! Det retfærdigør alt! Jeg ville andda acceptere at blive sat 100 år tilbage i tiden”

Nedal Achqar: “Jeg holder med syrerne og med iranerne fordi de støtter oprøret mod Israel.”

(…)

Ziadeh: “Vi to burde være på folkets side.”

Nedal Achqar: “Fortæl mig ikke, hvad jeg burde gøre. Spar mig for dine gode råd. Fuck dig og dine gode råd! Nu fortæller jeg dig min ærlige meningen foran kameraet. Jeg er pisse ligeglad med dine holdninger”

(…)

Nedal Achqar: “Alle i Vesten var meget glade for Det Arabiske Forår, men se, hvad det har ført med sig i hele den arabiske verden. They’ve made a mess”

Udenfor taler Ziadeh igen til kameraet om sin oplevelse af Nedal Achqar

Hun kan tillade sig at bryde enhver høflighedsnorm. Det kan hun når hun taler om den store fjende: Israel og Vesten. (…) Det er jo derfor at konflikten om Israel er så central. Fordi den har været brugt systematisk for at terrorisere interne nytænkere og det ægte krav om demokrati of for at legitimere diktaturerne. Først var de sekulære diktature og nu er de ved at få islamiske diktaturer. Det er utroligt.

Der følger en del stemningsbilleder fra Ziadehs liv som foredragsholder og panel debatør ude, som hjemme, hans samtaler med sin bekymrede mor, hans brokkerier over TV formatets alt for hurtige og overfladiske form (DR i dette tilfælde), Jacob Skovgaard Petersen der ved en talefejl opfinder et nyt ord “de islamante” og Jens Nauntofte der synes det er en god ide at Ziadeh vil tage ulovligt ind i Syrien. Ziadeh begiver sig først til Tyrkiet, hvor han vil købe noget medicin og hvorfra han vil bevæge sig ind i Syrien. Her udspiller der sig nogle bizarre scener.

En “superaktivist” i Tyrkiet tager Ziadeh hen til et nødhjælpscenter for at købe blood clot, der meget praktisk i en krig, kan standse blødninger hurtigt. Men på nødhjælpscentret kan man modsat, hvad superaktivisten har fortalt Ziadeh alligevel intet købe. Ziadeh konfronterer dem og siger at han har hørt at de får tilsendt masser af medicin, som ikke bliver sendt videre til Syrien. “Det er ikke sandt.” lyder det rolige svar og så “Hvordan kan det være at i filmer når i ikke har fået lov?“ Alle Ziadeh kommer i kontakt med i Mellemøsten får et eller andet problem med kameraet, med det dokumenterende, hvis man ellers fraregner den lettere verdensfjerne forsker som var velbevandret i europæisk idehistorie og den opulente . Ziadeh går på det sorte marked, hvor al nødhjælp ifølge ham ender og køber for 1.000 dollars amerikansk militær medicin han mener er smuglet ind fra Irak af en mand der slet ikke lader sig filme.

Med sin medicin organiseret gør Ziadeh de sidste forberedelser med den menneske- og våbensmugler, der skal tage ham ind i Syrien til oprørerne. Hans mareridtsscenarie er at menneskesmugleren er regimets mand da der så næppe er returbillet. Men det er heller ikke let, hvis smugleren viser sig at være den han giver sig ud for, fortæller Ziadeh til kameraet.

Jeg har været i kontakt med ham i over et år og jeg har bemærket at han er blevet mere og mere islamistisk. Også på hans Facebook kunne jeg mærke at alt hvad han foretager sig er blevet mere islamistisk.

Ziadeh skal ikke have noget af at fortælle smugleren om sin homosexualitet. På en restaurant vil Ziadeh have klare linier

Ziadeh: “Mit liv er i dine hænder. Min mor har fået advarsler om at de radikale islamister bare venter på at få fat i en kristen som mig  for at partere ham i småstykker. Alle advarer mig, men jeg stoler på dig.”

Smugleren: “Bare rolig, de beskylder mig for at være sekulær.”

Ziadeh: “Hvis du betragtes som sekulær har vi intet håb. Hvad skal du gøre for at være islamist nok i deres øjne? Skal du slagte folk?”

Smugleren: “De vil have at jeg kun giver våben til islamisterne så de kan kontrollere befolkningen”

Kun beskyttet af sine menneskerettigheder, der garanterer hans bøssekristne ateisme er Ziadeh fanget mellem dem han vil bekæmpe og dem han vil hjælpe. Alle parter vil slå ham ihjel, hvis de vidste hvem han er. Regeringen fordi han er udlænding, islamisterne fordi han er kristen og muligvis også smugleren hvis han vidste at han var bøsse. Ziadeh er vikeligt en minoritet af en minoritet, som han beskriver sine egne følelser tidligere i filmen. Men her, hvor der er brug for menneskerettigheder, har han ingen, og der hvor han kan udleve dem er det overflødig og abstrakt.

Ziadeh kommer ind i Syrien og møder oprørere, der fortæller at de ikke forstår hvorfor de andre arabiske lande ikke hjælper dem. De håber på et frit Syrien uden sekterisme (multikultur) hvor anstændige menneske kan leve i fred med hinanden uden tyranni. Ziadeh drager videre og hører senere at stedet de lige havde opholdt sig blev bombet at regeringshæren. Ziadeh er tydeligt påvirket og spekulerer i om nogen følger hans færden og at han således er medskyldig i at pådrage sine omgivelse unødig opmærksomhed.

Fremme ved Aleppo efter at have droppet nogle våben af på vejen, som Ziadeh ikke mente var med i aftalen, overdrager Ziadeh sine medbragte lægemidler til en oprører, der står bøjet over en såret kammerat. Oprøreren pakker den flade grønlige pakke op og konstaterer at det kun er gazebind med desinficerende sprit. Ziadeh er rystet, en oprører konstaterer roligt at han er blevet snydt og tilføjer “De er nogle tyvknægte“, måske også for at give et trøstens ord til Ziadeh i deres fælles bitterhed. Det er en tragisk scene af svigt, som har afholdt mig fra en del hoverende vinkler over godhedsindustriens møde med deres sammenbrudte Arabiske Forår. Tre sårede oprørere, der lå i det lille feltlazaret dør i løbet af natten og blodet skylles og svabres ned af trapperne i, hvad der er dokumentarens absolut mest skuffende symbolske billede, rammende som det ellers er. Til gengæld fanger kameramanden Ziadeh stående ved siden af en næsten tom svømmepøl, mens han taler om mangler og som han håb og kræfter rinder ud.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-26-kl-123942

Ziadeh er en ærlig mand, der bedre end de fleste kender den arabiske mentalitet. Han siger i de indledende minutter af udsendelsen at “Vi i danmark har svært ved at gennemskue, hvad der foregår i Mellemøsten“: Så sandt, men det er ironisk at de, der er bedst til det, tager mest fejl. Hvor de fleste danskere forholdt sig skeptisk til kynisk til det Arabiske forår optrådte eksperterne euforiske for siden at falde sammen i bortforklarende fornægtelse indtil det revisionistiske eller som Ziadeh kæmpende med sin afmægtighed. Ziadeh vil have at deres gøres noget for at hjælpe den ulykkelige situation, men han magter end ikke selv at have den rette medicin med til oprørende. Omvendt var hans nytteløse tilstedeværelse måske skyld i at regeringen fik ram på nogle af de oprørere han ville hjælpe. Ziadeh slutter programmet med at konstatere

Det er endnu en bristet arabisk drøm. Det er endnu en forspildt chance for at gøre op med generationer af undertrykkelse. Tingene gik ikke i den retning, som vi ønskede. Hverken i Tunesien eller Yemen. Især ikke i Ægypten og heller ikke i Libyen og bestemt ikke i Syrien. Det er det rene mareridt efterhånden.

For os kynikere er det ikke så overraskende. Vi bekræftes i vores opfattelse af den arabiske mentalitet og det muslimske snæversyn i at der ikke er basis for fremgang blot fordi nogle demonstranter råber “Demokrati” eller “Frihed!”. Den arabiske stemning på gaden, hvor spørgsmål udløser vrede og mistænksomhed, hvor den hovedløse masse altid bisser, hvor meninger ikke er private, hvor der altid er en dagsorden af os mod dem, hvor alle altid er krænkede og den hovedløse masses vold lurer under overfladen, hvor alt foregår via mellemmænd og med andre bag magten, der konstant ændrer spillereglerne og hvor kameraets dokumenterende kvalitet er suspekt. En en-dimensionel verden af snæversyn og paranoia, hvor der er ingen fred, kun våbenstilstand, hvor man snyder selv de døende for en risikabel profit. En verden hensunket under så megen selvmedlidenhed, virkelighedsfornægtelse og paranoia at de end ikke selv forstår hvorfor de ikke får hjælp fra deres brødre. Det gør vi.

Ziadeh, som er en af de lødige naivister har modigt skabt denne film, med sig selv som indsats. Tak for det. Han bruger langt tid på at forstå, hvor det går galt i Det Arabiske Forår. Det behøver vi andre ikke. Billedet af burkaen, der er fanget midt i moderniteten og ikke kan befri sig men kun drømme er dokumentation nok, der er mareridtet, indgroet i muslimsk og arabisk mentalitet. Vi kender det herhjemme fra.

Don’t mention islam

Diverse, Jihad, Pressen, Terror, islam — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 8:47 am

En fin artikel om BBC’s men også medierne generelt manglende omtale af islam og muslimer når islamiske terrorister myrder løs fra Pajamas Media

So, what are the essential pieces of information about today’s Kenya incident? Most everyone (including the perpetrators) would agree that:

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists purposely targeted an exclusive mall in Nairobi frequented by non-Muslims in order to massacre infidels.

So: How does the BBC communicate this information to its readers in its headline? Behold:

Right off the bat, even in the headline itself, the BBC commits a litany of egregious and inexcusable journalistic errors.

The first and most obvious blunder is the missing subject. Who did what? Well, according the the BBC, an entity called a “shoot-out” committed mass murder in Nairobi. Note how there are no human actors in the headline. It wasn’t people who killed 11, it was an inanimate and leaderless “shoot-out” that killed 11.

This is a basic grammatical snafu which even freshmen journalism students quickly learn to avoid. But not the BBC, apparently.

On a second, more subtle, level, use of the word “shoot-out” implies that there were two equal combatants involved, and that therefore blame can be spread around to everyone. But as we know, it wasn’t at first a “shoot-out” — it was a group of terrorists massacring unarmed non-Muslims. (Only much later, after police arrived, did it devolve into a shoot-out.)

Jeg har ikke læst Berlingske Tidendes dækning, da deres artikler, selv nyhedsartiklerne, som er gratis alle andre steder, er skjult bag en betalingsvæg. Men jeg så dette billede, som de illustrerer det med

6820454-nanirobi

Muslimske terrorister myrder løs på ikke-muslimer fordi de er ikke-muslimer. Berlingske Tidende vælger at illustrere det en muslim, der hjælper en der ikke ligner en muslim.

Mistillid til FNs klimapanel

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab, miljø — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 5:35 am

FN udkommer snart med sin 5. rapport (AR5) om verdens klima. Klimapanelets rapporter definerer klimavidenskabens konsensus og er blevet kaldt ‘guldstandarden’ indenfor klimavidenskaben. Følgeligt er definitionsretten også diktionsmagten, da ingen sand videnskabsmand kan gå op imod en guldstandard af et flertal af kollegaers opfattelse. Klimapanelets troværdighed bygger altså på denne cirkelslutning, hvor retten er hvad de mange siger og man har ret fordi man er mange. Et flertal kan ikke tage fejl thi da er konsensus ikke autoritet. Og man kan derfor ikke ændre sin oprindelige position skulle virkeligheden begynde at løbe fra den uden da at indrømme at et flertal kan tage fejl og således at opgive konsensus’ autoritet. Alt man kan er at skærpe, præcisere, perspektivere og detaljere på den oprindelige tese. Judith Curry skriver om det

The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate.  These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media.  Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers.  These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.

But there is another more vexing dilemma facing the IPCC.  Since publication of the AR4, nature has thrown the IPCC a ‘curveball’ — there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature for the past 15+ years.

Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause.  If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability.  Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

Nevertheless, the IPCC appears to be set to conclude that warming in the near future will resume in accord with climate model predictions.

Virkeligheden er ved at løbe fra klimapanelet og tilliden til dets autoritet falder. The Telegraph fortæller om absurde diskussioner om damage control

Several governments who fund the body have since complained about how the issue is tackled in the report.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The US also urged the authors to include the “leading hypothesis” that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler.

While Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for sceptics.

Til det siger Dr Lubos Motl tørt

Quite generally, one could say that the American delegation prefers to publish the facts and supplement it with a (bogus) explanation while the European climate alarmists prefer downright censorship. This opinion is also supported by the comment in The Boston Globe that the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists And Anthony Watts’ Dogs is worried that people will be saying “look, the IPCC is silent about the lull” which would be even worse than for “the cause” than a confession that there’s been no warming for nearly two decades.

There just isn’t any competitive hypothesis about the lack of warming that would be compatible with the meme about a dangerously high (and all natural factors beating) warming trend caused by the anthropogenic man-made emissions. Everyone knows that no such explanation that one wouldn’t be ashamed of exists in the scientific literature which is why no one will recommend you any paper of this type. There just isn’t one. The leading interpretation of the absence of the warming is that the global warming hypothesis with the numbers that were dominant among the “concerned institutions” in the recent decade has been falsified by the observations. Too bad that politicians are trying to play painful and childish games to misinterpret the results of the scientific research, research that they claim to be listening to but research that they actually want to control so that it suits their political needs.

Som klimapanelets formand Rajendra Pachauri sagde ganske åbent i et interview med Times of IndiaLet’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.

Syriens nærområde

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, Sverigetanic, islam, muhammed, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 1:43 am

Sebastian Abrahamsen og Catarina Nedertoft Jessen beskriver  i Information at “Sverige tager imod syrerne med åbne arme

Banker man på den svenske stats dør som syrisk flygtning, er man garanteret permanent opholdstilladelse. Det blev besluttet tidligere på måneden, da Migrationsverket vurderede, at der stadig ikke er nogen ende i syne på konflikten i Syrien. Sverige har taget imod 14.700 syriske asylansøgere siden 2012. De får nu, ligesom alle fremtidige ansøgere, mulighed for at få permanent opholdstilladelse, så længe konflikten står på i deres hjemland.

»Selvfølgelig er systemet belastet, når vi modtager så mange flygtninge. Men det er et spørgsmål om at sætte midler af til det, og det gør vi. Jeg er meget stolt af det svenske asylsystem,« forklarer den svenske migrationsminister Tobias Billström (M) til Information, og tilføjer:

»Det er et spørgsmål om solidaritet. Ikke kun med de syriske flygtninge men også med de lande i nærområdet, som tager imod rigtig mange syriske flygtninge.«

Ordet ’solidaritet’ går igen, når man taler med Alezandra Segenstedt, som er jurist og migrationsrådgiver i Svensk Røde Kors.

»Jeg synes, at hele Europa burde tage et meget større ansvar. Det her er jo en konflikt, som foregår i vores nærområde, og der er kommet 50.000 syrere til Europa, siden konflikten brød ud,« siger hun.

Siden 2011 er der kommet 1.983 syriske asylansøgere til Danmark.

Lagde De mærke til det? Det geografiske skift? Danmark er, som en del af Europa nu nærområde til Syrien, da det er en del af Mellemøsten. Vi er derfor også nærområde til Sydafrika, Nordamerika og som en del af Eurasien er vi nærområde til Oceanien og altså klods op ad New Zealand på den modsatte side af kloden. For at komme over grænsen fra Syrien og ind i Danmark skal man blot skræve henover Tyrkiet, Sortehavet, Ukraine og Polen. Ja på en klar dag kan man nærmest skimte Aleppo fra toppen af Rundetårn.

Det er måske lykkeligt for den den svenske politiske elites selvbillede af godhed sådan at fylde deres land med flere fra nabolandet Mellemøsten, men den svenske forfatter Thomas Nydahl minder i et interview med Mikael Jalving for Jyllands-Posten om at nissen flytter med

»Det overrasker mig ikke, men det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at en svensk politisk elite afstår fra at lære af tidligere erfaringer, som om de for alvor tror, at denne gang skal det nok gå godt. Glem ikke, at vi parallelt med de syriske flygtninge har en import af såkaldte “uledsagede flygtningebørn”, hvilket indebærer en daglig tilkomst af unge mænd fra Somalia og Afghanistan. Mht. somalierne har regeringen ligeledes udstedt en generel amnesti, som giver ret til familiesammenføring, hvilket forøger antallet yderligere. I min lille hjemby, Kristianstad i Skåne, sker der en radikal forøgelse af somaliske familier. Så det er jo ganske logisk, at man fra officielt svensk hold opmuntrer den kriminelle og globale menneskesmuglingsindustri.« Risikerer Sverige at blive en slags Syrien? »Sverige er de facto et Syrien. Med det mener jeg, at landet består af så store, nye etniske og religiøse minoriteter, at betingelserne for rigtig store problemer allerede er til stede. Vi har en stor gruppe syriske kristne, vi har både sunni-og shia-samfund, vi har arabiske, afrikanske og asiatiske minoriteter, som vokser eksplosivt. Hvert eneste af disse minisamfund har lært sig den svenske lektie om at “stille krav” og vil blive betydelige kravsmaskiner, som dræner økonomien og den demokratiske samtale. Den svenske offentlighed har længe lidt under syriske tilstande: Meningskontrol anvendes som våben til at dølge kritiske røster.«.

Mrutyuanjai Mishra, der vist ikke gik i dansk Folkeskole og har bevaret en gammeldags sans for geografi spørger på sin blog på Jyllands-Posten mere logisk og med globalt udsyn

Man kan med rette spørge, hvorfor Saudi Arabien og Iran ikke modtager egne trosfæller. Eller de rige Golf-stater, hvor et par hundrede tusinde nye borgere kunne leve komfortabelt, uden at landets egne borgere ville komme til at undvære så meget som en dadel eller et glas kaffe. Eller hvad med Rusland og Kina?

Nu kender jeg langt fra de landes politik overfor flygtninge og men Saudiarabien kerer sig skam for migrationen, men ser Syrien som Syriens absolutte nærområde og sender i stedet hjælp og støtte, som man kan læse i USA Today

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates from several nations to fight against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences, the Assyrian International News Agency reports.

Citing what it calls a “top secret memo” in April from the Ministry of Interior, AINA says the Saudi offered 1,239 inmates a pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, which were were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom. Syrian President Bashar Assad is an Alawite, a minority Shiite sect.

According to an English translation of the memo, besides Saudis, the prisoners included Afghans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Somalis, Sudanese, Syrians and Yemenis. All faced “execution by sword” for murder, rape or drug smuggling.

Det skal nok blive spændende at følge den recidive statistik.

Men, hvad hvis man er liderlig lige nu?

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 23, 2013 at 1:01 am

Muhammad Ali Shanqiti: “Every Muslim man gets at least two black-eyed virgins in Paradise. Each virgin comes with 70 servants girls. You are permitted [to have sex] with the virgins as well as the servant girls. For every woman from this world who enters Paradise, you get 70 black-eyed virgins.

“There are four types of women in Paradise. First, there are the women of this world who enter Paradise. Each one comes with 70 black-eyed virgins. The second type of woman in Paradise is the black-eyed virgin. Each comes with 70 servant girls. These servant girls are the third type. Sorry, there are only three types of women in Paradise.

[…]

“If you get married in this world, then [in Paradise], you get your wife from this world, along with 70 black-eyed virgins with whom you are allowed to have sex, and each of these 70 virgins comes with 70 servant girls.

“So how many women do you get? That’s the minimum.

“Now, let’s assume that you are married to four wives, each of whom comes with 70 black-eyed virgins, and each virgin comes with 70 servant girls… How many does it come to? God help you.

[…]

“Your reunion [with your wife] lasts for 70 earthly years. When the 70 years are about to come to an end, another black-eyed virgin calls to you from above: “Oh servant of Allah, don’t we get a piece of you?”

“You turn to her, and you see that she is more beautiful than the woman you are with. You ask her: “Who are you?” and she says: “I’m your virgin in Paradise. Allah told you about me, saying: ‘There is more of them with Us’. I am one of the ‘more’.”

“You leave that one and move on to the next. God help you…

“You spend 70 years or so with her, and along comes the third, saying: “Oh servant of Allah, don’t we get a piece of you?” You look at her, and she is even more beautiful than the one you are with.”

Det er meget godt, men man er måske også liderlig nu? The Telegraph

Tunisian women have travelled to Syria to wage “sex jihad” by comforting Islamist fighters battling the regime there, Interior Minister Lotfi ben Jeddou has told MPs.

“They have sexual relations with 20, 30, 100″ militants, the minister told members of the National Constituent Assembly on Thursday.

“After the sexual liaisons they have there in the name of ‘jihad al-nikah’ - (sexual holy war, in Arabic) - they come home pregnant,” Ben Jeddou told the MPs.

(…)

Jihad al-nikah, permitting extramarital sexual relations with multiple partners, is considered by some hardline Sunni Muslim Salafists as a legitimate form of holy war.

Det er ikke alle der så får lige travlt med at lide martyrdøden. Egentligt en skam.

Shariadomstole i Syrien

Diverse — Drokles on September 22, 2013 at 9:33 am

Racismen i USA

Diverse — Drokles on September 21, 2013 at 3:28 am

Da Trayvon Martin blev skudt og dræbt i selvforsvar af den frivillige vagtmand “multi-racial Hispanic” George Zimmerman blev det hurtigt til fortællingen om den hengemte racisme i det amerikanske samfund. Obama var heller ikke sen til at befamle denne mulighed for klægt at erklære at han ligeså vel kunne være endt som Trayvon Martin, hvis han havde være en ung mand. Hans opførsel er i hvert fald mistænkelig som præsident. Men således chickt beskyldte Obama stik mod rettens afgørelse og bevisets stilling den amerikanske statsborger George Zimmermann for at være en morderisk racist skønt Zimmermann ikke havde foretaget en ‘racial profiling’, men derimod en korrekt “behavioral profiling” - nogenlunde samme system som Obama’s dronedrab er baseret på.

Men man undlod med søvngængeragtig sikkerhed at forholde sig til virkeligheden, nemlig at hvide sjældent skyder sorte. Ja faktisk så havde sorte skudt 10.000 andre sorte blot 500 dage efter Trayvon Martin blev skudt af noget så eksotisk som en der ikke selv var sort (skønt heller ikke ligefrem hvid). Trayvon Martin skyderiet var altså et relativt sjældent tilfælde - og det er, hvad der beskriver racismen i USA, nemlig den skarpe opdeling af samfundet, hvor de hvide sørger for helst ikke at komme i kontakt med de sorte, hverken for det positive eller - og derfor -  det negative. De hvide skyder med andre ord for få sorte - relativt set forstås. Omvendt gør de sorte i USA en meget bedre indsats for også at komme de hvide ved - og til livs. For at dette argument skal flyve skal vi blot acceptere at hvor vi tidligere så racismen udtrykt gennem begået vold, som i hvides vold mod sorte, har vi nu bevæget os over i at se racismen som udtryk som værende offer for vold, hvor hvide får deres bekomst for sorte hænder. Måske det er fædrene synder?

Sort racistisk vold som da to sorte teenagere hældte tændvæske på en hvid dreng mens de skreg “this is what you deserve white boy” og som da en hvid man blev gennemtæsket “for Trayvon” på sin egen veranda af en snes sorte mænd vækker ingen opsigt i medierne eller frembringer personlige reflektioner hos præsidenten. Kunne han være en af gerningsmændene vil vi da gerne (h)vide? Da tre sorte teenagere dræbte den hvide Chris Lane fordi “de kedede sig” var det tydeligt fra deres tweetterier at de dyrkede et had til hvide, som de pralede stolt af den vold de havde begået og ønskede at begå tweetede Obama ikke om racisme, men

Retweet if you agree: It’s time for Congress to make gun violence prevention a priority.

Teenagere har ikke våbentilladelse, så Obama’s reaktion svarer til den økotosse, der efter tsunamien tweetede at nu kunne ingen da være i tvivl om den globale opvarmning var en realitet. Daniel Greenfield analyserer i Frontpage Magazine med udgangspunkt i en episode, hvor en sort mand pludselig gik amok over et spil skak og bankede en hvid mand til døde mens han  bedyrede at han hadede hvide mennesker, så glimrende denne kollektive kognitive dissonans, der præger de venstredrejede definerende klasser

No conclusions will be drawn from the murder. Lashawn Marten was obviously mentally ill. And if his mental illness took the form of violent racism toward white people, that is an incidental fact. The murder is an incident. The details are incidental. No conclusions will be drawn from what happened between the chess tables.

Incidents take place all around us, but patterns have to be articulated. The incident is insignificant. It’s the pattern that counts.

The incident is something we have to learn to get over so we can get back to shopping in downtown Manhattan or walking through Union Square. The pattern is a social problem that we must dedicate ourselves to fighting. The incident isn’t supposed to define our lives. The pattern is.

The murder of Chris Lane was an incident. The murder of Jeffrey Babbitt was an incident.

The Boston Marathon bombing was an incident. So was the Fort Hood Massacre. So was 9/11. No conclusions can be drawn from them and no pattern can be used to tie them together. They are to be processed separately and discarded as having no further meaning than the private pain of their victims.

The media is not that concerned with suppressing incidents. It is concerned with suppressing pattern awareness. No one can deny that the occasional racial murder takes place and that the perpetrators look like Obama’s sons. And no one can deny that Muslims sometimes set off bombs or fly planes into buildings. They deny only that these incidents form a pattern.

Thomas Sowel fortæller i Investors om hvorledes racismen er skiftet fra at være rettet fra hvide mod sorte til det omvendte

I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

Apparently other Americans also recognize that the sources of racism are different today from what they were in the past. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31% of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24% of blacks think that most whites are racist.

The difference between these percentages is not great, but it is remarkable nevertheless. After all, generations of blacks fought the white racism from which they suffered for so long. If many blacks themselves now think that most other blacks are racist, that is startling.

The moral claims advanced by generations of black leaders — claims that eventually touched the conscience of the nation and turned the tide toward civil rights for all — have now been cheapened by today’s generation of black “leaders,” who act as if it is all just a matter of whose ox is gored.

Even in legal cases involving terrible crimes — the O.J. Simpson murder trial or the charges of gang rape against Duke University students — many black “leaders” and their followers have not waited for facts about who was guilty and who was not, but have immediately taken sides, based on who was black and who was white.

(…)

Over the generations, black leaders have ranged from noble souls to shameless charlatans. After the success of the civil rights insurgency, the latter have come into their own, gaining money, power and fame by promoting racial attitudes and actions that are counterproductive to the interests of those they lead.

David P Goldman skriver i Pajamas Media om korrumperingen af den sorte rettighedsbevægelse

The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family.

Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau’s comprehensive Current Population Survey. That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number.

The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. 29% of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That’s nearly three-quarters of all black births.

Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute:

Collateral Costs details the concentration of incarceration among men, the young, the uneducated and African Americans. One in 87 working-aged white men is in prison or jail compared with 1 in 36 Hispanic men and 1 in 12 African American men. Today, more African American men aged 20 to 34 without a high school diploma or GED are behind bars (37 percent) than are employed (26 percent).

The report also shows more than 2.7 million minor children now have a parent behind bars, or 1 in every 28.  For African American children the number is 1 in 9, a rate that has more than quadrupled in the past 25 years.

The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men. 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks. The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future.

Men rettighedsbevægelsen tilskrives stadigvæk at repræsentere sortes interesser og således agerer de venstreorienterede definerende klassers æstetik enabler for korrumperingen. Michael Barg Jr. skriver i American Thinker om, hvorledes det er venstrefløjens egen politik, der kværner de sorte ned i velfærdsordningernes kviksand

The American city that has been most completely controlled by Democrats is Chicago. It is a case study of the effects of Democratic policies upon minorities. In a matter of just a few decades Chicago went from being a city that provided great opportunities for blacks to being the most racially segregated and oppressive city in America.

From its very beginning Chicago provided opportunity for blacks. The first non-native American settler in the area was a Haitian black named DuSable. Chicago never had slavery. It had an early abolitionist movement and showcased Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, in debates with Stephen Douglas. The most prominent black magazines, Ebony and Jet, were founded in Chicago. They celebrated black culture and fashion. Oprah Winfrey became a billionaire anchoring her TV show in the City of Chicago.

When blacks first moved to Chicago during WW I in the great migration north they wore black armbands in memory of Lincoln and voted for Republicans, the party of Lincoln. But soon the black attitude toward Republicans changed. By 1920 thousands of blacks worked in Chicago in city and county jobs. But when Anton Cermak was elected mayor, he fired all the blacks and rehired only black Democrats. Black residents were funneled by the Chicago Democratic machine into highly segregated black-only neighborhoods. This segregation and racism has lasted one hundred years and persists to this day.

The Chicago Democratic Machine institutionalized housing segregation more than any American city. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted that Chicago’s housing segregation was the major cause of poverty among blacks. Mayor Daley I doubled the number of residents in low-income housing from 1960 to 1970 at a time when the population fell by eight percent. Those high-rise buildings allowed Democratic precinct captains to intimidate black votersinto voting for Democrats by threatening to take away their apartments. The era of high-rise low-income buildings, portrayed in the TV comedy show Good Times, only ended when a courageous black woman namedDorothy Gautreaux sued the Chicago Housing Authority for racial discrimination. Since then the high-rise buildings have been gradually torn down and blacks are moving to suburbs or out of Illinois entirely.

This segregation was practiced in all major northern cities run by Democrats including Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Boston, D.C., New York, Cleveland, Detroit and many others. While pursuing his civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, Dr. King marched in Chicago and was stunned by the racial hatred he experienced there. In a city that never hosted slavery, Dr. King said “I think people in Mississippi ought to come to Chicago to learn how to hate.”

The 2000 Census found that for Chicago to be integrated 90% of the blacks would have to move. And remarkably, of the 10 poorest census tracts in the entire United States, nine of them were located in Chicago’s black Congressional Districts of black Congressmen Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson Jr. When Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned his Congressional seat, Democrats said that he must be replaced by another black. This could serve no other purpose than to preserve Democratic power and maintain the segregationist status quo.

Nothing has improved for black residents in these segregated areas even with the assistance of black politicians of their own race, who campaign that they will improve things. The Chicago Public School system is so bad that it has one of the shortest school days of any major city. This holds back the poor of all ethnic groups from excelling in academics and moving out of the City.

Racial segregation is a very effective means of exploiting the poor, since it keeps them from obtaining good paying jobs, deprives them of any benefit from public education (which is very expensive), and ensures that lack of opportunity forces young black men into lives of gang membership and crime. Today one of every nine black men in their twenties is in prison. This does not mean that one in every nine has ever been in prison, but that they are in prison all at once. All of these failures are great spiritual and emotional tragedies for the black families involved.

Black families did not suffer these high rates of single motherhood and crime until they were encouraged to go north into cities controlled by Democrats. It is a very tragic episode in the history of blacks in the United States. Fortunately blacks are realizing that it is the segregated urban environment that is the root cause of all these problems and many are leaving the North.

I samme ånd beskriver Michael Tanner Detroits nedtur i Jyllands-Posten

Detroit har da også haft sine raceproblemer. Mange års diskrimination eksploderede i optøjer i 1967, hvorefter hvide flygtede ud til forstæderne, og da byen næsten kun har ét erhverv, blev den hårdt ramt af nedgangen hos bilfabrikkerne General Motors, Ford og Chrysler.

Andre byer, f. eks. Pittsburgh og Cleveland, der har stået over for de samme udfordringer, har imidlertid formået at vende udviklingen eller i det mindste ride stormen af.

Og bilproduktion er fremdeles et erhverv i fremgang i delstater som Alabama og Tennessee. Hvad en beskeden offentlig sektor angår og dens eventuelle medansvar, skal man 52 år tilbage for at finde republikanere i spidsen for Detroits bystyre.

Sagen er, at man skal lede andre steder for at finde årsagerne til, at Detroit ikke har været i stand til at løse sine problemer. Den mest sandsynlige forklaring er byens omfattende ufinansierede pensionsordninger, der har kørt med underskud i årevis. Hele 99,6 pct. af de forpligtelser på sundhedsområdet, som byen har over for pensionister, er ufinansierede, og i det store hele dækker ordningerne 80-100 pct. af de udgifter til lægebehandling, som pensionsmodtagere har.

(…)

Pensioner er dog ikke Detroits eneste problem. Byen smider masser af penge efter sine skoler, som står i afhængighedsforhold til den stærke lærerfagforening Detroit Federation of Teachers. Der bliver brugt mere end 14.000 dollars om året pr. elev. Byen får dog ikke meget igen: I 2009 fik eleverne i Detroits offentlige skoler det dårligste resultat, der nogen sinde er opnået til de nationale matematikprøver.

Mere end en tredjedel af eleverne dumper.

(…)

Detroit har indført en særløn (” living wage”) på 11,03 dollars i timen (13,78 dollars i timen, hvis der ikke ydes tilskud til lægehjælp) for offentligt ansatte samt for erhvervsvirksomheder, der udfører opgaver for kommunen. I år indførte Detroit en kampagne mod virksomheder, der ikke lever op til byens omfattende bevillingskrav, og lovede at lukke ca. 1.500 »ulovlige« foretagender som f. eks. dækforretninger og brugtvareforhandlere, der driver virksomhed fra forladte lagerbygninger.

Den sektor tegner sig for næsten en tiendedel af virksomhederne i byen og betjener næsten 70 pct. af indbyggerne. Den officielle politik er at gøre det af med denne form for erhvervsvirksomhed.

For ikke så mange år siden blev Detroit af den upolitiske tænketank Bay Area Center for Voting Research ratet som den by i USA, der førte den mest venstreorienterede politik. Detroits egne dispositioner, ikke det frie marked og en minimal offentlig sektor, er ansvarlige for byens nedtur.

Men det er ikke, hvad der interesserer de definerende og venstreorienterede klasser. Sammenbruddet af den sorte familie har været en kendt og velbeskrevet realitet årtier førend en erkendelse, som Kay S. Hymowitz beskrev for City Journal

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.

Men rapporten passede ikke fortællingen om hvid undertrykkelse og social ingenørkunst og blev heglet ned for at være uæstetisk på så mange planer

Less forgivable was the refusal to grapple seriously—either at the time or in the months, years, even decades to come—with the basic cultural insight contained in the report: that ghetto families were at risk of raising generations of children unable to seize the opportunity that the civil rights movement had opened up for them. Instead, critics changed the subject, accusing Moynihan—wrongfully, as any honest reading of “The Negro Family” proves—of ignoring joblessness and discrimination. Family instability is a “peripheral issue,” warned Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League. “The problem is discrimination.” The protest generating the most buzz came from William Ryan, a CORE activist, in “Savage Discovery: The Moynihan Report,” published in The Nation and later reprinted in the NAACP’s official publication. Ryan, though a psychologist, did not hear Moynihan’s point that as the family goes, so go the children. He heard code for the archaic charge of black licentiousness. He described the report as a “highly sophomoric treatment of illegitimacy” and insisted that whites’ broader access to abortion, contraception, and adoption hid the fact that they were no less “promiscuous” than blacks. Most memorably, he accused Moynihan of “blaming the victim,” a phrase that would become the title of his 1971 book and the fear-inducing censor of future plain speaking about the ghetto’s decay.

That Ryan’s phrase turned out to have more cultural staying power than anything in the Moynihan report is a tragic emblem of the course of the subsequent discussion about the ghetto family. For white liberals and the black establishment, poverty became a zero-sum game: either you believed, as they did, that there was a defect in the system, or you believed that there was a defect in the individual. It was as if critiquing the family meant that you supported inferior schools, even that you were a racist. Though “The Negro Family” had been a masterpiece of complex analysis that implied that individuals were intricately entwined in a variety of systems—familial, cultural, and economic—it gave birth to a hardened, either/or politics from which the country has barely recovered.

For at blive i æstetikken så skrev Nicolas Stix om den succesfulde amerikanske serie Law And Order (der desværre hører til mine yndlingserier med sin korte kontante facon befriet for personligt fnidder mellem figurerne og afsluttede afsnit)  i Middle American News

And so, even though more than 89 percent of suspects in violent crimes are black or Hispanic according to NYPD crime reports, L&O presents a looking-glass world in the grip of a white crime wave. In “Teenage Wasteland,” an episode that originally aired on February 7, 2001, the true case of a group of black teenagers who ordered Chinese food, and murdered the delivery man, is turned into a group of middle-class, white kids. “Myth of Fingerprints” (November 14, 2001) tells of a white, female forensics chief whose years of false testimony has sent many innocent men to jail.

One of those innocents was murdered in prison, resulting in the official’s conviction for manslaughter. “Fingerprints” was loosely based on the real case of former Oklahoma City supervising forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist, nicknamed “black magic,” for her seeming forensic wizardry. Gilchrist’s lab techniques and court testimony had come under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. Critics charged she gave false testimony causing 23 men to be sentenced to death, eleven of whom were executed. Joyce Gilchrist is black, but unlike the fictional white official, was never prosecuted, though she was fired for alleged “flawed casework” and mismanagement.

Seven months after the October, 2002 Washington, D.C. sniper case was closed with the arrest of suspects John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, L&O dramatized the case, but with the shooter as a white man! (”Sheltered”; May 14, 2003.) “Smoke” (May 21, 2003) opens with the death of a child, whose adoptive father, a famous entertainer, had dropped him, while dangling him from a hotel room window. The detectives eventually discover that the entertainer would also arrange for underage boys to accompany him to his mansion, where he would sexually violate them. When I told a not particularly media-savvy neighbor who is the mother of four small children that story line, she immediately said, “Michael Jackson!” But on L&O, the character was depicted as a white comedian. Remember the Danny Almonte case? Almonte was the 14-year-old Dominican fraud who — through the connivance of his father, Felipe de Jesus Almonte, and Bronx-based, Dominican Little League coach Rolando Paulino — passed himself off as a 12-year-old, in order to play in the 2001 Little League championships. But in “Foul Play” (May 1, 2002), the coach magically becomes a blond-haired, white man, who is somehow convicted of a murder committed by the player’s father.

L&O’s creative team must read some interesting publications, since many of their “ripped from the headlines” stories never happened, but suit any left-winger’s paranoid fantasies quite well. Consider their obsession with non-existent, murderous white supremacists, whom they depict as besieging Manhattan. In “Open Season” (November 20, 2002), a William Kunstler-like defense attorney is murdered while celebrating the acquittal of a guilty-as-hell black defendant for shooting a white policeman. The killer, a member of a white supremacist group, then uses his defense attorney to unwittingly pass along information to his co-conspirators, who murder a prosecutor in another state. The defense attorney is charged with aiding and abetting the supremacists, before she is shot by a female supremacist. The real basis of the episode was the indictment of radical attorney, Lynne Stewart, of consciously aiding and abetting Moslem terrorist Sheik Abdul Rahman, the convicted ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In “Prejudice” (December 12, 2001), a racist, white real estate agent progresses from writing a letter to his co-op board in an effort to keep an interracial couple out of his building, to flashing a gun at a black colleague, to murdering a black man who beat him to a taxi. Such a case would have been fantastic in 1951, let alone in 2001. In “Genius” (April 2, 2003), a white, violence-embracing ex-con-writer stabs a white cabby to death. Viewers are then given mixed messages, as the cab driver turns out to be a fugitive, white supremacist racial murderer.

In another surreal L&O touch, ordinary black New Yorkers are repeatedly shown to be victims powerful white overseers. In “Kid Pro Quo” (April 30, 2003), the dedicated director of admissions at a tony private school is murdered by her corrupt racist boss. The victim sought to get a deserving but poor black girl admitted, but was overridden by the boss, who’d taken a bribe to accept the inferior child of a Jewish pornographer. And then there’s the homophobia angle. In the real world, Manhattan is, like San Francisco, one of the most gay-friendly areas in America. But not in L&O’s alternate universe. In “Girl Most Likely” (March 27, 2002), a private school student murders her lesbian lover, in order to hide the fact that she is gay. Last, but not least, comes xenophobia. In “Patriot” (May 22, 2002), a pale, blonde-haired former special forces officer kills a Moslem immigrant he had surveilled, and whom he suspected of being a terrorist. The prosecutor presents the imaginary patriot as a fire-breathing, chest-thumping, jingoist monster, even as the story suggests that the dead man really was a terrorist.

Law And Order er baseret på den legendariske (eller berygtede om man vil) stats anklager i New York Robert Morgenthau. Nicholas Stix beskriv hans sager således i VDare

The Bernard Goetz case

From 1984-1987, Morgenthau pursued a vindictive prosecution against Bernard Goetz. Goetz was a Jew working in electronics who,at Christmastime, 1984, had defended himself against four 18 and 19-year-old black menattempting to rob him at midday in a subway car. Goetz, who had previously been mugged three times, and been brutally beaten the last time, shot each of the would-be robbers once.

While seeking to put Goetz away for 30 years for attempted murder and illegal gun possession, Morgenthau treated the would-be muggers, all hardened thugs who had criminal records and were wanted on outstanding warrants, as if they were crime victims. He used the media to spread lies, claiming that Goetz was a racist who had been looking for trouble, and who had shot one of the muggers a second time. The media called Goetz the subway vigilante.”

Grand juries almost always follow prosecutors’ lead. But the first grand jury refused to indict Goetz for attempted murder, as Morgenthau sought, and only indicted him for illegal possession of a firearm. So Morgenthau empaneled a second grand jury, which indicted Goetz for attempted murder.

In 1987, the jury in Goetz’ criminal case acquitted him of the charge of attempted murder, but convicted him of illegal possession of an unlicensed handgun, and sentenced him to one year in prison. He served eight months. In 1996, a Bronx jury—notorious for their racial bias—awarded one of the would-be muggers a judgment of $43 million, in a civil suit against Goetz.

All of the four men would later admit that they had intended on mugging Goetz.

The Central Park Jogger case

On April 19, 1989, a mob of 32-40 teenaged boys—predominantly black, the rest Hispanic—set out for a night of mayhem terrorizing whites in Central Park. They brutalized at least a dozen whites, most obscenely the woman who for years would be known as “The Central Park Jogger.”

A subgroup of from eight to 15 boys variously bludgeoned, punched, stomped, hit with rocks, and ripped the flesh of their 5′4,” 105-lb. victim from head to toe; sexually fondled her; stripped her and tied her up with her clothes; sodomized her; and at least one raped her.

Hours before police would learn of the attack on The Jogger, they responded to calls that all hell was breaking loose in the park. In separate squad cars, black teenagers Kevin Richardson, 14, Antron McCray, 15, and Clarence Thomas, 14, told baffled officers that they knew who had committed “the murder”, and where the weapon had been stashed.

At that point, only the attackers had such knowledge.

When two men found The Jogger in a ravine, she had a fractured skull, had lost 75 percent of her blood, and was pronounced DOA. Few of her doctors thought she’d survive. One “exploded” eye hung out of its socket; afriend could not physically identify her. She remained in a coma for 12 days. Her sociopathic attackers caused brain damage, leaving her with lifelong balance and coordination problems, a lost sense of smell, decreased mental abilities, and having to re-learn such basic tasks as “rolling over, telling time, buttoning her blouse or identifying simple objects.”

Four of the nine boys initially arrested—Richardson, McCray, Raymond Santana, 14, and Kharey Wise, 16—made voluntary, videotaped confessions, the three under 16 in the presence of a parent or guardian. Each denied having raped The Jogger, but charged accomplices with having done so. The four all identified 15-year-old Yusuf Salaam as having brought down The Jogger with a blow to the head from a metal pipe. Salaam likewise confessed to having struck that blow, and a second to the victim’s ribs, but refused to make an official signed or videotaped confession.

At the time, police announced that additional attackers remained at large, and that none of the arrestees’ DNA matched the semen evidence.

A racist hate campaign immediately swung into action—against the victim!

Working with black nationalist activists such as Al SharptonElombe Brath, and Bill Perkins, the city’s black weeklies, theAmsterdam News and City Sun, promoted the fantasy that the confessed assailants were the Scottsboro Boysreincarnated: “Innocent” boys from “good homes,” who had been snatched up by racist police, based solely on the color of their skin.

Violating a long-standing, unofficial rule against revealing the names of sex crime victims, for over a year the two weeklies obsessively repeated the victim’s name in every issue: Patricia Meili. (Actually, she went by “Trisha.”)

Outside the courthouse, black supremacists screamed,“The boyfriend did it!” “She did it herself!” and when the limping victim appeared, “Whore!” and “Slut!”

New York’s white-owned media largely suppressed coverage of the hate campaign.

One has to understand that black supremacists consider brutalizing whites virtuous behavior; the more gruesome, the better. Their reflexive assertions in such cases that blacks were “framed”are smoke-screens; for them, there is no such thing as black-on-white “crime.”

In two trials, marked by constant intimidation and disruptions, and feckless behavior by city officials, McCray, Richardson, Salaam, Santana and Wise were tried and convicted of most charges in 1990.

Afterwards, attorneys for three of the defendants (see also here) remarked that mounting an effective defense had been rendered impossible by the convicts’ self-incriminating statements—including their trial testimony—and because an alternative theory of where they were in the park would have implicated them in other felonies.

Then the convicts then got confessors’ remorse. The black agitators and their MSM henchmen promoted the Big Lie, whereby the confessions had been coerced, and the convicts were innocent.

In a 1992 jailhouse interview on 60 Minutes, Salaam suggested that Meili was “faking” her injuries, and insisted as a Muslim, he was incapable of committing crimes. (!)

In 2002, after the statute of limitations for the Central Park attacks had passed, delusional psychotic Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist already serving a 33 1/3 years-to-life sentence in the same prison as Kharey Wise, announced that he had “found God”—something that he had been saying for 11 years—and that he alone had attacked Trisha Meili.

The unidentified sperm proved to be Reyes’. Otherwise, his story was bunkum. The victim’s doctors denied that the then slightly built, 5′8,” 18-year-old had without help dragged a remarkably fit if petite woman, fighting for her life, 290 feet; and had without accomplices so tortured and harmed her.

Reyes had either found and raped the unconscious Meili after the wolf pack had moved on to other victims, or had been a part of it. At the time, some of the boys had said they’d held the victim down, while a “Tony” raped her. Reyes’ street name was “Tony.”

Morgenthau took Reyes’ entire story on faith, and refused to permit him to be cross-examined in a court of law.

(At the time Reyes made his statement, he was serving in the same prison as Kharey Wise, who by then had become“a very powerful Muslim leader during his 11 years in prison.” Police believed that “Reyes made the confession to score points with Wise… So he does Wise a favor and gets himself major protection in state prison.”) [Why Reyes Admitted Rape, By Andy Geller And Murray Weiss,  New York Post, December 5, 2002]

After promising “a fair, impartial and complete” review of the case, Morgenthau instead joined the MSM inpromoting the black supremacist narrative, after airbrushing the obvious racist insanity out of it. The story Morgenthau now peddled could have been a Law & Order script.

Twisting the law, history, and logic into a pretzel on behalf of the convicts, Morgenthau acted as if there were new exculpatory evidence, when there was none; as if the confessions had been ruled inadmissible, when they had in fact withstood all legal challenges; and asserted that it was the prosecutor’s (as opposed to defense counsel’s) job to concoct an exculpatory, alternative narrative though, like a dumb street hood, he apparently could not come up with one matching the known facts. No matter; the New York Times covered for him.

In December, 2002, Morgenthau requested state Justice Charles Tejada to “vacate” the already served sentences, both for the attack on Meili and for other assaults that night—thus implying that the five convicts had been railroaded. Tejada complied.

Atypical of the media, legendary NYPD detective Mike Sheehan, by then a Fox 5 News reporter said, “I’m shocked at Morgenthau. This shows they have no respect for us and no respect for the victims in this case.”

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and several of the over 30 detectives who had originally worked the case, charged that Morgenthau’s office, led by ADA Nancy E. Ryan, had sabotaged the investigation, by:

  • Withholding new DNA tests and prison records;
  • Refusing to interview the prosecutors and lead detectives from the original case;
  • Forbidding the detectives from consulting their by now 13-year-old notes, when attempting to interrogate convicts in prison;
  • Forbidding detectives from administering a polygraph examination to Reyes;
  • Interrupting detectives whenever they asked Reyes questions in jail; and
  • Going so far as to telephone the lawyers of Reyes’ fellow inmates, directing them to advise their clients to refuse to cooperate with detectives.

If Kelly and the detectives’ charges are true—and they seem plausible to me—Morgenthau and his aides committed the felony, conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Today, the indignant, “innocent victims” seek to cash in, to the tune of $250 million, via the ultimate frivolous lawsuit.

If they win, they should cut Morgenthau in. He’s earned it.

Daniel Greenfield, hvis artikel jeg indledte denne lange postering med at citere fra slutter sin artikel med disse sande ord

We live in a world of phony patterns, of global environmental apocalypses made to order, of shadows and illusions, of phantom fears, panics and doubts. But even in the liberal world of ghosts and shadows, where rogue air conditioners and cow flatulence are a greater threat to the planet than the nuclear bomb, where Lashawn Marten was oppressed by the unconscious white privilege of Jeffrey Babbitt who died for what he did not even know he had and where Muslim terrorism is a phantom fear of bigots, these true patterns intrude.

Terrible acts of violence momentarily tear apart the illusory false patterns with blood and fire and reveal the terrible truth.

On September 11, thousands of New Yorkers standing at Union Square looked downtown to see a plume of smoke rising over Broadway. I was one of them. Some fell to making anti-war posters on the spot. Others enlisted in a long war. On another distant September, some New Yorkers came to the defense of a 62-year-old man being beaten to death for the color of his skin. Others walked on to the farmers’ market, bought their organic peaches while the liberal memes in their heads told them to see no evil.

Our lives are sharpest and clearest when we see the pattern. In moments of revelation, the comforting illusions are torn away and the true pattern of our world stands revealed.

Med Reagans ord: Don’t be afraid to see what you see!

Dalga befriet

Arabiske forår, Jihad, Kristenforfølgelse, Terror, islam — Drokles on September 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Forleden henviste jeg her på Monokultur til en historie fra Ægypten, hvor en gruppe islamister havde besat en hel lille by og - surprise! - undertrykt de tilstedeværende kristne. Nu har militærdiktaturet endelig gjort, hvad der burde være dens spidskompetence, nemlig sat militæret ind mod islamisterne og generobret byen skriver BBC

Egyptian troops have stormed the central town of Dalga, which has been held by Islamists loyal to the ousted president, Mohammed Morsi.

Army and police backed by helicopters entered the town early on Monday.

Coptic Christians living in the town of 120,000 people had appealed for help, saying they could not pray safely and were being taxed by “thugs”.

Egyptian authorities are cracking down on Islamists following Mr Morsi’s removal from power on 3 July.

Hundreds of people were killed when government forces broke up protest camps in the capital, Cairo, in support of Mr Morsi.

Father Ayoub Youssef, the patron of Mar Guirguis Church for Catholics in Dalga, told the BBC that Christian families were “relieved” but still concerned, following Monday’s developments.

Eyewitnesses said the Islamists put up no resistance as the troops entered the town, which is around 300km (190 miles) south of Cairo.

Og således skulle alt nu være i orden i det populære turistrejsemål.

Nogle foreløbige reaktioner på IPCC’s tilbagetog

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

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

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

IPCC

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

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

(…)

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

Roy Spencer siger på sin blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og Roger Pielke Jr. kommer med en venlig opsang til

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og han fortsætter

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

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

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

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

Connie Hedegaard er en vandmelon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lidt mere om kristenforfølgelse

Arabiske forår, Jihad, Kristenforfølgelse, Multikultur, Pressen, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 16, 2013 at 8:56 am

Indian Christian Activist Network skriver om kristenforfølgelser

World, January 09, 2013: Christianophobia, which was published last month, written by journalist Rupert Shortt for Civitas, argues that “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.” He quotes research by the Pew Forum and the World Evangelical Alliance, which estimates that 200 million Christians (ten per cent of the global total) are socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their faith.

Focusing on the plight of Christians in seven countries (Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Burma and China), Shortt catalogues some of the most egregious attacks on Christians in recent years.

He states: In the large area between Morocco and Pakistan … there is scarcely a country in which church life operates without restrictions. Syria, he writes, had been “one of the exceptions until now”, but the country is currently wracked by civil war, and thousands of Christians have been driven from their homes.

Quoting the estimates of scholars that between half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have left or been killed over the last century, Shortt states, “There is now a serious risk that Christianity will disappear from its Biblical heartlands.”

Artiklen åbner muligheden for at den islamiske forfølgelse af kristne og andre mindretal er teologisk og altså indbygget i islam. Det er begreber som Jihad, der konstant er en krigserklæring mod alt u-islamisk og så læren om overhøjhed overfor kristne, jøder og andre der gør islamisk vold og undertrykkelse systemisk. Som en modsætning til denne triste sandhed om islam trækker artiklen en bekræftelse frem, nemlig at Bush’s korsfarer ordvalg har givet islamistiske grupper et figenblad af en undskyldning til at kaste sig over de kristne. Denne typiske og forfejlede ækvivalens er her særligt ironisk fordi artiklen fokus først og fremmest er, hvorfor Vesten og den kristne verden ignorerer kristenforfølgelser og finder at det er fordi det er for svært at forholde sig til uden at skulle forholde sig mindre rosenrødt til religiøs frihed.

Samme fejl gør en artikel i Foreign Affairs, der efter noget ævl om kolonitiden og 1. Verdenkrig alligevel perspektiverer ganske politisk ukorrekt

The tragedy for Christians in the region is obvious. They are losing their lives, their homes, and their houses of worship. They are being driven from their ancestral homelands and forced to flee as refugees to neighboring countries where they are, in many cases, equally unwelcome.

But it is important to note that the removal of the region’s Christians is a disaster for Muslims as well. They are the ones who will be left with the task of building decent societies in the aftermath of these atrocities. And that task will be made immeasurably harder by the removal of Christians from their midst. It is not just that the memory of these brutal actions will taint these societies — perpetrators and victims alike — for the indefinite future; it is also that Muslims are removing the sort of pluralism that is the foundation for any truly democratic public life. One of the refrains of the Arab Spring has been that Muslims want to put an end to tyranny. But the only lasting guarantor of political rights is the sort of social and religious diversity that Muslims in the region are in the process of extinguishing. If nothing is done to reverse the situation, the hope for peace and prosperity in the Middle East may vanish along with the region’s Christian population.

Eller som en landflygtig muslim advarede sine landsmænd under Muhammedkrisen; “hvis I får held til at omdanne islamificere Vesten, hvor vil i så flygte hen da?”

EU kan ikke tåle skepsis

EU — Drokles on September 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Fra Danmarks Radio

Den stigende skepsis over for EU er den største trussel mod samarbejdet i unionen.

Sådan lød det fra formanden for EU-Kommissionen, José Manuel Barroso, da han onsdag holdt sin årlige tale om Unionens tilstand.

DRs korrespondent Ole Ryborg mødte efterfølgende kommissionsformanden til et interview om årsagerne til den stigende EU-kritik. Interviewet kan ses i sin fulde længde i toppen af artiklen.

- Problemet er den økonomiske krise, så det er naturligt, at når det går dårligt ud fra et økonomisk synspunkt, kigger folk på dem, der har et politisk ansvar og forlanger mere af dem, siger José Manuel Barroso.

Med afkristningen af Europa er tvivlen ingen nådegave. Men dansk er stadig ikke demagogernes sprog og EU’s leflen for interesse falder fladt på maven

Uwe Max Jensen’s Sort Sonofon blog anklaget for brug af ytringsfriheden

11. september 2001, Danmarks Radio, Jihad, Pressen, USA, Ytringsfrihed, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 12, 2013 at 11:17 am

Uwe Max Jensen’s blog Sort Sonofon har fået et advarselsstempel af Google for at rapportere om den amerikanske happening prædikant Dr. Terry Jones’ seneste koran afbrænding

koranafbrc3a6nding-2

“On September 11th, we will burn 2998 Korans, each one representing one of the victims, every person who was murdered by Islam.” siger Jones ifølge Sort Sonofon. Men i stedet for at læse denne og lignende spændende artikler mødes man af dette snerpede billede

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-12-kl-095621

Hvad skal man sige? Uwe Max Jensen hævder ikke at være intellektuel

forbudtforbc3b8rn005

men han er kunstinteresseret

vilks22

og han skrev tidligere i Sappho “Man brænder da bibler?”

Midt i den kristne adventstid – 9. december 2007 – brændte shock rockeren Marilyn Manson et eksemplar af biblen på scenen ved en koncert i NEC i Birmingham. Klippet er ligesom bibelafbrændinger foretaget af Manson i Oslo og Bruxelles tilgængeligt på YouTube (se nedenfor). Efter sin bibelafbrænding i Birmingham blev Marilyn Manson i øvrigt ikke anholdt af engelsk politi for at have opildnet til religiøst had, som det skete for de seks engelske koranafbrændere.

Bibelbrænder støttet af DR og Gyldendal

Danmark har også oplevet en bibelafbrænding. Det skete i forbindelse med udstillingen The Wonderful Wide World of Antichrist af Odense-kunstneren Søren Mosegaard i Kunstnernes Hus i Århus i begyndelsen af 1997. Da Søren Mosegaard som først planlagt alligevel ikke ønskede at afbrænde nogen af de bibler, han havde indsamlet til formålet i forbindelse med sin udstilling, fremskaffede Danmarks Radio en bibel (paperback-udgaven - hvem siger, at Danmarks Radio ikke er økonomisk ansvarlig?), hvorefter kunstneren foran et rullende kamera satte ild til biblen.

Kunne man forestille sig, at Danmarks Radio ville gøre noget tilsvarende, hvis en person ønskede at brænde Koranen?

Og den offentligt understøttede mesterfilminstruktør Lars von Trier har vanæret vores Dannebrog

Og Trier proklamerede til TV2 Zulu den 24. marts 2001 at … det danske svastika. Det burde samles ind og afbrændes.”. Hykleriet er velkendt, så tillad mig blot et par billeder i en art solidaritetserklæring med Uwe og friheden, nu vi lige har mindet 11. september

1173859_10151795990784333_1814217979_n

1185476_10151796331129333_1644997232_n

1175105_10151796002549333_802464621_n1

Den kristne verden udsigt er dyster

1174656_10151905259290996_1089071828_n1

Perspektiv

Diverse — Drokles on September 12, 2013 at 10:28 am

Mens cykelkommentatoren og hjemmebøssen Dennis Ritter overvejer “En protest mod Rusland” fordi man der ikke gider se bøsseparader (hvem gør egentlig det?) opdaterer Gatestone Institute deres liste over kristenforfølgelser

The degradation of Christian women living in the Islamic world continued in the month of June. In Syria, after the al-Qaeda linked rebel group conquered Qusair, a city of the governate of Homs, 15-year-old Mariam was kidnapped, repeatedly gang raped according to a fatwa legitimizing the rape of non-Sunni women by any Muslim waging jihad against Syria’s government, and then executed.

According to Agenzia Fides, “The commander of the battalion ‘Jabhat al-Nusra’ in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam became mentally unstable and was eventually killed.”

In Pakistan, Muslim men stormed the home of three Christian women, beat them, stripped them naked and tortured them, and then paraded them in the nude in a village in the Kasur district. Days earlier, it seems the goats of the Christian family had accidentally trespassed onto Muslim land; Muslims sought to make an example of the Christian family, who, as third-class citizens, must know their place at all times.

The rest of June’s roundup of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed by theme and country in alphabetical order, not according to severity:

Attacks on Christian Worship: Churches and Monasteries

Iraq: During the middle of the night, armed men attacked St. Mary’s Assyrian Catholic Church in Baghdad; they wounded two Christian guards, one seriously. Later the same day, bombs were set off at two Christian-owned businesses, both near the church; they killed one Christian shop owner, a parishioner at St. Mary’s. Since the U.S. “liberation” of Iraq in 2003, 73 churches have been attacked or bombed, and more than half of the country’s Christian population has either fled or been killed.

osv. osv.

Nyt syn på Obama?

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, Obama, Pressen, USA, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 11, 2013 at 9:20 am

Det har længe været flere højredrejedes opfattelse at Obama  vil gå over i den amerikanske historie, som deres absolut mest kriminelle præsident. Det er sager som aflytning af pressen, smugling af våben henover den mexikanske grænse og hans brug af skattevæsnet i en klapjagt på politiske modstandere. Nu ser det ud til at hans ulovligheder bliver overskygget af hans inkompetence. En god ven beskrev Obama således

Obama har altid været vant til at være “the smartest guy in the room” - dels fordi han altid har samarbejdet med ligesindede der ikke modsagde ham, dels fordi han eller hans bagmænd konstant har undergravet enhver opposition før det kom til en mano-a-mano-kamp. Han har aldrig lidt et reelt nederlag, og tror derfor at han kan klare alt. Samtidig er han netop på grund af fraværet af nederlag panisk angst for at tillægge sig et, fordi det vil ødelægge hans wannabe-uovervindelighed. Ergo tøver han før enhver større beslutning, og prøver så vidt muligt at lade være med at træffe den selv - han overdrager det til andre. Men fordi han netop ikke selv vil træffe beslutningerne eller sætte sin prestige ind på dem, så ender det hele med at være noget halvhjertet sjusk, som man intet kan bygge på.

Pressens forelskelse i fortællingen Obama ser efterhånden ud til at krakelere . Jyllands-Posten skriver i sin leder om Obama

Den mest slagkraftige forskel samles i de forskellige personligheder - hadeobjektet George W. Bush, der stadig dæmoniseres helt ud i parodien, og everybody’s darling, Barack Obama, der i den grad er ved at blive indhentet af virkeligheden. En nøgtern analyse taler til Bushs fordel.

Op til Irak-krigen havde Bush sørget for at opbygge en stor international koalition, og han havde et klart strategisk og militært mål med aktionen. Han havde forberedt den amerikanske opinion på en helt anden måde, end Obama har, og Bush havde langt mere tungtvejende grunde til at gå i krig med Irak ud fra en national sikkerhedsbetragtning, end Obama har i tilfældet Syrien. Omvendt opererede Bush så afgjort i et stærkt emotionaliseret farvand efter terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001, lige som han ikke skulle slås med dagens almindelige krigstræthed. Men at udmale en verden til forskel på Irak 2003 og Syrien 2013 er uholdbart.

Obama har rystet på hånden. Det kan en amerikansk præsident bare ikke tillade sig. Det er ikke kun ham selv, embedet og USA, men alle civiliserede kræfter, der kan stå tilbage som tabere.

New York Times skrev hvorledes denne teleprompter præsident

Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.

The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.

In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

Politico

If President Barack Obama isn’t happy with his press coverage in the United States, he ought to take a look at how he’s being portrayed in the Arab media.

As Obama steps up his push for congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, the president is coming under withering criticism by opinion leaders throughout the Middle East, according to a review by POLITICO and experts of Arabic- and English-language media in the region.

The Obama bashing can be categorized in several ways: Those who charge the president’s needlessly dragging his feet; conspiracy theorists who argue it’s all a plot to boost Israel; and others who claim that any military operation in Syria is motivated only by the U.S.’s interest in dominating the region.

The increasingly unfavorable coverage Obama’s receiving in the Arab world - even come from the press in countries that support U.S. intervention in Syria - is doing harm to his image and influence, as well as further diminishing how America is perceived in the region, experts say. It hits especially hard coming at a time when Obama is looking anywhere he can, at home and abroad, to find allies for his plan to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“There are (Arab) media who say the U.S. should do something and basically Obama is being a chicken shit about it,” said Lawrence Pintak, a former Middle East correspondent for CBS News and founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. “The main talking point is that al-Assad needs to be stopped, this is a humanitarian crisis the U.S. needs to move. The second set is that Obama is showing a level of cowardice in turning to Congress for political cover, that it undermines American effectiveness.”

Og Memri har samlet nogle arabiske satiretegninger af bl.a Obama

16397

16401

16405

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress