Det var de velkendte indrømmelser af magtesløshed fra danske politikere ovenpå terrorangrebet i Manchester. Lars Løkke kaldte angrebet meningsløst. Derved fortæller han danskerne, at han ikke har den fjerneste intention om at ændre på den kurs, der leder os mod borgerkrig, enten fordi han er en kujon eller uvidende. For når det ikke giver mening, har det ingen årsag og kan ikke forhindres. Jyllands-Postens leder var en af mange herhjemme, der tillod sig at være uforstående overfor den verden, der søger at komme den til livs

Ud over det i sig selv afskyeligt kujonagtige og forbryderiske i enhver terrorhandling, hvor man lader sit indædte had til den vestlige verden og dens værdier gå ud over ganske uskyldige borgere i færd med noget helt andet og hverdagsagtigt, shopping eller som her en koncertoplevelse, viser tragedien i Manchester også, hvor moralsk depraveret de islamistiske terrorister er i deres anslag mod os. De skyer ingen midler, og intet kodeks forbyder dem åbenbart at gå efter det uskyldigste af alt – børn og helt unge mennesker.

Fra en redaktion, hvis terrorsikring ikke er nok til at indgyde modet til at genoptrykke sine tegninger, betegner man det som kujonagtigt når en muslim vælger at dø for sit moralske kodeks. (Teresa May med det store sikkerhedsopbud gjorde det samme). For muslimen har moral, nemlig den som islam tilskriver ham. Her er man skyldig i at være vantro og med sin eksistens stå i modsætning til islam og al dens væsen alle dens gerninger.

Jaleh Tavakoli forklarer terrorister valg af koncerter, blandt det store udvalg af ‘bløde’ mål, med at “musik er haram”. Jeg tror dog David Wood er mere præcis når han pointerer der ikke er troende/fromme muslimer til koncerter, men kun kuffar og hyklere (dårlige muslimer). Men det er et sidespor, “The targeting of an audience predominantly comprised of young girls should haunt even the most callous of cynics, and the most relativist of liberals. But it won’t.” skriver Raheem Kassam i Middle East Forum og kalder al den sædvanlige snak om at leve som før for en distraktion, mens vores børn myrdes

I suggest we don’t “carry on exactly as before.” In fact, I suggest we do away with the trite “Keep Calm and Carry On” mindset that has been adopted by hipsters and tourist tat sellers.

Instead, I suggest we look back in history a little further, for how we deal with this scourge.

St. Augustine of Hippo — not to be confused with the homonymous St. Augustine of Canterbury who brought Christianity to England — once said: “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.”

Myndighederne aner dog potentialet for vreden og modet, da engelsk politi mødte talstærkt op, forstærket med en helikopter, til en havefest i Cambridgeshire og konfiskerede en karaoke maskine fordi den blev benyttet til at synge hånlige sange mod Osama Bin-Laden.

Med “udsigten til en dansk festivalsæson”, falder sympatien måske for Henrik Marstals plæderen for “en målrettet indsats for at skabe et mere broget publikumssegment med inddragelse af alle danskere uanset etnisk baggrund” på Roskilde Festival?

New York Times skrev om gerningsmanden at “No one yet knows what motivated him to commit such a horrific deed.”, efter at have fortalt om hans muslimske sind og Islamisk Stats triumferen. Men NYT kunne alligevel se perspektivet, sjovt nok

The Islamic State wants nothing more than to watch Western democracies embrace its mad version of a holy war pitting Muslims against Christians, the newly arrived against others. This has been the goal of other attacks in Europe. With cold calculation, extremists have ripped apart the lives of people simply out enjoying themselves — whether at a concert or sitting around cafe tables in Paris in November 2015, or gathering for Bastille Day fireworks in Nice last year, or shopping at a Christmas market in Berlin in December.

Maximum vigilance is needed, and Britain raised its threat level from severe to critical. Public spaces must be made as safe as possible, even as people recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses. In Britain, as in the rest of Europe and in the United States, it is critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized. As Richard Barrett, former director of global counterterrorism operations at MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, said, “engaging the community and letting the community inform us” is one way “to understand why people do this” and to prevent future attacks.

Understanding is critical. The quickest way for open societies to lose the freedoms they enjoy and the Islamic State seeks to destroy would be to whip up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds.

“Vi kan ikke forstille os, hvor meget de hader os” sagde Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen til BT bedragerisk på vej mod et klarsyn inden mørket satte ind “…et had, som er opbygget gennem mange år, og som vi på nogle punkter selv har været med til at skærpe”

Derfor skal vi revurdere, om det er de rigtige redskaber, vi bruger. Nogle af de restriktioner har haft den direkte modsatte effekt. De kan være radikaliserende,« mener Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen.

»Hvis de initiativer, vi lægger for dagen, understøtter deres opfattelse af os: At vi er de nye korsfarer. At vi vil dem noget ondt, så kan de virke radikaliserende. Tænk, hvis vi i stedet kunne vise dem, at de tager frygtelig fejl. At vi lægger mere vægt på den fremstrakte hånd fremfor den knyttede næve

Det følger at når vi kun delvis har været med til at skærpe de i forvejen eksisterende had, at vi kun delvis kan hæmme det ved at give efter. Og følger det ikke også, for nu at tage et af de seneste eksempler, at de koptere, der blev slagtet forleden i det muslimske land Ægypten, selv må have understøttet muslimernes opfattelse af, at de ville dem ondt og således selv havde radikaliseret deres banemænd? Muslimer flygter overvejende fra andre muslimer i muslimske lande, så vores hånd er allerede mere fremstrakt end den muslimske hånd - og selv det er ikke nok. Disse muslimer vil ikke have din hånd, men hugge den af.

Terroristernes angreb er ikke for at sætte splid mellem kristne og muslimer, den splid er her allerede. Den eneste splid som terroristerne søger at sætte er imellem os selv, så vi kan sidde og bebrejde hinanden, hvem det er der nu har opviglet muslimen til terror. De vil heller ikke “have: din vrede, din sorg” som Ida Auken tweetede, men dog “din rædsel”. Terror er for at underkue os, at få os til at frygte dem, så vi giver os, for hver en lille tegning, hver en lille frikadelle, hver en lille segregeret svømmehal, hver et lille beklædningskodeks, her og der og alle vegne indtil vi enten er døde eller slaver.

Løkkes partifælle Jakob Engel-Schmidt tweetede at “Ondskaben bliver ikke dybere”. Måske, men der kommer til at blive mere af den ikke desto mindre. Med mindre vi trækker vores hånd tilbage og griber sværdet.

Colin Flaherty beskriver i American Thinker, opfattelsen af en strukturel racisme imod negerfarvede amerikaneres march ind i de juridiske institutioner

Philly finally figured it out. So did Chicago and Portland and Dallas: the reason why black crime and violence are so wildly out of proportion: White racism.

The Philadelphia epiphany arrived during the recent election for district attorney. The seven Democrat candidates only disagreed on one thing: who was the most outspoken in their belief in the white boogie man.

“There’s no question we have systemic racism in this country that came about long before any of us were born,” said Joe Kahn, a white guy who would finish second in the DA race. “Right? It’s something that we live with and what we have to do, as prosecutors, is we have to be honest in recognizing that and be vigilant about stamping out that problem and using our power as public servants — as prosecutors — to not just recognize that problem, not just push back against it, but be proactive in doing what we can to uplift society and do what we can to push back against the trend in American society with respect to race.”

“We see this happening with the disenfranchisement of African Americans in this country particularly, losing their voting rights.”

During the same candidate’s forum, a white judge said her first task as DA would be to hire more black people because of institutional racism in the prosecutor’s office. Other candidates joined the white racist rhetorical slugfest.

But most were just Malcolm come latelys. The real veteran of the ‘white racism is to blame for everything’ crowd was Larry Krasner, a white defense attorney. Krasner spent the last 25 years preaching the gospel of white racism and defending every black activist criminal movement in the city that would have him, most recently Black Lives Matter.

Think William Kunstler with a better haircut.

And now, thanks to $1.4 million from a George Soros front group — that surprise, even the local media could not ignore — Krasner will soon be in charge of prosecuting the same violent criminals he has devoted his life to describing as victims.

Score one more for smashing the white racism in that chocolate city of brotherly love.

Ami Horowitz spørger ekspertisen i jagten på at finde det hvide privilegium

James Delingpole mindes Alan Sokal, der i 1996 fik publiseret en fagfællebedømt artikel, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity“, af nøje designet vrøvl i tidstypiske floskler i et tidsskrift for postmoderne kulturstudier, fordi et par akademikere har fornøjet sig med et lignende forsøg, denne gang hudflettende køns-, og feminismestudier

Some of it was written with the help of the Postmodern Generator – “a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokal’s method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern ‘paper’ every time the page is reloaded.”

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).

None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:

Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.

They didn’t accept the paper outright, however. Cogent Social Sciences’ Reviewer #2 offered us a few relatively easy fixes to make our paper “better.” We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about “manspreading” (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and “dick-measuring contests.”

No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

Det giver mig en undskyldning for at vise Sam Hydes TED Talk, med deres slogan “ideas worth spreading”, hvor han introduceres som en filmskaber, der i Mogadishu skyggede de modige kvinder i deres kamp for at holde gaderne rene. Hyde iklædt et gladiator-harnisk over en rød sparkedragt indleder med at få publikum til at klappe sig selv på skulderen “for saving the world” og fortsætter med at vrøvle om et 2070 paradigmeskift, hvor “Most of our major cities will be replaced with wealthy pleasure-domes”, mens han betror det beundrende publikum “What inspires me is teaching African refugees how to program JavaScript”. Nyd det

“Trump er belejret i Det Hvide Hus” er overskriften på Informations leder fredag. Lørdag landede Trump så i Saudiarabien, et stykke uden for Det Hvide Hus, og New York Times skrev at “he sought to escape, if just briefly, the scandals and the chaos that have engulfed his administration”. Belejret eller på flugt, trump er en slagen mand, slagen af sin skyld, som han ikke slipper fra.

Ikke i mediernes virkelighed i hvert fald. Et studie fra Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy viser at dækningen af Trump i de førende medier er historisk negativ, skriver Town Hall

The report, based on an analysis of “news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD),” found that media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days “set a new standard for negativity” at 80 percent negative coverage.

Clinton received 60 percent negative coverage during his first 100 days, George W. Bush had 57 percent negative coverage, and Obama had just 41 percent negative coverage.

“Trump’s coverage was unsparing,” the report found. “In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”

The period when Trump received his most positive coverage was week 12 of his presidency, when he ordered a missile strike on a Syrian airbase in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on civilians. He had 70 percent negative coverage in that week and 30 percent positive.

The high level of negativity comes in unison from six outlets that Trump has called out in the past for frequent attacks.

“CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study found. “Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post (83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative).”

(…)

The study’s authors concede that “the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency.”

CNNs Chris Cuomo afkrævede f.eks bevis for at der endnu ikke er beviser imod Trump i en besynderlig debat med en republikansk politiker. Det kaldes Trump Derangement Syndrome, at ellers normale og forstandige mennesker forlader deres intellektuelle fakulteter, når emnet er Trump. James Delingpole mener optimistisk, at Trump hysteriet er blevet så skingert at medierne snart vil blive set på, som drengen der råbte ulv.

Informations leder mener at fyringen af FBIs direktør James Comey kan være en fatal fejl og spekulerer på bagrund af “det kendskab vi har fra amerikansk presse og bøger til Trumps lyssky transaktioner som forretningsmand, hans brutale metoder og foragt for retsstatens principper“:

Skete det blot i et øjebliks vrede over Comeys uvilje mod at lade sig påvirke af præsidentens ønske om at stoppe eller fremskynde efterforskningen af sikkerhedsrådgiver Michael Flynn og andre tidligere kampagnemedarbejdere?

Eller var det, fordi Trump ville have den mørke sky hængende over Det Hvide Hus væk, så han kunne få friere hænder til at regere og lovgive? Eller er grunden, at FBI’s efterforskning var kommet ubehageligt tæt på præsidenten selv og hans viden om Trump-kampagnens forbindelser til Rusland under valgkampen i 2015-16? Det er aspekter af sagen, som særanklager Mueller skal søge at afdække.

Som man kan læse på Breitbart, er der ingen sag imod Trump, da han tilbage i februar, fortalte daværende FBI direktør James Comey, at han ville ønske at der ikke var en sag imod Mike Flynn, der var trådt tilbage som præsidentens sikkerhedsrådgiver, da han var en fin fyr. Flynn havde løjet overfor vicepræsident Mike Pence om sine forbindelser til det russiske (det var løgnen og ikke forbindelserne, der kostede ham jobbet), men Comey var enig med præsidenten at Flynn var en fin fyr.

Dette ved vi fordi et notat fra Comey fornylig blev lækket til pressen. Som Stefan Molyneux forklarer, er Comeys notat ikke et officielt notat, men Comeys private, der har tjent til at fastholde hans egen opfattelse af møder og ordvekslinger, for at lette overblikket og sikre sig imod senere misforståelser. Der er altså ikke tale om et officielt referat. Andre mødedeltager, i dette tilfælde Trump, har ikke haft mulighed for at læse Comeys notater og gøre indsigelser.

Så hvorledes opfattede Comey så Trumps ønske om at Flynn gik fri af en undersøgelse? Svaret er simpelt, som ganske uskyldigt, da han under ed fortalte en senatshøring 3 maj at han ikke havde oplevet at nogen havde prøvet at stoppe en undersøgelse af politiske grunde - “that would be a big deal!”.

Og hvis vi skal følge Molyneux rationale giver det heller ikke mening at Comey skulle have opfattet Trumps bemærkninger som andet end en uskyldig bekymret, for hvad han ser som en uretfærdig behandling af en god mand. Comey var nemlig underlagt en pligt under strafansvar, straks at meddele justitsministeriet, hvis det var hans opfattelse at præsidenten ulovligt forsøgte at påvirke en undersøgelse eller retssag. Hvis Comey fremturer med, at Trump gik over stregen med sine bemærkninger, vil han være kriminelt pligtforsømmende. Men det vil stadig ikke være ensbetydende med at Trump rent faktisk gik over stregen, kun at det var Comeys rent private opfattelse på det givne tidspunkt, som han så stik imod sin pligt som FBI direktør, har holdt skjult i 3 måneder. Jeg kender ikke til 3-dimensionel skak, men i almindelig skak, har Comey sat sin dronning i slag.

Og måske mere end det, som Molyneux forklarer, da Comey har skrevet noter fra alle samtaler og møder med præsidenten (som en del af en FBI kultur, skriver New York Times). For dette tæller vel også den tidligere Obama administration, så offentligheden måske kan få indblik, hvad Comey diskuterede med tidligere præsident Obama, udenrigsminister Clinton og justitsminister Lynch - bla. om undersøgelsen af Hillary Clinton og den bemærkelsesværdig beslutning om ikke at retsforfølge hende stik mod bevisernes omfang. En rigtig lille Pandoras Æske, som der nu skal udleveres til Senatets Juridiske Komite inden 24. maj i år.

Men hvad betyder den slags detaljer, når vi nu har “det kendskab vi har fra amerikansk presse og bøger til Trumps lyssky transaktioner som forretningsmand, hans brutale metoder og foragt for retsstatens principper“?

“What a mess” siger David Limbaugh i Town Hall om de mange selvmodsigende grunde Trump selv og hans stab er kommet med for at fyre FBIs direktør James Comey.

Trump is obviously exasperated that the Democrats are impeding his policy agenda with their obsessive hammering of the bogus charge that he and his team conspired with Russia to interfere with the presidential election.

Despite the incessant media reports and congressional investigations, not a shred of evidence has emerged to substantiate the charge of collusion. We keep saying this, but the media and Democrats keep pretending otherwise. It’s unconscionable. Even James Clapper, former President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, has admitted that there is no evidence of collusion and that he has no reason to suspect it.

The real scandal is not Trump’s firing Comey — even if Trump’s supporters are unhappy with the timing and the way it was handled and communicated. The scandal is the liberal establishment’s coordinated conspiracy to falsely allege that Trump stole the presidency by colluding with Russia. Liberals absolutely know that it’s not true, but they will not quit bearing false witness. How dare they posture indignantly about Trump’s supposed dishonesty?

(…)

It is the Democrats’ prerogative to act as the opposition party and to try to impede Trump’s agenda. But it is reprehensible that they are doing so through fraudulent means and further dividing the country with their lies about Team Trump and Russia.

Their counterfeit hysteria knows no bounds. Not long ago, Democrats were demanding Comey’s head, alleging that his public announcements had sabotaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Now they are claiming the firing is a “constitutional crisis” and a “coup.” Not only did Trump have the authority to fire Comey but also the termination does not end the investigation.

Ikke alle er kede af Comey er blevet fyret. Tidligere ‘assistant director’ for FBI James Kallstrom mener at Comey “dansede med djævelen” og ødelagde FBIs renomme. Og det er også Newt Gingrich konklusion

Muligvis har Rich Lowry i National Review ret i, at Trump er “simply incapable of a little deftness”. Ruslandstesen giver jo ikke megen mening, som Rich Lowry også skriver. Hvad skulle russerne dog bruge Trump til når deres plan ifølge tesen var at hacke Demokraternes og Hillarys servere og siden lække dem til Wikileaks? Og Wikileaks har iøvrigt hele tiden benægtet at russerne var deres kilde.

Russerne har ganske vist en interesse i at den amerikanske præsident er svag og alt der kan underminere opfattelsen af hans legitimitet er det en gave. Derfor ville de have interesse i at modarbejde Hillary Clinton, netop fordi alle mente hun var favoritten til at vinde. Ironisk nok er konspirationsteorien om deres evne til at afgøre amerikanske valg en gave til Putin.

Og en anden pointe, som jeg synes overses. Ingen troede på Trump, da han stillede op, han var en joke fra starten og til det sidste kom det som et chok for ekspertisen og medierne, at der fandtes så mange amerikanere, der kunne se bort fra den orange mands vulgariteter og stemme på ham. Kun Trump og Steve Banon så at det var tid til forandring - og så, ifølge denne logik, russerne, med deres overraskende forståelse for det amerikanske folkedyb.

Måske har Jonas Goldberg ret, at hvor den ængstelige venstrefløj ser en tyran i støbeskeen, er der blot en impulsstyret og forfængelig Trump, der bare trives bare med drama han selv skaber. Eller spiller Trump 3D skak med sine modstandere ved at fyre op under konspirationsteorierne som medierne spilder sin tid på? Desværre for den tese, drukner de reelle skandaler også i Trumps kontroverser. “The real constitutional crisis is happening in our judiciary” skriver Eric Ericson i Town Hall, og peger på hvorledes, der derfra kaldes imod at respektere Trumps lovgivning

Dawn Johnsen, a law professor who worked for both Presidents Clinton and Obama, spoke at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference and urged the federal judges to stop giving judicial deference to the President. “Has Trump in effect forfeited some measure of judicial deference across contexts and cases, through his disrespect for the courts and the rule of law and his displays of prejudice and arbitrary decision making? And if he has not yet reached that point, what more would it take?” she asked.

Johnsen explains, “[W]hen courts review congressional and executive action, they often use standards and doctrines of deference. One way to think about it … is that courts defer to political actors, except when there is good reason not to defer. Clear examples of when deference is not appropriate occur when, in the Court’s words, “a statutory classification … proceeds along suspect lines” or “infringes fundamental constitutional rights.” At the other extreme, deference may be especially appropriate where the Constitution confers special authority to the President or to Congress…, which traditionally has included matters of national security, war powers and foreign affairs.”

She then boldly suggests President Trump is owed no judicial deference because he acts in an arbitrary manner and not necessarily in good faith. As Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected the political elite and Russia-ism has replaced Birtherism as the fever swamp fantasy, more and more lawyers and judges are headed in this direction.

Federal judges have blocked President Trump’s inarguably constitutional travel restrictions merely because of statements candidate Trump made before becoming President Trump. Holding a President to campaign stump speeches has never been done before. In fact, President Obama campaigned for his healthcare plan declaring it not a tax, but the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act under the constitution’s taxing powers. Had they used the president’s campaign statements, the legislation would have been ruled unconstitutional.

In Virginia, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that President Trump is the reason a travel ban is unconstitutional. Judge Niemeyer of the Fourth Circuit, a federal judge not willing to join the fever swamp, asked the ACLU’s lawyer, “We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took…. Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

The ACLU’s lawyer responded, “Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional.” When the federal judiciary will not give the president of the United States due deference merely because they do not like that particular president, we do have a constitutional crisis. Unfortunately for the republic, this is a constitutional crisis the Democrats and media support and are enabling.

Da Milo Yiannopoulos blev spurgt om han virkeligt mente at Trump ville blive en god præsident, svarede han kækt udenom “Oh, it would be so much fun!” Det er i hvert fald ikke kedeligt.

Gay Times skriver at “Ramzan Kadyrov, President of Chechnya, has publicly declared that he wants all LGBT people in the country to be eliminated by May 26, which marks the start of Muslim holiday, Ramadan.” France 24 har dette indslag om udsigterne for venstrefløjens foretrukne seksuelle udlevelse, skulle deres multietniske projekt blive realiseret

I Oregon blev den traditionelt familievenlige ‘82nd Avenue of Roses Parade’ aflyst da venstreorienterede aktivister via en email til arrangørerne “threatened to send “two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out” unless organizers kicked the Republican group out of the parade”, skriver Daily Caller. Venstrefløjen behersker sine politiske virkemidler, sådan er vi blevet forvænnet.

Men ved Berkeley, det amerikanske kraftværk for identitetspolitik og venstremilitans, vandt tilhængere af Trump og frihed en enorm sejr for et par uger siden, da de besejrede Antifas gadekrigere i et regulært slagsmål. Antifa var mødt op for at bedrive en god gammeldags omgang mødeterror mod det højreorienterede ytringsfrihedsarrangement, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Så det er værd at dvæle lidt ved de begivenheder, som blev så omfattende video-dokumenteret. En Antifa-aktivist, der umotiveret slog en yngre mand i hovedet med en cykellås blev identificeret af 4chan - det viste sig at være en professor. Manden der slog Antifa-pigen med dreadlocks, viste sig at være en beleven ung mand. Antifa-pigen ‘Moldylokcs’ viste sig at være løgner og nøgenmodel. Og politiet viste sig slet ikke. Men herunder er et rimeligt overblik, som man kan nyde her 1. maj

Det var en god kampdag!