Obama har vist ikke “helet nationen”

Politico skriver

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvorfor?

Da det muslimske ægtepar, pakistanske Syed Farook og Tafsheen Malik, begik massemord på en amerikansk julefest i det firma, hvor Farook selv arbejde, skulle man finde en forklaring. CNNs Erin Burnett foreslog at den kvindelige muslim måske led af en fødselsdepression. Og CNNs Gary Tuchman foreslog en enke til et af terrorofrene at det måske var hans egen skyld, kristent missionerende som han var. Council on American Islamic Relations fortalte CNN at terrorangrebet også var USAs skyld, med den førte udenrigspolitik in mente. Og sådan gik det til at det var en muslim der ved at argumentere for gengæld afslørede forbindelsen til islam for CNNs seere. På den amerikanske venstrefløj og blandt amerikanske muslimer var der forargelse over at medierne ikke havde respekteret Farooks massemyrdende kone Tafsheen Malik ved at vise et fotografi af hende uden hijab. Og mens de amerikanske universiteter analyserede teorierne frygtede man naturligvis et backlash.

Herhjemme advarede Poul Høi om ikke at være hurtig til at komme folk i “kasser og båse” og foreslog uden ironi at Syed Farook blev massemorder fordi hans barndom var ulykkelig med en drikfældig og voldelig far. Sammenhængen der viser at børn af alkoholiserede og voldelige fædre begår massemord antages blot at være sand fordi det er fra den samme kasse man forklarer al anden ondskab man ikke vil forholde sig til, og så var det vist konen Tafsheen Malik der fik ham til det. Med alle de børn af voldelige alkoholikere har Malik virkelig ramt en sekundær rekrutteringsåre.

Og så garnerer han sofisstisk med moralske betragtninger i psykologiske klæder som “Ingen massedrabsmænd er mentalt sunde”. Terror med politiske, religiøse, seperatistiske og sekteriske formål eksisterer altså ikke i Høis univers, hvis vi forstår mental sundhed i en klinisk forstand. Det giver ingen mening og sætningen er da også hentet i kassen for ondskab man ikke ønsker at erkende. Det er et moralsk udsagn som vi bruger om SS bødler, ISIS og lignende, men den tjener sproglig til at bakke Høis ide op. En tese han skyder i foden  når han som eksempel på Farooks integration i the american way of life skriver

Det følgende år indrykkede han [Syed Farook] en lignende annonce på et datingsite i Dubai, hvor han skrev, at han ledte efter en kvinde mellem 18 og 22 år, og hendes nationalitet og religion var underordnet.

Høi læser “nationalitet og religion var underordnet”, men overser at Farook ikke finder en kone i USA, men på et datingsite i Dubai! Med andre ord kan vi have en almindelig stærk formodning om at han ledte efter en araber som pakistaner og med religion mente at han ikke ville hænge sig i om hun foretrak Hamas frem for ISIS. Farrok havde fundet hjem førend han mødte konen.

Carsten Jensen mener modsat Høi ikke at Farook og Malik myrdede på grund af Farooks fars druk og vold. Han har sin egen kasse af forklaringer og den er fyldt med os andre end ham. Vi, som nationer, fører krige mod dem og det var os der startede. Mikkel Anderson leverer en anbefalelsesværdig nedsabling af Jensens realitetsforladte moralfortælling. Andersons centrale pointe begrænser sig ikke til Jensen, men er kardinal for hele venstrefløjens tænkning og skyld og ansvar

Dernæst fremsætter Jensen en af de sørgeligste travere, der altid hives af stalden, når vestlige venstreintellektuelle skal forsvare ikke-vestlig terror: ”Terroren har altid været den militært svage parts svar,” erklærer han.

Som nævnt udøver IS også rigelig terror, hvor de står stærkt. Men terror er et valg, ikke den nødvendighed, som Jensen vil have os til at tro.  Det er et valg, som intet har at gøre med, hvorvidt man er ”stærk” eller ”svag”. Den vilkårlige terror mod civile har altid været de totalitære og skruppelløses ”svar”, der så rigeligt også er blevet udført af ”de stærke”, hvilket Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler og en perlerække af andre fra verdenshistoriens rædselskabinet demonstrerer. Der er ingen automatik i, at en militært ”svag” part massakrerer tilfældige civile.

Desværre er de fleste af Jensens udsagn genfortalt af journalisten og jeg vil være varsom med at udlægge dem bogstaveligt, selvom om de er klassisk Carsten Jensen, som at anderkende ISIS ‘deres territorium’ uden at nævne folkemordene på de oprindelige indbyggere. Og fordi Jensen i store dele ses gennem artiklen fremgår de ikke klart hvor “vi” startede, da Jensen eksempelvis nævner Frankrigs for længst overståede Algier-krig uden at det fremgår som var der en direkte sammenhæng med nutidens civilisationskrig eller om det bare vare et eksempel på at det altid var “os” der starter.

Men et par enkelte af Jensens citerede udsagn fortjener måske et par kommentarer som overflødigt supplement til Andersons Jensenmassakre. For der er så mange besynderlige antagelser i venstrefløejens kasser så Informations journalist slet ikke mener at der skal følges op på et udsagn som “Islamisk Stat giver de unge mænds kamp en retning og et mål”, siger Jensen, som vælter danske unge mænd rundt i gaderne og uden mål og med halshugger tilfældige fodgængere. Eller, hvis det kun er logisk for muslimske unge mænd bare at være i kamp, var det så nu også os der startede? Hvem der startede bliver endnu mere forvirrende da Jensen fortsætter “Ekstremisternes våde drøm er, at typer som Søren Espersen får magten. Så har vi konfrontationen…”.

Men tilbage til San Bernadino og hvorfor det muslimsk-pakistanske ægtepar dog kunne finde på at kaste deres karrierer ud ad vinduet. Victor Davis Hanson leverer en fremragende diagnose i National Review af den næsten perfekte storm som muslimsk aggression og almindeligt kulturelt selvhad skaber

Why, then, is radical Islamism, so antithetical to Western values, still preached in American and European mosques? Do radical Muslims in the U.S. and Europe realize that if they had had their way, they would not have wished to emigrate to the U.S., given that it would resemble the homelands they abandoned? The worldview of Tashfeen Malik, if enacted, would eventually have turned San Bernardino into Islamabad; would Ms. Malik then have left it for Portland?

Why is ISIS apparently attractive to hundreds, if not thousands, of Western Muslim youth? Why is the FBI supposedly busy tracking down radical Muslims residing in America, who presumably came here of their own free will? Is it because the FBI is Islamophobic?

One obvious reason for these anomalies is a sort of paradox. The more a Muslim youth enjoys casual sexual hook-ups, easy access to liquor and drugs, and unapologetic secular indulgence, all the more the voluptuary feels he has betrayed his culture, religion, and very identity — and the more his eventual return to Islamic purity is likely to become extreme. No one forced Mohamed Atta and his band of killers to become Western sybarites. What made them slaves to their appetites was their very Islamic Puritanism, which turned what was commonly available into forbidden obsessions: the more taboo, all the more to be indulged in, and all the more to be regretted post facto and the indulgence blamed on others when passions are drained and probity returns.

Second, in many cases, the immigrant immediately asks upon arrival, “Why do they have so much here, while we have so little back home?” Do not expect him to cite everything from religious tolerance to consensual government to freedom and market capitalism — not when there is an accessible American dictionary of victimization, ranging from colonialism and imperialism to oil and Israel. The new arrival from the Middle East need not turn on Al Jazeera to be spoon-fed grievances, when he can listen to President Obama’s apology tours or Cairo speech or breakfast sermons about high-horse Christians and their millennium-old Crusades.

Third, we in America ask almost nothing of immigrants any more. We do not care whether they come legally and will obey the law once they’re here. We have no concern whether they can support themselves, or whether they will become wards of the state. One need only review the careers of Obama’s own immigrant aunt and uncle. We have no worries about whether they learn English. They can hate or love America, as is their wont. If an immigrant commits a crime against his hosts, we feel that we would commit a greater crime by sending our ungracious guest home. Is that why ICE released 36,000 alien lawbreakers in 2013 alone, preempting their deportation hearings, or why 347,000 criminal aliens are believed to be at large in the United States?

Citizenship as a cherished privilege has utterly vanished. So has any idea of gratitude. A hallowed notion of legality, of being more law-abiding even than native-born Americans, has disappeared among immigrants. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — the five-times-deported illegal alien and seven times repeat felon who shot Kate Steinle to death in San Francisco — was only the most extreme example of what is possible under current immigration law and practice.

At no time did Lopez-Sanchez thank the United States for offering him a better chance than Mexico had — at least if repeatedly committing felonies can be see as a form of not offering thanks. We deduce that he believed things were better here than in Mexico or he would not have reentered the country illegally so many times. Lopez-Sanchez, like the Tsarnaevs, knew that the U.S. leaves immigrants alone, or perhaps, better yet, romanticizes their difference, and provides, if not a legal amnesty for their crimes, a psychosocial one.

Fourth, immigrants sense an identity-obsessed culture, where diversity, not unity, brings career dividends. A teen can cross illegally from the oppression of Oaxaca and almost instantly qualify for victim status and affirmative action on the bizarre theory that American oppressions have earned him compensation and reparations, as if he were psychologically damaged by America while he was in Oaxaca or will be in America if he was not in Oaxaca.

Hyphenation, not conformity, is preferred — and wisely so. Poor George Zimmerman’s “white Hispanic” troubles arose from his Americanizing his mixed-race identity rather than emphasizing a constructed otherness by calling himself the more authentic-sounding Jorge Mesa. A fight between Trayvon Martin and Jorge Mesa does not reach the White House, because it furthers no particular agenda; it’s analogous to the weekend toll in Chicago rather than a Ferguson teachable moment. Apparently, Zimmerman did not learn the lesson that an upper-middle-class prep-schooler named Barry Dunham, whose conniving African father had abandoned him, would have been a mere statistic. But as Barack Hussein Obama he became a unique example of diversity, with all its resonance.

At best, if a Muslim immigrant fully assimilates, to the point where, as is true of most Americans, he cannot easily be identified by his religion, or if his religion becomes incidental rather than essential to his public persona, then he is rendered just an ordinary American. Perhaps he even is in some danger of joining the unattractive majority not subject to special dispensation. At worst, he can become a sellout in the eyes of his local mosque and immigrant enclave. Emphasizing identity to its logical extreme wins rewards in today’s America. We saw to what insane lengths this has gone in the cases of the fabulists Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill.

Finally, the Muslim shooter understands that so many of his hosts are naïve, ashamed of their own culture, unsure of their heritage, and prone to apologize rather than criticize. They would likely not call the authorities even if they spied preparations for terrorist activities — believing that being called a racist is worse than possibly allowing violence to ensue against the innocent. Note that Ms. Malik never thought that she might have to tone down her suspicious activities, because her neighbors quite magnanimously did not call the police.

Appeasement is a psychological disorder that affects both the appeaser and the appeased. The more exemptions are granted the offender, the more the grantor feels good about himself, and the more the offender loses respect for someone seen as weak rather than magnanimous.

Optøjerne i Baltimore er venstrefløjens frugter

street-riots-in-baltimore-cover-702x336

Der hærges stadig i den amerikanske by Baltimore. Undskyldningen er en ung sort kriminel, der er død i politiets varetægt. Hillary Clinton mener at det er politiets og det juridiske systems indbyggede racisme, der er problemet i byer som Baltimore, Ferguson og alle andre steder i USA, hvor man oplever race-uro, skriver Business Insider

“There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts. There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes,” Clinton said. “We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”

Clinton’s speech came in the wake of Monday’s racially-charged riots in Baltimore, Maryland, in which violent protesters raged after the funeral of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who died on April 19 after suffering a fatal spinal injury in police custody. The incident is just one of a number of controversial police-involved deaths of African-American men, which protesters have attributed to a racist criminal justice system.

For her part, Clinton said she saw a “unmistakable and undeniable” pattern in their deaths.

“Yet again the family of a young black men is grieving a life cut short. Yet again the streets of an American city are marred by violence, by shattered glass, and shouts of anger and shows of force. Yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare,” she said. ”From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.”

Som jeg henviste til forleden så har hvide amerikanere større risiko for at blive skudt af politiet end sorte - hvis man korrigere for kriminalitet! Og jeg henviste også til Daniel Greenfield, der fortalte at politiet i Baltimore er overvejende sort. Men der er tilsyneladens store problemer med politiet i Baltimore skriver Kevin D Williamson for National Review

Would any sentient adult American be shocked to learn that Baltimore has a corrupt and feckless police department enabled by a corrupt and feckless city government? I myself would not, and the local authorities’ dishonesty and stonewalling in the death of Freddie Gray is reminiscent of what we have seen in other cities. There’s a heap of evidence that the Baltimore police department is pretty bad.

This did not come out of nowhere. While the progressives have been running the show in Baltimore, police commissioner Ed Norris was sent to prison on corruption charges (2004), two detectives were sentenced to 454 years in prison for dealing drugs (2005), an officer was dismissed after being videotaped verbally abusing a 14-year-old and then failing to file a report on his use of force against the same teenager (2011), an officer was been fired for sexually abusing a minor (2014), and the city paid a quarter-million-dollar settlement to a man police illegally arrested for the non-crime of recording them at work with his mobile phone. There’s a good deal more. Does that sound like a disciplined police organization to you

Og han går skridtet videre: “Unless I’m reading the charts wrong, the Baltimore city council is 100 percent Democratic”.

The other Democratic monopolies aren’t looking too hot, either. We’re sending Atlanta educators to prison for running a criminal conspiracy to hide the fact that they failed, and failed woefully, to educate the children of that city. Isolated incident? Nope: Atlanta has another cheating scandal across town at the police academy. Who is being poorly served by the fact that Atlanta’s school system has been converted into crime syndicate? Mostly poor, mostly black families. Who is likely to suffer from any incompetents advanced through the Atlanta police department by its corrupt academy? Mostly poor, mostly black people. Who suffers most from the incompetence of Baltimore’s Democratic mayor? Mostly poor, mostly black families — should they feel better that she’s black? Who suffers most from the incompetence and corruption of Baltimore’s police department? Mostly poor, mostly black families.

And it’s the same people who will suffer the most from the vandalism and pillaging going on in Baltimore, too.

The evidence suggests very strongly that the left-wing, Democratic claques that run a great many American cities — particularly the poor and black cities — are not capable of running a school system or a police department. They are incompetent, they are corrupt, and they are breathtakingly arrogant. Cleveland, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore — this is what Democrats do.

Ifølge Atlantas Derek Thomsen presses middelklassen ud af byerne jo mere venstredrejet boligpolitik der føres. Men måske er der andre grunde, skriver Lloyd Marcis i American Thinker. Den sorte befolkning overrepræsentation i kriminalstatistikkerne er ikke en følge af racismen, men af at sorte generelt opfører sig asocialt. Og det gør de bl.a fordi deres identitet er en mod-identitet, der hviler på at de er undertrykt og i deres undertrykkelse uden ansvar for deres opførsel

How do you expect black youths to react to the Left’s orchestrated campaign to convince them that white Republicans and conservatives are racist and out to get them, that white cops murder them at will, that  the rich got rich stealing from them, and that business owners are selfish and evil?

These lies have been sold to black youths by the highest black voices in the country — Obama, Oprah, Sharpton, Holder, Jackson, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and assorted other race exploiting scumbags. …if I sound angry, it is because I am.

Det var Baltimores egen sorte og demokratiske borgmester, der gav bøller og vandaler fripas - space to destroy - til at smadre Baltimores skattebetalende næringsdrivende forretninger.

Obamas har ikke helet USA

Der var høje forventninger til Barak hussein Obama, da han blev valgt til USAs præsident. Kansas City Stars Mary Sanchez formulerede forhåbningerne således i 2008

On race, however, Obama only has to show up. That’s how it works to be the first minority to achieve any high-profile role. It is a strange phenomenon. Simply by standing in a space long held by the same sorts of people - namely, white men - something shifts in the cosmos. Years ago, when Kansas City, Mo., elected its first black mayor, Emanuel Cleaver (now a member of Congress), some compared his impact on city race relations to the effect a teacher has by standing on the playground at recess. The kids play differently - more nicely. Point being that simply being in the room takes things up a notch.

Nu har han så været her en del år og spændingerne er siden kun steget. Der har været flere prominente sager, hvor ‘race-baiters’ har opviglet sorte masser og venstrefløjen i deciderede racekampe. Overraskende har man taget udgangspunkt i enddog meget dårlige sager, hvis man ville demonstrere et racistisk hvidt USA, der undertrykker den sorte befolkning. Først i rækken var sagen om den jødisk-mexikanske George Zimmerman, der en sen aften i selvforsvar dræbte den sorte Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin dyrkede et afsindigt had til hvide, drak sig høj på Watermelon Lean og var blevet bortvist flere gange fra sin skole på grund af tyveri og konflikter. Den skæbnesvangre aften havde Zimmerman, der var med i et frivilligt lokalt vagtværn, set Trayvon Martin opføre sig mistænkeligt.

Obama undlod blot at være til stede med sin fredsskabende sorthed og pustede istedet til fortællingen om et racistisk mord ved at påstå at det kunne være hans egen søn, der blev skudt. Og derefter blev der imod politiets og den lokale statsanklagers vilje, rejst en sag mod Zimmerman. Zimmerman, der op til retsagen tog 30 kg på, blev renset for alle anklager, men ikke for mistanken. Hans liv siden har været præget af angst og paranoia og han har haft flere voldelige sammenstød med både familie og politiet.

Det samme mønster gentog sig i byen Ferguson, da en hvid betjent, Darren Wilson, skød og dræbte den sorte Michael Brown på åben gade. Brown blev i medierne kaldt the gentle giant og der opstod hurtigt et hysterisk pres for at få Wilson anklaget og dømt for mord. Den lokale anklager valgte stik imod bevisernes substans at give efter for presset ved at holde en udvidet høring, så offentligheden kunne for syn for sagn. Wilson blev pure frifundet. The Gentle Gian havde angrebet Wilson og truet med at slå ham ihjel. Inden da havde han røvet en kasse cigarer fra en lokal forretning - den blev senere brændt ned under pøblens rasende anklager om forrædderi. Sagens beviser kunne ikke ændre hverken mediernes eller pøblens fortælling. Og i marts i år blev to betjente skudt ned i Ferguson i et attentat - begge overlevede.

“I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back” er Guardians Toni Morrison som svar på, hvornår racespændingerne forsvinder. Men ifølge Washington Times så er det krav allerede mere end indfriet

Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

Killed by Police lists every death, justified or not, including those in which the officer had been wounded or acted in self-defense.

“The data doesn’t indicate which shootings are justified (the vast majority) and which are cold-blooded murder (not many, but some). And maybe that would vary by race. I don’t know, but I doubt it,” Mr. Moskos said on his blog.

Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.

“If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”

“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”

Mr. Moskos listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.”

The second is that police assigned to black communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force.

Figures on police shootings by race are thin on the ground, but Mr. Moskos’s results have some support: The investigative journalism website ProPublica came up with a similar percentage in an Oct. 10 article, reporting that 44 percent of all those killed by police were white, using FBI data from 1980 to 2012.

The fact-checking website PolitiFact concluded in August 2014 that police kill more whites than blacks after the claim was made by conservative commentator Michael Medved. PolitiFact cited data from the Centers for Disease Control on fatal injuries by “legal intervention” from 1999 to 2011.

“Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct,” said PolitiFact.

But PolitiFact gave his assertion a “half true” rating because whites make up 63 percent of the population, while blacks make up just 12 percent.

“Yes, more whites than blacks die as a result of an encounter with police, but whites also represent a much bigger chunk of the total population,” PolitiFact said in its Aug. 21 post.

But PolitiFact did not take into account the percentage of those by race involved in violent crime or shootings of police, as Mr. Moskos did.

Despite the recent flood of media coverage involving police shootings, Mr. Moskos advised his readers to “keep all this morbidity in perspective,” reminding them that very few people, white or black, will ever be shot or killed by police.

“The odds that any given black man will shoot and kill a police officer in any given year is slim to none, about one in a million. The odds for any given white man? One in four million,” he said. “The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”

I Baltimore forleden forfaldt en protestdemonstration over Freddie Grays, en sort amerikaner, utidige død i politiets varetægt, i kaos og plyndringer. Det er Obamas time for healing

Ferguson: To betjente skudt

To politibetjente i den amerikanske by Ferguson er blevet skudt skriver Daily Mail

Two police officers have been shot outside the police headquarters in Ferguson where the shooting of a black teenager by a white officer sparked a wave of angry protests across the U.S. last year.

Gunfire erupted during protests following the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson late last night as angry scuffles broke out between officers and the public.

A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41-year-old officer from St Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said.

Both were taken to hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious, but described their injuries as ’serious’ without giving further details.

‘These police officers were standing there and they were shot, just because they were police officers, he added.

A few dozen demonstrators fled following the gunfire, with some screaming that ‘they hit a cop’ around midnight, a photographer with Reuters said.

Nu venter vi på at Obama fordømmer attentatet, men udviser sin forståelse for vreden. Og måske tillige betror os at det kunne være hans egen søn der skød? Vinklen i medierne kører over en bred karm på netop den pointe, den retfærdige vrede mod et racistiske politi. Og de kan bakke påstanden op med en undersøgelse fra Department of Justice, der blev udgivet tidligere på måneden. Information kaldte det en chock-rapport

Statistikken taler sit tydelige sprog. I Ferguson er 67 pct. af befolkningen sort, men i perioden 2012-14 var hele 85 pct. af bilerne, der blev stoppet af politiet, ejet af afroamerikanere. Sorte udgjorde 88 pct. af dem, der blev udsat for politivold og 93 pct. af de arresterede i 2012-14 var sorte.

Så tydeligt taler statistikken dog ikke. Kriminelle bliver oftere uretmæssigt stoppet en lovlydige borgere (i en blanding af almindelig fremtoning og genkendelse ved gengangere) og sorte er blot mere kriminelle end ikke-sorte - af forskellige årsager, grangiveligt. Men der er mistanke om et mafiøst system, da kommunen er tilskyndet til at balancere sine budgetter, gennem bøder fortæller Information videre

Bag tallene skjuler sig et hvidt magtsystem, der ikke alene forskelsbehandler sorte. I Ferguson og – hævder sorte amerikanske ledere – i andre byer landet rundt med afroamerikanske beboere anvender politi og civile myndighedspersoner loven til at udbytte den fattige og sårbare del af befolkningen økonomisk.

I Ferguson giver det sig udslag i åbenlys pengeafpresning af sagesløse borgere med det ene formål at inddrive så store indtægter som muligt til dækning af de relativt høje lønninger, som politi, dommere, embedsmænd og kommunalpolitikere får.

I dette mafiøse magtsystem præmieres politibetjente af kommunalpolitikere for at pålægge borgerne så mange og så store bøder som muligt for alle mulige forseelser, der ofte – ifølge rapporten – er uberettigede og i alle tilfælde intet har at gøre med politiets hovedopgave: at beskytte borgerne.

Retten er underlagt politimesteren, hvorfor det står dommerne frit at afvise anker og fordoble og tredoble bøder, hvis ’synderen’ betaler for sent eller ikke har tilstrækkeligt med penge til at betale det fulde beløb. Domstolen sender jævnligt skyldnere i fængsel. Alene i 2014 var 9.000 af de omkring 21.000 borgere i Ferguson en kort tur bag tremmer. 95 pct. af disse var sorte.

Igen, racisme antages at ligge til grund, når systemet måske blot er udgjort af almindeligt dumme svin. Think Progress har samlet nogle eksempler på racisme, eller i hvert fald på sorte der er blevet behandlet skandaløst. Men når man smider Oscars efter Selma som kompensation for de penge negertragedien ikke kunne indtjene selv så er det fordi jorden for længst er gødet. Hollywwod elsker racisme meget mere end amerikanerne gider praktisere den. Samuel L Jackson ville have sine medcelebriteter til at synge om de racistiske politi, Charlie Shee

Så der kan være andre grunde end indebrændt vrede over at blive undertrykt som forklaring på attentatet på de to betjente. Demontranter i Ferguson krævede Darren Wilson dræbt og mente at USA var racistisk på grund af de hvide. Darren Wilson var den betjent, der i selvforsvar skød og dræbte Michael Brown også kaldet The Gentle Giant. Der fulgte krav om genopbygning, for ellers… Samme ånd gik igennem andre byer. I New York krævede demonstranter højlydt død over politibetjente og to beskikkede forsvarere deltog i en rap med samme død-over-politiet tema. Og Ferguson kunne endda bruges til angreb på Israel og jøder - hvad kan ikke det?

fergusonpalestine

ferguson-jews-control-everything

Darren Wilson blev frikendt i en omstridt høring. Omstridt ikke fordi den rent juridisk var unødvendig, da der ikke eksisterede grund til at rejse tiltale mod Wilson og dermed ingen grund til en høring. Men omstridt fordi anklageren, der gav efter for ballademagernes trusler om vold i gaderne, prøvede at dele sol og vind lige, ved at lade Wilson føre et forsvar, hvad der ikke er en hørings formål.

På Think Progress fandt man ligheder med en anden selvforsvarssag mistænkelig. Her mente man, at den hvide politimand Darren Wilsons forklaring lignede George Zimmermann, den jødiske hispanic, der i selvforsvar dræbte den sorte Trayvon Martin, ubehageligt meget

The description is eerily similar to another lethal confrontation with an unarmed black teen in broad daylight: the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, told police that the teen “jumped out from the bushes” and punched him in the face, knocking him down. “I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe,” he said. “He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode.”

Zimmerman also claimed Martin put his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose and told him, “You’re going to die tonight.”

Both Zimmerman and Darren Wilson told officials that the young men they killed had their hands in their waistbands—suggesting they feared the presence of a weapon when there was none.

Throughout his testimony, Wilson repeatedly referenced Brown’s size, calling him “really big,” “obviously bigger than I was,” and saying he felt “like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan,” though the two men were about the same height.

Later, describing the moment right after he first fired the first bullet, he said Brown “looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon.” In other places, he describes Brown in animalistic terms (“he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound”) and supernatural ones (“it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots”).

Zimmerman offered a vaguer physical description, telling a 911 dispatcher that Martin looked like “real suspicious guy” and saying: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.”

Both Zimmerman and Wilson are free men today, in part because of these accounts and descriptions provided to law enforcement and the courts. Though the public may never know exactly what happened on those days, research shows that hidden biases often lead people to see African Americans as aggressive, superhuman and less vulnerable to pain.

At store bøller er store bøller og derfor beskrives som store bøller (pyha, der undgik jeg at skrive at alle niggere er ens) var typisk hvad der undslap mediernes dækning. Den var fokuseret på fortællinger om virkeligheden udenb at tage virkeligheden i betragtning. For at hamre deres pointe hjem så viste Think Progress, som snart sagt alle andre medier et billede af the gentle giant Darren Brown med studenterhue ved siden af et børnebillede af Trayvon Martin

mikebrown-trayvonmartin

Hvad der dog især lignede hinanden ved fortællingerne var mediernes heksejagt. Breitbart skrev

New York Times had no qualms whatsoever about publishing almost all the information needed for Officer Darren Wilson’s enemies to track him and his wife down at home:

Officer Wilson and [his wife] own a home together on XXXXXXX Lane in XXXXXXXXXX, Mo., a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.

This malicious move by the New York Times has not gone unnoticed by Ferguson’s protesters:

But printing his street name in the nation’s most influential newspaper on the day the grand jury is expected to hand up a decision on the indictment could reignite interest in — and awareness of — the location, and some critics worry that it could result in protesters descending on his home. Slate even went a step further than the Times, publishing an article featuring a photo of the modest, red-brick house on Monday.

A number of Twitter users — some of whom have identified themselves as planning to protest the grand jury decision — have tweeted the location of Wilson’s home as they gear up for rallies. The house number was not printed in the Times, but the street in the St. Louis suburb of Crestwood where it sits is only about two blocks long, and the house number can be easily located via online sources using only the street name and Wilson’s name.

This type of behavior is nothing new from our elite media. When the media was pulling out the stops to electronically lynch George Zimmerman like they are Wilson, CNNbroadcast Zimmerman’s Social Security number to the world.

Thomas Sowell beskrev ligeledes mediernes samspil med pøblen. Og medierne havde deres historie. Jonah Goldberg skrev dengang

Brown wasn’t a person who allegedly robbed a convenience store. He was a stand-in for racial injustice. That’s what was so powerful about Brown’s (probably mythological) “hands up” gesture.

The outrage that followed when the convenience store robbery video was released and details from the grand jury were leaked was at least in part fury at having the narrative muddied. No one likes to see fresh gospel fact-checked. No one wants to hear that their martyr was in fact no angel. And, in the case of Wilson, no one wants to see their demon humanized.

Jesper Steinmetz rapporterede for TV2 News samme dag kendelsen faldt at også sortejede butikker blev stukket i brand, hvilket for ham viste, at der var elementer blandt demonstranterne, der slet ikke respekterer det lille by-samfund. Den indre racisme i den logik var tabt for den samlede presses dækning. Andre grunde til at nogle butikker gik fri skyldtes dog det frie initiativ

tattooguns777-thumb-550x366

Den sorte kultur har kørt sig selv ned i en selvretfærdig skruestik af offergørelse. Og fortællingen er så sexet af løsningens banaliteter virker komiske

En lille diagnose på historieundervisningen

Diverse — Drokles on March 12, 2015 at 5:25 pm

Fra forordet på Niall Ferguson’s Civilization: The West And The Rest.

For roughly thirty years, young people at Western schools and universities have been given the idea of a liberal education, without the substance of historical knowledge. They have been taught isolated ‘modules’, not narratives, much less chronologies. They have been trained in the formulaic analysis of document experts, not in the key skill of reading widely and fast. They have been encouraged to feel empathy with imagined Roman centurions or Holocaust victims, not to write essays about why and how their predicaments arose. In The History Boys, the playwright Alan Bennett posed a ‘trilemma’: should history be taught as a mode of contrarian argumentation, a communion with the past Truth and Beauty, or just ‘one fucking thing after another’? He was evidently unaware that today’s sixth-formers are offered none of the above - at best, they get a handful of ‘fucking things’ in no particular order.

Ekstrabladet snubler i kamp mod Den Korte Avis

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Politik, Pressen, Racisme, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on December 3, 2014 at 1:57 pm

I maj skrev Kommunikationsforum at Den Korte Avis undergraver dansk journalistik og 14/11 fulgte selveste Jyllands-Posten efter med spørgsmålet “Kan Den Korte Avis bestå sin egen test?“. Den Korte Avis dækning af forskellige sager blev bragt op, som også de velkendte sager, hvor den korte Avis har stjålet både artikler og billeder fra de etablerede medier. Allerede dagen efter var Ralf Pittelkow klar med et svar til Jyllands-Posten. 22/11 fulgte Mads Kastrup op på Jyllandspostens kritik og mente at det største problem var at “Ralf Pittelkow ved tilsyneladende lige så meget om journalistik, som en Paradise Hotel-deltager ved om kvantefysik.”. Fordi journalistik er at sammenligne med kvantefysik for Mads Kastrup.

Selv er jeg heller ingen fan af Den Korte Avis. Dens største problem er de mange ubehjælpsomme artikler (flere og værre end denne blog) og deres manglende kilder. Ofte er der tale om næsten rene oversættelser af udenlandske artikler, typisk fra Daily Mail, som giver et mistænkeligt skær af at skribenterne vil smykke sig med lånte fjer. Også den påklistrede forargelse, der kun demonstrerer ringe tiltro til avisens læsere, virker generende. Ja, det er for galt med uretfærdighed og det er noget værre noget. Men Den Korte Avis er til gengæld relevant. Den udbreder de sager som blogge som Uriasposten og Snaphanen ellers har været næsten ene om til et større publikum. Den afkriminaliserer delvist virkeligheden og giver mange mennesker en følelse at de ikke sidder alene med deres “menneskesyn”, men med et klarsyn sammen med mange andre.

Selvom de etablerede medier er professionelle i deres udtryk så begår de mange af de samme synder i lige så rigt mål bag deres polerede overflade. Læs Uriasposten f.eks eller Snaphanen, hvor man ser at de svenske medier er hensunket som et rent propagandaapparat for et indgroet konsensus. Læs en næsten hvilken som helst beskrivelse af vold i Jyllands-Posten, Politiken eller Berlingske Tidende og se på alle de passive sætninger, som journalisten besmykker sig med ud fra en ide om, hvad der lyder fint, men som kun tjener til at sløre sandheden ind til det direkte løgnagtige. En gruppe kan overfalde en enkelt person eller et par og gennembanke dem til ukendelighed, mens de dydige journalister taler om at der opstod uenighed hvorefter der blev uddelt spark og slag hvor den enkelte er parret altså fik brækket arme og ben og mistede tænderne og en god del af deres blod. Læserne har vænnet sig til at journalisterne bruger formuleringer, der lægger sig op ad diplomatsprog - hvor det gælder om ikke at støde følelser fordi man er sikker i sin tro til sproget fineste nuancer opfattes af modtageren - uden at de mestre det. Vi er også vant til at journalisterne ikke stiller de relevante spørgsmål men kun de vante. Hvem har spurgt til, hvor meget indvandringen koster? Hvor mange vi derfor har råd til? Hvorfor nogen tror på det multikulturelle når folk flygter fra sekterisk vold? Hvad islam egentlig handler om osv.

Det gør man ikke. Hvad man gør er at følge efter hinanden indtil alle går i ring. Ekstra Bladet fulgte op på Jyllands-Postens opfølgning på Kommunikationsforums artikel om Den Korte Avis ved at vinkle the human interest og havde Nasse-Karen på forsiden af deres søndagsudgave.

img_26643

Her kunne man læse, hvor lidt politisk arbejde Karen Jespersen egentlig lavede som Folketingsmedlem for Venstre. “Dømt politisk doven“, mens hun for sin fede hyre “Får ministre og embedsmænd til at hoppe og springe for sin private netavis” og andre nøgterne formuleringer.

Siden Den Korte Avis blev søsat i 2012 har hun nemlig brugt sin ret til at stille spørgsmål til ministrene og researche historier og dermed fylde spalterne i sin netavis.

Ud af 77 spørgsmål, som hun har stillet i perioden, har mindst 58 fungeret som research, baseret direkte på historier bragt i Den Korte Aviseller haft tæt tilknytning til artikler og sågar personer, Som Den Korte Avis har skrevet om. Det viser en gennemgang som Ekstra Bladet har foretaget.

Karen Jespersen får dermed ikke blot offentlige mediestøttekroner til Den Korte Avis. Hun bruger sit folketingsmandat og -løn på at udnytte den politiske processtil at skaffe oplysninger til artikler ved at afkræve ministre en lang stribe udvalgssvar og opererer dermed på en helt anden bane end andre journalister, der må spørge, men ikke nødvendigvis kan få et svar.

Ja, det er sure rønnebær for små journalister. Men er problemet så ikke at ministre og embedsmænd ikke svarer den offentlighed de er sat til at betjene? Er historien ikke at Karen Jespersens rugbrødsarbejde snildt kan passes af andre folketingsmedlemmer fra Venstre store gruppe, mens Jespersen bringer folket ind i Folketinget og Folketinget ud til folket? Den slags spørgsmål stiller man ikke når man ikke har andet end sin forargelsesskabelon; at nogen gør noget andre ikke gør og det kan vel ikke være rimeligt, som snart sagt enhver historie på det hensygnende Ekstra Bladet er bukket over. Af samme grund skal man heller ikke chokeres over at socialdemokraten Mogens Lykketoft i sin egenskab af formand for Folketinget citeres for at sige at det “…er en meget uheldig og mærkværdig praksis” og at “Hvis det kommer op til præsidiet, så må vi behandle det der“. Uha, anmodningen er hermed givet videre.

Det kan være Ekstra Bladet og Jyllands-Posten er kede af at de ikke har adgang til offentlige oplysninger som ministre og embedsmænd nidkært hæger over, frem for at betjene offentligheden, som de er sat til - det de sigende kalder ‘at hoppe og springe’. Men er det så Karen Jespersen der er problemet eller symptomet?

Research kan man i hvert fald godt lave når man ikke dækker hemmelighedernes Folketingskammer for pludselig kunne man endelig læse en rigtig gengivelse af begivenhederne i den amerikanske by Ferguson i en dansk avis, nemlig i BT

For det første havde Michael Brown og én af hans kammerater lige stjålet varer fra en lokal butik, hvor den to meter høje Michael Brown også havde truet og skubbet en kvindelig ansat.

Da Darren Wilson få minutter senere bad de to unge om at gå på fortorvet i stedet for gaden, svarede Michael Brown, at han var ’skide ligeglad’ med Wilsons mening.

Da Wilson kort efter genkender Brown fra politiradioens beskrivelse af de to mistænkte i butikstyveriet, opstod der knytnæveslagsmål imellem Michel Brown og politimanden, som sad i sin bil. Og ifølge Wilson forsøgte Brown at få fat i hans tjenesterevolver.

Efter et skud, der passerede igennem Michael Browns højre hånd, løb teenagere væk fra politibilen. Men efter godt 20 meter vendte han pludselig om og løb igen hen imod Darren Wilson.

Politibetjenten advarede gentagne gange: ’Læg dig ned eller jeg skyder’.

Dét gjorde Michael Brown ikke. Darren Wilson gjorde alvor af sine trusler. Og kort tid efter lå den sorte teenager død på gaden i Ferguson.

Nu kunne denne version af begivenhederne selvfølgelig blot være skabt af den hvide ordensmagt - for at rense politimanden.

Men ikke alene er samtlige citerede øjenvidner sorte borgere, der 9. august så alt fra deres altaner eller fra fortorvet. De bekræfter énslydende både knytnævekamp igennem politibilens åbne vindue, Michael Browns flugt og siden løb tilbage imod Darren Wilson og endelig politimandens højlydte advarsler, før skuddene faldt.

Det var sjovt tænkte jeg, for i netop samme Ekstra Bladet søndag, som havde skoset Jespersens arbejde for sin avis, havde ugens hovedperson været Michael Brown.

img_2662

I en hagiografis fortælling får vi at vide at Michael Brown blev kaldt “velopdragen” og “elskede at smile“.”Gentle giant“, “teddybamsen“, “Mike Mike“, “Big Mike“, blev han blandt andet kaldt, et kært barn altså. Brown var ”en typisk sort fyr, der er blevet et produkt af sit miljø” og det miljø var de sidste to år af sit liv Normandy High School, hvor vold, handel med stoffer, våbenbesiddelse, tyveri og slåskampe var hverdag. Brown elskede rap og drømte om en musikkarriere hvorfor han sagde nej til fætterens jobtilbud. Men, skriver Ekstrabladet, hans eftermæle blev givet af betjenten, der dræbte ham; “at Mike også havde en mørk side; en ung sort og kriminel overfaldsmand, der nægtede at rette sig efter ordensmagten med en ‘dæmonisk vrede, der fik ham til at ligne Hulk Hogan’“. Den skiderik, godt Time Magazine offentliggjorde hans adresse til pøblen efter de første dødstrusler løb ind.

img_2663

En faktaboks der forklarer hvorfor Darren Wilson gik fri. Ifølge Ekstra Bladet gik Darren Wilson altså fri fordi myndighederne lod Michael Browns lig ligge i sommervarmen og fordi et fakkeltog endte i optøjer og fordi Wilson blev identificeret i offentligheden og fordi nationalgarden blev sat ind. Nej, Darren Wilson gik fri fordi de tekniske beviser og de saglige vidner støttede hans udlægning, som man kan læse ovenfor.

Og Ekstra Bladet spørger ikke Mads Fuglede, som de selv har valgt til ekspert, hvad han egentlig mener med at ‘afroamerikanerne’ “...ville opnå større fremskridt, hvis de sikrede sig et bedre lederskab“. Er afroamerikanere ikke borgere i USA med de samme ledere som hvide og mexi’er? Og hvem er så i så fald de hvides ledere? Eller er Obama en kokosnød? Ekstra Bladets journalistiske research formår kun at hyle med gadens parlament for et pøbelvælde.

Pøbelvælde

Diverse — Drokles on November 27, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Jyllands-Posten har denne lille beskrivelse af en reaktion efter politibetjenten Darren Wilson undgik at der blev rejst tiltale mod ham

I videoen, der blandt andet kan ses på New Yorks Times’ hjemmeside, kan man se Michael Browns mor tale til demonstranterne. Stærkt bevæget siger hun til demonstranterne, at hun har boet i Ferguson i hele sit og aldrig gjort nogen noget, inden hun bryder sammen i gråd.

Hun trøstes af de omkringværende familiemedlemmer, men pludselig kommer Michael Browns stedfar op til hende knuser hende, inden han vender sig om og råber “brænd stedet ned” flere gange.

Og det gjorde de, brændte alt muligt ned, inklusiv familien Browns kirke. Det venstredrejede Think Progress har en forstemmende men fin lille serie billeder om ødelæggelserne

ferguson-morning-after-6-638x359

Og Think Progress har også talt mod nogle indbyggere. De vidner om politibrutalitet

Winfield explained that the decision to set fire to certain stores along W. Florissant Avenue was strategic. Protesters targeted stores they felt were allied with the community, like the beauty store that was torched, citing mistreatment of local residents by business owners.

But Winfield says that the tragic situation has yielded some positive outcomes. “I think it’s been good for the community; it put a light on us.” He alluded to the people he would never have encountered if Mike Brown had not lost his life. “I’m glad that it brought the people together.”

(…)

Her husband, David Whitt, who started the local Cop Watch chapter in Ferguson to film police activity, felt similarly, and talked about the way racial tensions in Ferguson have affected the black community. “They train us to hate ourselves. When I was in Berkeley with people who started Cop Watch, I told them that when you talk about coming to Ferguson to help, [they] have to understand that these are freed Americans that are still treated like slaves and are mentally still enslaved. ”

Men Viral Buzz minder sobert om de mennesker der får brændt deres forretninger af

These are not rich people with overseas bank accounts, these are the real people of Ferguson, MO who have taken risks, opened businesses, and go to work every day to provide for their family. These are the people who create jobs and paychecks and contribute to the well-being of everyone in the community; productive members of the Ferguson community who are having their lives destroyed in the name of justice.

(…)

The now famous footage of Michael Brown robbing Ferguson Market and pushing the owner out of the way as he steals cigars from his store only minutes before being shot.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-25-at-10.16.27-AM

Now we see the aftermath of the looting that took place as rioters destroyed their own town in response to the death of Michael Brown.

The man surveying the wreckage of the store who s the owner of Ferguson Market and Liquor. The now-famous owner who attempted to stop Michael Brown from robbing his store but was pushed away by the much larger Brown.

Negerderoute

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Race, Racisme, venstrefløjen — Drokles on November 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Vi venter i spænding på dommen i Ferguson, hvor en politimand står anklaget for at have skudt en ubevæbnet teenager. En sort teenager, hvorfor der er store spændinger, som venstrefløjen elsker at opdyrke. Det er noget med strukturel racisme og undertrykte masser og minoriteter på een og samme gang. Jeg kom til at tænke på, hvor langt USA egentlig er nået i forholdet mellem sorte og hvide siden slaveriet blev ophævet da Daily Mail forleden viste nogle billeder fra en svunden tid med segregering i de amerikanske sydstater.

1415915696272_wps_2_must_link_back_to_site_ht

1415915696285_wps_4_must_link_back_to_site_ht

1415915696332_wps_11_must_link_back_to_site_ht

Billederne er fra Alabama og er taget af Gordon Parks i 1956. De vidner om en tid med institutionaliseret racisme og det midt i den frie verden. Ikke alting var bedre i gamle dage. Men som det fremgår af billederne, så fremstod sorte amerikanere med en værdighed, der trodsede det uværdige system, der holdt dem som 2. rangs borgere. Negre var mennesker og derfor også borgere og borgere måtte have rettigheder. Borgerretsbevægelsen havde ret, helt ret.

Men bevægelsens succes fik sit eget liv og et momentum, som ikke lod sig stoppe. Revolutionen skulle snart æde sine børn. For ligeret blev til krav om ligemageri og værdighed blev fortrængt af berettigelse. En fortælling om slaveri og undertrykkelse blev en identitet, retfærdighed blev til selvretfærdighed. Thomas Sowell skriver i National Review Online

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

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

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

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

The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies. Public-housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public-housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley’s insightful new book, Please Stop Helping Us.

Og i samme periode faldt den ellers stabile sorte famile fra hinanden, som man kan læse hos Discover The Networks

Illegitimacy is an important issue because it has a great influence on all statistical indicators of a population group’s progress or decline. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women, and that trend continued uninterrupted until the passage of welfare reform. The black out-of-wedlock birth rates in some inner cities now exceed 80 percent, and most of those mothers are teens. Because unmarried teenage mothers—whatever their race—typically have no steady employment, nearly 80 percent of them apply for welfare benefits within five years after giving birth to their first child. No group can withstand such a wholesale collapse of its family structure without experiencing devastating social consequences.

Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of our society’s economic ladder. Unwed mothers, regardless of their race, are four times more likely to live in poverty than the average American. Female-headed black families earn only 36 percent as much as two-parent black families, and female-headed white families earn just 46 percent as much as two-parent white families. Not only do unmarried mothers tend to earn relatively little, but their households are obviously limited to a single breadwinner—thus further widening the income gap between one-parent and two-parent families. Fully 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.

(…)

Children in single-parent households are raised not only with economic, but also social and psychological, disadvantages. For instance, they are four times as likely as children from intact families to be abused or neglected; much likelier to have trouble academically; twice as prone to drop out of school; three times more likely to have behavioral problems; much more apt to experience emotional disorders; far likelier to have a weak sense right and wrong; significantly less able to delay gratification and to control their violent or sexual impulses; two-and-a-half times likelier to be sexually active as teens; approximately twice as likely to conceive children out-of-wedlock when they are teens or young adults; and three times likelier to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.

In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. As Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector has noted, “Illegitimacy is a major factor in America’s crime problem. Lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the crime rate.”

Since the black illegitimacy rate is so high, these pathologies plague blacks more than they affect any other demographic. “Even if white people were to become morally rejuvenated tomorrow,” writes black economist and professor Walter E. Williams, “it would do nothing for the problems plaguing a large segment of the black community. Illegitimacy, family breakdown, crime, and fraudulent education are devastating problems, but they are not civil rights problems.”

(…)

It bears mention that the astronomical illegitimacy rate among African Americans is a relatively recent phenomenon. As late as 1950, black women nationwide were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9 percent of black families with children were headed by a single parent. In the 1950s, black children had a 52 percent chance of living with both their biological parents until age seventeen; by the 1980s those odds had dwindled to a mere 6 percent. In 1959, only 2 percent of black children were reared in households in which the mother never married; today that figure approaches 60 percent.

The destruction of this stable black family was set in motion by the policies and teachings of the left, which for decades have encouraged blacks to view themselves as outcasts from a hostile American society; to identify themselves as perpetual victims who are entitled to compensatory privileges designed to “level the playing field” in a land where discrimination would otherwise run rampant; and to reject “white” norms and traditions as part and parcel of the “racist” culture that allegedly despises blacks.

Dyrkelsen af en sort kultur er ikke stort andet end et vræng, af de aspirationer, der drev borgerretsbevægelsen.

Rosa Parks ville ikke sidde på en bestemt plads i bussen. Hun ville sidde som et hvert andet menneske, ikke som en neger.

The Gentle Giant i Ferguson

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Race, Racisme, USA — Drokles on September 17, 2014 at 4:35 am

Fra tid til anden gennemgår USA nærmest rituelt en racedebat når en sort amerikaner placeres i en eller anden offerrolle i forhold til de hvides undertrykkende hegemoni. Her i Europa husker vi nok da Los Angeles oplevede nogle af de værste uroligheder efter 4 politifolk blev frikendt for at have gennemtævet vaneforbryderen og drukkenbolten Rodney King efter en biljagt. Over et halvt hundrede mennesker blev dræbt, da sorte amerikanere forvanlede sig til en rasende pøbel, der hævnede hvad de så som endnu et udslag af den strukturelle racisme på primært andre minoriteter. Da den amerikanske tidligere sportsstjerne O J Simpson et par år dolkede sin hvide kone og hendes jødiske ‘ven’ til døde var anklagen fra det sorte samfund igen at Simpson ville blive dømt fordi han var sort og ikke et morderisk røvhul. Og sorte følte sig igen som ofre da latinojøden George Zimmerman blev frikendt for i selvfosvar at have skuddræbt den sorte Trayvon Martin.

Der har været mange andre pøbeloptøjer. Alene i heleren Obamas periode har man foruden balladen om George Zimmerman også haft Oscar Grant optøjerne i 2009 som flammede op efter den sorte Oscar Grant blev skuddræbt af en politimand i Oakland i Californien. I 2012 udbrød der uroligheder da politiet dræbte bandemedlemmet Manuel Diaz og året efter politiet i Brooklyn skød og dræbte den kun 16 årige Kimani Gray. Og i sommer var det så hvide politifolk, der igen dræbte en sort mand i Ferguson i Missouri.

Michael Brown was 6-foot-4 and 290 pounds. He had marijuana in his system and was purportedly involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. He and a companion were walking in the middle of the street and obstructing traffic and therefore were admonished by a police officer to move to the sidewalk. Brown, who may have been pharmacologically impaired, became belligerent, and the ensuing struggle produced facial trauma and an orbital fracture of the police officer’s face. The officer, who may have been dazed by a blow to the cranium severe enough to produce a fracture, attempted to apprehend the assailant, and shots were fired, six of which struck the suspect, resulting in a fatality.

Det skriver Ben Carson på National Review og Thomas Sowell, der også er negerfarvet skriver i Townhall

Race is the wild card in all this. The idea that you can tell who is innocent and who is guilty by the color of their skin is a notion that was tried out for generations, back in the days of the Jim Crow South. I thought we had finally rejected that kind of legalized lynch law. But apparently it has only been put under new management.

Television people who show the home of the policeman involved, and give his name and address — knowing that he has already received death threats — are truly setting a new low. They seem to be trying to make themselves judge, jury and executioner.

Then there are the inevitable bullet counters asking, “Why did he shoot him six times?” This is the kind of thing people say when they are satisfied with talking points, and see no need to stop and think seriously about a life and death question. If you are not going to be serious about life and death, when will you be serious?By what principle should someone decide how many shots should be fired? The bullet counters seldom, if ever, ask that question, much less try to answer it.

Since the only justifiable reason for shooting in the first place is self-protection, when should you stop shooting? Obviously when there is no more danger. But there is no magic number of shots that will tell you when you are out of danger.

Even if all your shots hit, that doesn’t mean anything if the other guy keeps coming and is still a danger. You can be killed by a wounded man.

David Horowitz skriver i Frontpage Magazine

Why isn’t anyone speaking the most obvious and most disturbing truth about what has been taking place in Ferguson? This is a lynch mob. It is unconcerned with the facts, impatient with due process, and it wants a severely injured officer who is probably the victim of a vicious criminal thug, indicted, tried and convicted or else. And the reason it wants him convicted is that he is white. This lynch mob even wants the prosecutor removed because his father was the victim of a black criminal 50 years ago.

This thuggery would be seen as classic lynch mob behavior except that it is composed mainly of blacks and its leaders include the Democrat Attorney General of the United States and the Democratic Governor the state of Missouri (on second thought this not so unusual). The mob is inflamed and abetted by an anti-white media that accepts the unfounded, actually ludicrous idea that unarmed black teens are regularly shot down in the streets by white police officers who are protected by a white supremacist power structure. As Bill O’Reilly courageously pointed out, there are approximately 12 million arrests every year in America and only 400 police shootings – and how many of these inspire criminal riots in the streets? Moreover, as O’Reilly did not mention, crime statistics show that a white person is 25 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a black person than vice versa.

Og hvor der er en pøbel er der også nogle til at ægge pøblen skriver Jonah Goldberg i National Review

The rush to condemn Wilson’s conduct and the gallop to martyr Brown may have set land-speed records. The New Yorker, like numerous outlets, reported that Brown was walking to his grandmother’s home when confronted by Wilson. A video released from the by turns hapless and devious Ferguson Police Department alleges that he was actually walking from a thuggish and brazen shoplifting of a box of cigars from a convenience store.

That video is almost surely irrelevant to Wilson’s state of mind, since the police said he didn’t know about the shoplifting incident. It is, however, inconvenient from the martyrdom angle.

But don’t tell that to the legions of too-often-interchangeable activists, commentators, and reporters who have convinced themselves that we know exactly what happened, or at least all we need to know.

Al Sharpton, with decades of racial ambulance-chasing under his belt, insists that “America is on trial” in Ferguson.

Of course he does.

The New Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam claim that their groups control the situation in Ferguson. And the Ku Klux Klan is dipping its pillowcase-covered beak into this mess now, rounding out the whole legion of doom.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, with days of experience in such things under his belt, announced on Twitter, “I think the security problem in Ferguson is not solvable through policing. Until charges are brought against Wilson, this will go on.”

Mark Steyn er derimod kritisk overfor politiets kompetencer og selvbillede.

The point about “the thin blue line” is that it’s blue for a reason. As I wrote a couple of months ago:

“The police” is a phenomenon of the modern world. It would be wholly alien, for example, to America’s Founders. In the sense we use the term today, it dates back no further than Sir Robert Peel’s founding of the Metropolitan Police in 1829. Because Londoners associated the concept with French-style political policing and state control, they were very resistant to the idea of a domestic soldiery keeping them in line. So Peel dressed his policemen in blue instead of infantry red, and instead of guns they had wooden truncheons.

So, when the police are dressed like combat troops, it’s not a fashion faux pas, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of who they are. Forget the armored vehicles with the gun turrets, forget the faceless, helmeted, anonymous Robocops, and just listen to how these “policemen” talk. Look at the video as they’re arresting the New York Times and Huffington Post reporters. Watch the St Louis County deputy ordering everyone to leave, and then adding: “This is not up for discussion.”

Really? You’re a constable. You may be carrying on like the military commander of an occupying army faced with a rabble of revolting natives, but in the end you’re a constable. And the fact that you and your colleagues in that McDonald’s are comfortable speaking to your fellow citizens like this is part of the problem. The most important of the “nine principles of good policing” (formulated by the first two commissioners of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 and thereafter issued to every officer joining the force) is a very simple one: The police are the public and the public are the police. Not in Ferguson. Long before the teargassing begins and the bullets start flying, the way these guys talk is the first indication of how the remorseless militarization has corroded the soul of American policing.

Which brings us back to the death of Michael Brown. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything the police say about this incident is correct. In that case, whether or not the fatal shooting of Mr Brown is a crime, it’s certainly a mistake. When an unarmed shoplifter* in T-shirt and shorts with a five-buck cigar box in one hand has to be shot dead, you’re doing it wrong.

American police have grown too comfortable with the routine use of lethal force. To reprise a few statistics I cited three months ago:

So the biggest government in the free world chooses not to keep statistics on how many people get shot by law enforcement. So be it. It does keep figures on “justifiable homicide”, which it defines as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement official in the line of duty“. When is a police homicide not “justifiable”? Ah, well. At any rate, for 2012, the corpse count was 410.

By comparison, for the years 2012 and 2013 in England and Wales:

‘No fatal police shootings.’

In the Netherlands:

‘The average for the last 35 years is three dead and 15 injured…’

In Germany, a nation of 80 million people, police in 2011 fatally shot six persons. In Denmark, police shot 11 people in 11 years, and this was felt to be so disturbing that the National Police Commissioner held an inquiry into why his cops had gotten so trigger-happy. In Australia, 41 people were shot by police in eight years, and the then Justice Minister Amanda Vanstone (whose friend thinks I’m “eminently shaggable“, but I digress) thought that that was too high. In Iceland, police have fatally shot just one suspect. That’s one guy in the entire history of the country. He was killed by police last December.

So comparisons between the kill rates from American police and those of other developed nations aren’t worth bothering with. Indeed, the “justifiable homicides” of US cops are more like the total murder count for other advanced societies:

In Oz, the total number of murders per year is about 270, so a nation of 23 million would have to increase by 50 per cent to commit as many homicides as American law enforcement. In Canada, whose urban police departments have absorbed certain American practices, a dozen or so people get shot dead by cops each year, which is again somewhat short of the US rate. Indeed, that 2012 “justifiable homicide” figure of 410 compares to a total Canadian homicide count for 2011 of 598. In other words, in America 120,000 or so full-time law enforcement officers rack up the same number of homicides as about 24 million Canadians.

That strikes me as on the high side.

Et par dage senere blev endnu en ung sort mand skudt af politiet i Ferguson. Ifølge det venstredrejede Think Progress er politiets version, igen, ikke i overensstemmelse med virkeligheden.

On August 20, the police released a cell phone video of the shooting. The confrontation in the video appears to differ substantially from the official police account. The police had said the man — identified as Kajieme Powell — confronted them aggressively while holding a knife with an overhand grip. According to the initial account, Powell was shot when he was just three or four feet from the officers.

In the video, the officers also appear to handcuff Powell after he was killed.

Videoen kan ses HER. Og ligeledes i balancens navn, så er her et uvidenskabeligt eksperiment, der tilsyneladende viser at man reagerer forskelligt alt efter om folk er høje eller lave.

Men, som sorte amerikaneres reaktionsmønstre og vrede stammer fra erfaringerne med den hvide undertrykker, hvad tænker hvide så? Samtidig med skyderierne i Ferguson angreb en sort pøbel tre hvide studerende skrev American Thinker

To the four clean-cut college freshman out on a double date, it had seemed like a typical McDonald’s: spanking clean, well-lighted, and safe. It was in a good neighborhood too, right next to Texas A&M University in College Station – a campus known for its friendly atmosphere and official down-home greeting: “howdy.”

Shortly after 2 A.M. that Sunday, they pulled into the parking lot of so-called “University McDonald’s”  and beheld a scene unlike anything portrayed in all those wholesome McDonald’s television commercials. Before them, hundreds of young black males were loitering about, some without shirts.

Other local residents — the more cynical and world-weary, both whites and most blacks — would have taken one look at the crowd and driven off, dismissing many of the young and posturing black males as thugs. But not them: innocent white kids from the suburbs. They presumed this was post-racial America — and that they were in an easy-going college town.

Twenty minutes later, two of them were dead.

Og Frontpage Magazine kunne senere bringe et sort pøbels overfald på kunder og ansatte ved en døgnkiosk

“Hold on, they got a white dude.” And it sure seemed like fun — if the laughing and shrieking on this latest video of black mob violence is any indication.

This racial mayhem happened Saturday night in Memphis at a Kroger’s department store. WMCA Channel 5 out of Jackson, Mississippi picks up the story, all of it except the central organizing feature of the violence: All of the hundreds of people involved in the mayhem and violence are black. Except the victims. They are white:

“Three people were jumped by a large group of teenagers who were chanting ‘fam mob.’” The group, who came from CiCi’s Pizza, reportedly attacked a 25-year-old customer as he left his car to enter Kroger. Two employees, ages 17 and 18, were attacked while trying to stop the fight. Both were “struck several times in the head and face, while being knocked to the ground.” The victims say large pumpkins were thrown at their heads. They both eventually were knocked unconscious.”

However serious it seemed to the victims, the predators and their videographer were having a good time. Laughing and running.

Og senere kunne Obama, hvis han havde haft en søn, se ham og hans venner udføre en happy slapping

Lidt historie om fascisme

Jeg er i færd med at læse Niall Fergusons The War of the World. Det er altid værd at læse om mellemkrigsårene, hvis man vil forstå lidt om fascismens dragning. Den geopolitiske virkelighed, de kulturelle og nationale dynamikker er selvfølgelig centrale, men det er som bekendt også vigtigt at se de politiske strømninger i lyset af depressionen. Fra indtrædelsestalen 4. marts 1933, hvor temaet var en fordømmelse af den umiddelbare fortid og en opfordring til national genfødsel:

“Values have shrunken til fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withering leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little in return,”

Skylden lagde han på “the rulers of mankind’s goods… through their own stubbornness and their own incometence” men “[the] practices of the unscrupulous moneychangers” stod nu “indicted in the court of public opinion” og var “rejected in by the hearts and minds of men”

“Faced with failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by wich to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. they have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilisation. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. [klapsalver] The measure of restoration lies in the extend to wich we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”

Han fortsatte med at modsætte “the falsity of material wealth” med “the joy and moral stimulation of work”, modsatte sig “the standards of pride of place and personal profit” og “[the] the callous and selfish wrongdoing” der havde kendetegnet både det finansielle som det politiske liv. “this nation asks for action and action now!”

Og det var friske, enda revolutionerende tiltag, hvor jobs skulle skabes “by direct recruitment by the government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war”. Arbejdskraften skulle begynde på “greatly need projects to stimulate and reorganize our natural resources” samtidigt med at man skulle korrigere “the overbalance of population in our industrial centres” og der ville komme en “redistribution” af arbejdskraften “to provide a better use of the land for those fitted for the land”. Han ville indtroducere et system af “national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities” og “a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments” for at gøre en ende på “speculation with other peoples money”, hvilket vakte vild jubel blandt tilhørerne. Landets internationale handelsrelationer måtte træde i baggrunden for “the establishment of a sound national economy”. Og med sin stemme på vej mod sit klimaks:

“We must move as a trained an loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.”

Ikke helt tilfreds med en militariseret nation endte han med en krads advarsel til de nyvalgte lovgiere “An unpresedented demand an need for undelayed action may call from temporary departure form… the normal balance of executive and legislative authority” forstået at hvis ikke hans planer blev vedtaget “the only remaining instrument to meet the crisis - broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we where in fact invaded by a foreign foe”. Denne sidste line vandt ham det sørste bifald.

Heldigvis var USA ikke Tyskland for hvem ved hvilke ulykker Franklin Delano Roosevelt ville have bragt med sig, hvis han havde magt som han havde agt. Hitler holdt en bemærkelsesværdig lignende tale da han indtrådte i sit embede et par uger senere.

Gayropa på grænsen til virkeligheden

Diverse — Drokles on March 12, 2014 at 12:28 pm

The New Republic er lettere forargede over det russiske udtryk “Gayropa” og foreslår at Europa svarer igen på Ruslands aggression med bøssede midler

Tourism in the European Union is a safety valve for a large Russian middle class that takes its cues in fashion and pretty much everything else from European culture.

Ja, mangel på modetøj skal nok tvinge dem i knæ. Jim Geraghty spørger derfor i National Review om folk er tilfredse med enden på Pax Americana

Dear World beyond Our Borders,

These are your choices:

  1. A world where the United States government and its military, supplied by corporations you find distasteful, responds to aggression and provocations through shows of force and military interventions. These interventions — sometimes on a large scale and sometimes on a small scale — inflict regrettable but inevitable collateral damage on civilians. These actions are ones that in the past you have labeled “imperialist” and “aggressive” and that prompt you to lament that the world is being run by “cowboys” and — the post-millennial all-purpose pejorative label — “neocons.”
  2. A world where the United States government and its military do not respond this way, and disputes about territory, ideology, and power beyond our borders are hashed out by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, various jihadist factions (including those so violent and bloodthirsty that not even al-Qaeda wants to be associated with them), terror-for-hire groups like the Haqqani network, and anyone else who wants in on the brawl.

Pick one. There is no “Option C” where the United Nations suddenly becomes an effective, respected peacekeeping force. There is no “Option D” where the world’s strong men and brutes are talked into taking up yoga and become calm, mellow guys, eager to hug it out.

The death toll is much, much higher under option B. But that’s your call. Maybe you’re okay with that.

C47341-10

Mike Konrad skriver i American Thinker, at Gayropas selvlede startede med den gamle orden Wienerfredens sammenbrud. For skønt vestmagterne vandt 1. Verdenskrig og besejrede den kontinentale imperialisme og totalitarisme så efterlod blodbaddet Europa traumatiseret

But the victory was Pyrrhic. It had come at such a fearsome price that victory had not proved a vindication of Western ideals, but had caused many to question their merit. The resulting lack of confidence caused the West to lack the resolve to put down extremism in Russia, though it could have done so easily in 1918.  European forces would abandon a hard won Constantinople – an historic Christian seat — and let the Turkish Muslims retake it in 1923.

Islam, which had been brought to the edge of collapse, was given a breather to recover.  Peoples of color would lose all respect for the white man when their volunteer soldiers came home from the bloodbath.  White claims of superiority were shown to be a lie after Africans, Asians, and Arabs had seen whites slaughter each other by the millions.

Atheism came into vogue in Europe after World War I, and never left. The clergy of each particular nation had supported the war, and encouraged men off to their deaths.  To the Europeans, God had died on Flanders’ fields.  Europe is now post-Christian.

Rather than democracy being triumphant, totalitarianism arose, far more fearsome and savage than anything that had come out of the tyrannies of the Czar or the autocracy of the Kaiser.  Lenin would replace the Czar, and eventually, Hitler the Kaiser.

Some historian, such as Niall Ferguson have even averred that it would have been better had Britain stayed out and let Germany win. In light of the consequences, who can say he is wrong

(…)

When WWI ended, European society would be forever broken.  It has not recovered. Right now, demographic rates show that Europe is not even reproducing itself at replacement levels.  Europe has lost the will to live.

Patriotism is all but dead in Western Europe.

Religion is dead.  Most West European nations are nowhere near American church attendance.

It is easy for us Americans to criticize the Europeans; but we did not go through the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II in our own backyard.  58,000 dead in Vietnam over a decade was enough to bring us Americans to social disruption.  Europe saw that many die in one day during the Napoleonic Wars at Borodino.

Starting in 1914, Western Civilization collapsed.   Even the victory of 1918 by the Allies could not hide the damage.   Since then, despite its rising prosperity, the West has lost the will to live… as evinced by it collapsing demographic – and abortion rates where the West kills its unborn.

The White race went from being supremacists to having an inferiority complex.

We in America are presently the last redoubt of the West.  We may not be in as severe a retreat as the rest of the West, but we are retreating.  We have to do some serious soul searching if Western Civilization is to survive.  Europe may be lost.

A hundred years after 1914, on the anniversary of the disaster, the West has to change its attitude and policies.

Amerikanernes atomparaply under den kolde krig har efterladt Europa i socialingeniørernes illusioner. Måske Ruslands gammeldags magtpolitik kan vække os?

)

A man may climb Everest for himself, but at the summit he plants his country’s flag

Diverse — Drokles on April 10, 2013 at 8:13 am

My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.

Citatet, som overskriften er fra Margeret Thatcher og taget fra en top 25 over Thatcher citater, (der dog ikke indeholder ”No, no, no”) og det bliver ikke meget bedre end det. Daily Mail gør status over det England Thatcher arvede

It is hard to exaggerate the pitiful state of Britain in the Seventies. The reckless economic policy of Mrs Thatcher’s predecessor as Tory leader, Ted Heath, who between 1970 and 1974 printed money as though it were going out of fashion, had left a legacy of high inflation, peaking at 27 per cent in 1975.

But the Labour administrations of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan between 1974 and 1979 made things even worse.

Wilson began by buying off trades unions with budget-busting pay rises and implemented a programme of food and housing subsidies that owed more to the Soviet bloc than to a supposedly western economy.

Jim Callaghan succeeded him in April 1976 and continued to spend money the country did not have.

A refusal to accept that Britain could not spend its way out of trouble led to the International Monetary Fund having to rescue the country from bankruptcy in the autumn of 1976. The severe spending cuts the IMF ordered in return for its financial assistance aggravated relations between the Labour government and its notional supporters in the trade union movement.

Led in those days by hard Leftists such as Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union, militant workers were more than happy to strike recklessly and at will.

Labour was still wedded to the concept of nationalised industries. British Leyland, famed for turning out ugly, rust-bucket cars, went bankrupt in 1975, partly because of the shoddy quality of its products, partly because its productivity and competitiveness were wrecked by its militant workforce.

Leyland was split into four divisions and its strike-plagued Longbridge plant was refitted at the massive cost of £140?million — equivalent to £1?billion today.

The cars still failed to sell, proving that the state was appalling at running industries.

The other big nationalised industries — coal, steel, power and the railways — were overmanned, heavily subsidised, unable to compete internationally and a drain on the taxpayer. The phones were nationalised, too, and it could take six months to get a line installed. Without a serious restructuring of the economy, Britain would not only never join the modern world — it would go bust.

Things were grim for the private sector. The top rate of tax on earned income was 83 per cent, which drove thousands of the best and brightest abroad.

It was an astonishing 98 per cent on unearned income, such as dividends, which prevented many people from investing in industry. Starved of investment, industry became ever more sclerotic.

The private sector was also held hostage by the unions. From 1976 a dispute had been running for two years at Grunwick, a London photo-processing laboratory, over the management’s refusal to recognise unions.

It came to symbolise the struggle between management and unions in pre-Thatcherite Britain.

Grunwick was a small company, but the dispute became a flashpoint between the Left and Right, with Marxist supporters of the union members questioning the owners’ right to run their company the way they wanted. There were endless confrontations and clashes on its picket line, and the nation was divided over it. However, in the end the House of Lords upheld the management’s right not to recognise unions among its workforce.

It was the start of the turn of the tide for the union movement, but its most destructive acts were yet to come.

By the winter of 1978-79, the public sector unions — accounting for more than a quarter of the workforce — were petitioning the Callaghan government for massive pay rises, but these were vetoed in accordance with the Labour government’s prices and incomes policy.

Callaghan wanted pay rises limited to 5 per cent in the public and private sector. He threatened sanctions on companies that broke the guidelines, only to find that Ford awarded their workers 17 per cent late in 1978. The unions renewed their unaffordable demands.

Lorry drivers — including those employed by oil companies and members of the TGWU — demanded a 40 per cent pay rise. The Army had to be placed on standby in case fuel supplies could not be moved.

From January 3, 1979, an unofficial strike of the drivers began and petrol stations started to close across the country.

Flying pickets — politically motivated militants who toured the country looking for workers to intimidate — turned drivers away at oil refineries.

Regulations for a state of emergency had to be drawn up, its implementation averted only when the TGWU agreed to a list of essential supplies that they would allow to be moved.

Eventually their demands were settled with a 20 per cent rise. Meanwhile, fearing they would be left behind, public sector workers organised the biggest day of industrial action since the 1926 general strike.

On January 22, 1979, the country was paralysed by a rail strike. NHS employees worked to rule. Ambulance drivers went on strike, with the Army again having to be called in to deal with emergency cases.

But the wave of strikes achieved their greatest notoriety in the actions of local government employees.

Rubbish went uncollected in many cities, creating an image of rat-infested squalor and chaos that was beamed around the world.

Most infamous of all was the unofficial strike of gravediggers in Liverpool, which led to the dead going unburied and coffins piling up.

In February 1979, when asked what would happen if the strike was not settled, the city’s chief medical officer suggested that the authorities would have to consider burial at sea.

The Callaghan government lost a vote of confidence on March 28, 1979, and a general election was called. Against the background of militancy the previous winter, Mrs Thatcher made reform of the unions and the removal of their legal immunities central to her campaign.

None of this was reported by the so-called paper of record, the Times — it was closed down for a year while its workers went on strike.

Michael Caine skriver (frit efter hukommelsen) i sin selvbiografi “What’s it all about” om Thatcher; “She got the british of their asses, but ,maybe she forgot those who only made it to their knees”. Det har været kritikernes anstødssten mod Thatcher og de har haft held til at gøre alle uretfærdigheder og social nød i England til et produkt af Thatcher.

Den surrealistiske socialrealistiske TV serie Boys From The Black Stuff var virkeligt noget i mit lille barndomshjem, der gjorde indtryk. Der var nu heller ikke andet på TV. Det var især, eller vel rettere, for mit vedkommende kun, Yosser Hughes’ desperate “Gis’ a job! - I can do that!” og hans effektive ’skaller’ til alle som kom ham for meget på tværs, der sidder printet i min lille hjerne - en hjerne der var for lille til helt at forstå Hughes’ afmægtighed og hans balance på sammenbruddets rand, når han også, som en autist hamrede sit hoved mod vægge og døre og hvad som helst, mens hans børn så betuttet på.

Mange troede fejlagtigt at Boys From The Black Stuff handlede om Thatcher Englad fordi serien kom frem i 1982, men manuskriptet er skrevet i 1978. Den handler om det England, som Thatcher overtog, Labour’s og venstrefløjens England, et England kørt helt i sænk under venstrefløjens og fagforeningernes konspiration mod skatteyderne.

Og læg mærke til “The Emperor of Anfield” Grahame Souness et kvarter inde. Well, som spiller var han kejser, men som træner kørte han holdet så langt bag af dansen samtidig med den onde Fergusons skabte et monster, at Liverpool den dag i dag endnu ikke er kommet sig. Men det var nu ikke venstrefløjens skyld (Bill Shankley var endda selv erklæret kommunist, men på sin egen spradebasse måde med udtalelser som “Chairman Mao has never seen a greater show of red strength”)

“Muslimen er ude af stand til at tænke”

Diverse — Drokles on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Det ser slemt ud for Europa, med de mange muslimer der kommer væltende ind over grænsen og opfører sig muslimsk, uden at antyde hverken evnen eller viljen til at kunne lægge det fra sig. Men vi overser måske, hvor meget værre det ser ud for den islamiske verden. Ikke forstået ironisk, at de er fanget i at være den islamiske verden og leve som muslimer omgivet af andre muslimer. Men at islam er en døende uvane. Noget så sjældent som en begavet muslim analyserer den islamiske verdens idioti og kæder det så rigtigt og logisk sammen med den islamiske verdens problemer

David P Goldman, som også kalder sig Spengler, skrev forrige år bogen How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam Is Dying Too) om den islamiske verdens dramatiske demografiske udvikling. Front Page Magazine

FP: Muslim leaders have perpetually boasted that they would defeat the West by numbers, and we are definitely witnessing the alarming growth of Muslim populations in Europe. Many Muslim males come to the West with four wives and have like 30 kids with them. Yet you are writing about a Muslim demographic winter. What are we missing? Has something changed?

Goldman: It’s true that the Muslim birthrate far exceeds the Western birthrate, but large parts of the Islamic world are catching up to the West’s demographic winter at startling speed. The Muslim world is passing from infancy to senility without going through adulthood. Muslim countries with a high literacy rate — Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia — have already fallen below replacement fertility. Islam is a religion of traditional society, where subsistence farmers have always had as many children as they could. The moment Muslims leave the traditional world — especially when girls get a high school education — their behavior changes radically. Most Iranians have six siblings, but will have one or two children.

Never has a national fertility rate dropped from 7 to 1.5 in a single generation.  Turks whose cradle-tongue is Turkish also have a fertility rate of only 1.5 — the same as Europe’s — while Kurds are having four to five children. That means the map of Turkey will be redrawn a generation from now. In Judea and Samaria, Arabs had eight children a generation ago. That’s fallen to three, the same as the Jewish fertility rate in Israel. As the modern world forces its way into traditional Muslim societies elsewhere, fertility continues to plunge. It tells us that Islam, as a religion, crashes and burns when it encounters the modern world. That’s not just a Muslim problem, I hasten to add. The same sudden collapse of fertility afflicted ethnocentric branches of Christianity, for example, Catholicism in Quebec.

Og i et essay i Quadrant Online om Goldman’s How Civilizations Die hedder det

Demographic decline is, of course, a dread future that has confronted the West for some time. As Mark Steyn observes in America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (2006), Europe faces the “Four Horsemen of the Eurocalypse”:

Death—the demise of European races too self-absorbed to breed; Famine—the end of the lavishly-funded statist good times; War—the decline into bloody civil unrest that these economic and demographic factors will bring; and Conquest—the re-colonization of Europe by Islam.

However, the Muslim world faces a similar demographic calamity, as David Goldman explains in How Civilizations Die (And Why Islam is Dying Too) (2011). In his view the approaching disaster will indeed engulf Europe and other developed economies but then, after some decades, it will also devastate the Muslim world. The key difference will be that Europe possesses considerable economic, cultural and institutional resources to draw upon to alleviate the impact; Islam, on the other hand, will not be so fortunate, and when the blow comes, in the latter half of this century, it will devastate what remains of that civilisation.

This calamity, Goldman argues, betrays a terminal malady, a debilitating cultural despair—a nihilism—that is rapidly corroding the finely knit cultural and social fabric that sustains all civilisations—although, as the parenthetical subtitle suggests, he doubts that contemporary Islam actually constitutes a coherent civilisation. (Indeed, the image of a coherent and benign “Islam” that we are presented with in the West is largely a confection of public relations firms, compliant politicians and media, and academics funded by copious amounts of petro-dollars.) Nevertheless, Islam confronts a catastrophe that may easily dwarf that facing Europe and other advanced societies.

(…)

A similar situation confronts most of the Muslim world, which is shadowing the depopulation of the West but with about a half-century time-lag. As Goldman points out:

a good deal of the world seems to have lost the taste for life … The world’s population will fall by as much as a fifth between the middle and the end of the twenty-first century, by far the worst decline in human history.

While there has been recognition in the West that plummeting fertility will create enormous problems, especially in Europe where some countries have already passed the demographic point of no return, the fate facing the Muslim world is even bleaker.

Even though its population profile is presently much younger than the West, the fall in Muslim fertility rates is precipitant—indeed, it is “the fastest demographic decline ever registered in recorded history”, as Goldman notes. “World fertility has fallen by about two children per woman in the past half century [but] fertility in the Muslim world has fallen two or three times faster”, especially amongst Arab, Persian, Turkish, Malay and South Asian Muslims. For example, fertility in Iran has fallen phenomenally, by nearly six children per woman, closely followed by Turkey (by five), Egypt and Indonesia (four), and Pakistan (three).

(…)

The spectre of Eurabia, with the continent dominated by a Muslim majority by century’s end, has long haunted vigilant scholars and commentators, such as Bat Ye’or (Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 2005); Tony Blankley (The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?, 2005); Walter Laqueur, (The Last Days of Europe, 2007); and Christopher Caldwell (Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, 2009). According to these analyses, we are living through the self-extinction of the European civilisation that shaped the world we live in.

Caldwell points out that nearly 11 per cent of the European population was born overseas, most of whom are Muslims who are successfully resisting integration into their host societies. In Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011), Niall Ferguson observed:

if the Muslim population of the UK were to continue growing at an annual rate of 6.7 per cent (as it did between 2004 and 2008), its share of the total UK population would rise from just under 4 percent in 2008 … to 28 per cent in 2040, finally passing 50 per cent in 2050.

Various other demographic projections indicate that the Muslim communities in Italy and Sweden will more than double over the next twenty years; France will be an Islamic republic by 2048; Muslims will form a majority in Holland by 2030; and Germany will follow suit shortly after that. The late Libyan President Gaddafi boasted in 2006 that “the 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades”.

The threat of Eurabia, it now seems, is much closer than this vision of a stealthy takeover implies, as the Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East slip further into crisis. In Goldman’s view:

we may not have the opportunity to observe at leisure how demographic trends in the Muslim world play out. The childless twenty-somethings of Islam’s Generation X do not have to wait another forty or fifty years until they face starvation upon retirement. They are hungry now.

Consequently, it is not a protracted process of demographic conquest that faces Europe in the near future but “inundation by Muslim refugees fleeing the chaos” unfolding in their homelands.

The 16 million people of Tunisia and Libya are already one source of increasingly desperate illegal immigrants as their nations disintegrate and fall under the domination of the Muslim Brotherhood or similar Islamist regimes. Egypt, however, has 82 million people and is also on the verge or political and economic collapse as the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups tighten their grip. As Goldman points out, this is a land where (according to World Health Organisation estimates) 97 per cent of married women have suffered genital mutilation, 40 per cent are functionally illiterate, and half the population lives on about $2 a day. It also has a dysfunctional political system, a corrupt military, a failing economy, a disappearing tourism industry, fleeing capital and shrinking foreign reserves, and needs to import half its wheat and other foodstuffs in volatile markets if its people are not to starve.

Unsurprisingly, Goldman foresees a catastrophe of “biblical proportions” unfolding in Egypt, sending a massive wave of refugees across the Mediterranean. “The simultaneous demographic decline of Europe and the adjacent Muslim countries may bring about mass starvation, political instability, and an unmanageable refugee crisis—and common ruin—before the end of the present century.”

Med fare for at ende i Danmarks Radios optrevling af farlige netværk og deres inspirationskilder, vil jeg gerne forudse en borgerkrig. Jeg vil faktisk opfordre til at gribe til våben, skulle de islamiske horder komme væltende, som beskrevet ovenfor.

Fanatics in their attics

Diverse — Drokles on May 16, 2012 at 10:59 am

Jeg kom i diskussion med en af mine venstredrejede skolekammerater for et par måneder siden om klimaforandringer. Vi overraskede hinanden ved at vi begge gik ud fra af modparten var en døende race. Hun lagde dog alligevel trumf på ved at henvise til videnskabelige undersøgelser, som blot skog fast at højredrejede mennesker, så langt vi kan kaldes mennesker, blot er mere afvisende overfor videnskab. Uden at have set den slags undersøgelser slog jeg det umiddelbart hen som normativt nonsens. Jeg stødte senere på de omtalte undersøgelser, som også Information og siden psykopaten George Monbiot i samme avis refererede til. Det var sikkert der hun havde set dem og det var sikkert derfor jeg ikke ville have anet noget om deres eksistens, hvis ikke jeg var blevet konfronteret med dem. Jeg ville gerne have svinet deres dumheder til, men andet kom i vejen og jeg stolede på at andre om mere kompetente nok skulle skrive om dette løjerlige fænomen at tolke uenighed patologisk. Og ganske rigtigt, hvis blot man venter ordner alt sig af sig selv. Eller i det her tilfælde blev det ordnet af Andrew Ferguson i Weekly Standard

It is a principle of psychopunditry that the political differences between right and left—the differences, in Mooney’s scheme, between those who would fearfully deny reality and those who embrace it unafraid—originate in two personality types. As it happens, the liberal personality, as psychopunditry describes it, is a perfect representation of those traits that liberals say they most admire. Liberals are “more open, flexible, curious, nuanced.” Conservatives are “more closed, fixed, and certain in their views.” But don’t get the wrong idea: Mooney insists he is not saying “conservatives are somehow worse people than liberals.” That would be judgmental, and Science is clear: Liberals aren’t judgmental. “The groups are just different,” he goes on amiably. Indeed, he warns that the truths he reveals in his book “will discomfort both sides.” Fairness requires him to be evenhanded. On the one hand, conservatives won’t like the scientific fact that they tend to deny reality and treat their errors as dogma. On the other hand, liberals won’t like the scientific fact that all their well-meaning attempts to reason with conservatives are doomed.

Mooney’s attachment to Science is touching in its insouciance. He relies on studies in social psychology that were spawned by a famous “meta-analysis” about the conservative personality published in 2003. The meta-analysis, which found that conservatives were morally rigid and inordinately afraid of threatening situations, was orchestrated by a left-wing sociologist called John Jost. Mooney consults the studies that Jost inspired among his ideologized acolytes, and swallows them whole. These include a paper teasingly titled “The Secret Lives of Conservatives and Liberals,” published in 2008.

As Mooney tells us, Science crept into the private residences of conservatives and liberals and brought back solid results. Conservatives’ bedrooms are filled with “items you use to keep your life organized—calendars, stamps”; also, lots of cleaning supplies, proving that conservatives are “conscientious,” the scientific term for tight-assed. Liberal bedrooms are “messier .??.??. but also brimming with articles suggesting Openness to Experience.” Among these totems of Openness are books about travel and feminism and ethnic issues, and a “variety of music CDs,” including (duh) folk music.

That’s what Science tells Mooney, and Mooney tells his readers. What really happened was that sometime in the mid-2000s, 76 college students—Berkeley again—filled out a form placing their politics on a scale of one (liberal) to five (conservative). Again, the sampling was statistically worthless: More than two-fifths were Asian American, two-thirds were female. Like idiots, the kids then let psych majors swarm their bedrooms bearing clipboards and tally sheets: Wastebaskets and lamps, rumpled bedspreads and dirty underwear were duly noted and assigned code numbers. Crunch, crunch went the data. You will not be surprised that Science confirmed Jost’s original findings, which in turn echoed those of Adorno, who never thought to check the bedrooms.

Og så synes jeg Tom Lehrer’s sang om sociologi er ganske passende

Strange
Is the change
They’re trying to arrange
Today in sociology

Fanatics
In their attics
Are learning mathematics
Just for sociology

Persuasion
By equation
They all feel it’s much more satisfactory
They, in an ivory steeple
Far away from all people
They do research in sociology

Guys
Who wrote lies
Now present them in disguise
A cinch in sociology

Attract
Quite abstract
Without one single fact
Disblended sociology

Birds
Who used words
Now all talk in terms of X and Y and Z
They can take one small matrix
And really do great tricks
All in the name of sociology

Joes
Who wrote prose
Now write algebra, who knows
It may be sociology

They’re
Everywhere
Full of Sigma and Chi squared
And full of sociology

They consult
Sounding occult
Talking like a Mathematics PhD
They can snow all their clients
By calling it science
Although it’s only sociology

Vesten og resten

Diverse — Drokles on June 5, 2011 at 3:17 am

Et skægt citat, der med sikker hånd indikerer, hvad der skilder Vesten fra resten - opfattelsen af virkelighedens nødvendighed

Let us first consider what state of things is described by the world of ‘civilization’. Its true test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life… The people of Europe today live in better-build houses than they did a hundred years ago… Formerly, they wore skins, and used spears as their weapons. Now, they wear long trousers, and… instead of spears they carry with them revolvers… Formerly, in Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by manual labour. Now, one man can plough a vast tract by means of steam engines and can thus amass great wealth… Formerly, men travelled in wagons. Now, they fly trough the air in trains at the rate of four hundred or more miles per day… Formerly, when people wanted to fight with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill… There a now diseases of which people never dreamt before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out their cures, and so hospitals have increased. This is a test of civilization… what more need I say?…

This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Muhammad this would be considered a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it the Black Age… It must be shunned.

Mahatma Gandhi

Det er taget fra Niall Fergusons anbefalelsesværdige bog The West And The Rest. Og det forklarer så meget at man ikke ved, hvor man skal starte.

Niall Ferguson om om den postamerikanske verdensorden

Diverse — Drokles on January 26, 2011 at 5:20 am

Svensk statsfeministisk lufthavnslitteratur

Diverse, Postmodernisme, Sverigetanic — Sobieski on December 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Mens medierne tordner mod Danmark og resten af den civiliserede verden i klimaets hellige navn, sidder jeg og godter mig over (endnu) en nedsabling af Stieg Larssons jammerlige bøger, som jeg ikke selv har læst, ha! Behøver man virkelig at stikke næsen ned i feces for at konstatere at det lugter?
Det er ingen ringere end Christopher Hitchens der har valgt at spilde sit talent på at kommentere Larssons paranoide dilletanteri.

Fra Vanity Fair via Snaphanen:

Yet it is from this society, of reassuring brand names and womb-to-tomb national health care, that Stieg Larsson conjured a detective double act so incongruous that it makes Holmes and Watson seem like siblings. I say “conjured” because Mr. Larsson also drew upon the bloody, haunted old Sweden of trolls and elves and ogres, and I put it in the past tense because, just as the first book in his “Millennium” trilogy, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was about to make his fortune, he very suddenly became a dead person.

Good riddance to bad writing - som jeg fristes til at sige.

In the Larsson universe the nasty trolls and hulking ogres are bent Swedish capitalists, cold-faced Baltic sex traffickers, blue-eyed Viking Aryan Nazis, and other Nordic riffraff who might have had their reasons to whack him. But if he now dwells in that Valhalla of the hack writer who posthumously beat all the odds, it’s surely because of his elf. Picture a feral waif. All right, picture a four-foot-eleven-inch “doll” with Asperger’s syndrome and generous breast implants. This is not Pippi Longstocking (to whom a few gestures are made in the narrative). This is Miss Goth, intermittently disguised as ‘la gamine’.

De sidste sætninger drejer sig om anden halvdel af det heterogene detektivpar: Lisbeth Salander, postmodern super woman extraordinaire. Stieg Larssons besættelse af meget korte og meget tynde kvindetyper er ikke noget jeg vil grave dybere i… men gerne udlicitere til den uforlignelige Poul “halv pris” Matiasen:

Undertegnede er ved at pløje sig gennem 2. bind af den meget omtalte (og dermed åbenbart også meget gode så mange dumme danskere kan der vel ikke være?) Stieg Larsson-trilogi om den lillebitte heltinde på vist kun 40 kg., Lisbeth Salander. Det skal med, at ordet “pløje” her skal bruges med nogen forsigtighed, da hastigheden er nogenlunde den samme som den, en gammel grå Ferguson-traktor kan pløje i tung lerjord. I sådan jord bliver Ferguson-motoren, der jo oprindeligt kommer fra en Standard Vanguard-bil, jo noget stakåndet og ploven kan kun være to-furet på visse steder af marken. Ellers kører den en-furet, ihvertfald på min fødeøs “Klintegård” dér, hvor fætter Kurt boede og døde. Pløjningen går altså ikke ret stærkt og det går “Kampen med Larsson” altså heller ikke.

Fremragende! Jeg får næsten lyst til at læse bogen.

For eksempel nævnte jeg vist ved godt og vel en enkelt tidligere lejlighed, at jeg ikke akkurat var voldsomt imponeret af Stieg Larsson og hans monumentale trilogi om verdens måske mest papfigurs-agtige helt, den bittelille Lisbeth Salander. Meget betegnende bliver det ikke det mindste mere interessant (og det ikke engang for husarerne), at hun i starten af bind 2 får nye bryster og Larsson roder lidt rundt i ultra-”soft-porn” kategorien. Det bliver det ikke spor bedre af. Heller ikke værre, det var osse forfærdeligt slemt til at starte med.

Øv, jeg var ellers lige ved at blive lidt hed under kraven.

Som en bogende til denne soft-porn karakter vil jeg indføje Hitchens rammende bemærkning:

Forget Miss Smilla’s sense of the snow and check out Lisbeth Salander’s taste in pussy rings, tattoos, girls, boys, motorcycles, and, above all, computer keyboards.

Salander er naturligvis hacker. Og lad mig lige oplyse den statistiske sandsynlighed for at støde ind i en kvindelig hacker = den konvergerer mod NUL.

Vi slutter med et citat fra bogen:

The murder investigation was like a broken mosaic in which he could make out some pieces while others were simply missing. Somewhere there was a pattern. He could sense it, but he could not figure it out. Too many pieces were missing.

Ja, det kan jeg helt sikkert skrive under på, og jeg tør næsten love for at det er det sidste vi gider publicere om Stieg Larsson på denne blog.

Monokultur kører på WordPress