16. oktober 2020

Information: Proud Boys ‘camouflerer’ deres ekstreme synspunkter ved at iføre sig Fred Perry polo’er

For et par uger siden bloggede jeg om amerikanske Proud Boys, der går på gaden i flok for at opretholde lov og orden, og åbent konfronterer hærgende venstreradikale. Trumps ‘Stand back and stand by’ chokerede avisredaktioner overalt på kloden, og siden er klapjagten gået ind på de her ubehagelige typer, der imødegår Antifa på gadeplan. En større forbrydelse, at dømme efter reaktionen hos de mange skrivende SJW’ere.

Et godt eksempel på mediernes afstandtagen kom i Information, blandt andet med Børsen-redaktør Chris Pedersen som kilde. Det virker helt tilfældigt om de her aktivistiske verdensreddere ender med at skrive for blodrøde eller kongeblå medier, og tragikomisk bliver det næsten, når Chris Pedersens argument for ikke at dyrke skinhead-looket var risikoen for vold fra højrefløjens modstandere. Fra Information.dk – Hadets polo (ved Lærke Cramon).

“Dette er historien om, hvordan tøjmærket, der blev lanceret af en britisk tennisstjerne, mod sin vilje er blevet et symbol på ekstremisme.

… ifølge modeeksperten Chris Pedersen, som også er redaktør på Børsen, har Fred Perry-mærket et oprørsk dna, som siden firmaets grundlæggelse har tiltalt grupperinger på den yderste højrefløj. …

De kender poloens ikonografi, og ved at tage den til sig indskriver de sig i en helt særlig højreekstremistisk fortælling. Når de tager Fred Perry-poloen på, er de udmærket klar over, hvilken europæisk historie de refererer til,’ siger han. …

Selv kunne Chris Pedersen ikke finde på at iføre sig Fred Perrys klassiske polo. Han har engang kortvarigt forsøgt sig med skinheadlooket, og det var ikke fedt, fortæller han. …

‘En nat i byen kiggede to mænd på mig og vurderede, at jeg var en rod, der var ude på ballade. De begyndte at provokere, sang sange, der skulle opildne mig til slåskamp, og det var dér, det gik op for mig, at det var mit tøj, der skabte den dårlige stemning.‘ Chris Pedersen opdagede, at ‘der er nogle tøjmæssige grænser, jeg kan lege med, men hvis jeg går over dem, så ligner jeg en højreekstremist‘, fortæller han. …

Som modemand ved Chris Pedersen altså alt om, hvad denne type beklædning kan signalere. Andre ville derimod sagtens kunne iføre sig en Fred Perry-polo uden at ane, hvilke konnotationer der kan følge med tøjvalget. Og det er netop derfor, tøjet er attraktivt for ekstremister, mener Cynthia Miller-Idriss, som er sociologiprofessor på American University i Washington. Hun har skrevet bogen The Extreme Gone Mainstream, hvori hun skriver, at det yderste højre i løbet af de senere år stort set har bevæget sig væk fra militærstøvler og skaldede isser til fordel for tøj, der også indgår i den normale mode. …

Proud Boys camouflerer altså deres radikale synspunkter ved at iføre sig tøj, som naboens søn også kunne tage på, og forsøger dermed at nå ud til segmenter, der ikke ville være lydhøre over for gammeldags højreradikale grupper.”

(Mit nyindkøbte eksemplar af ‘hadets polo’: Fred Perry, twintipped black/yellow/yellow; JD Sports)

“The rise of the alt-right has put clothing companies like Fred Perry and New Balance in a tough position. They can’t force white nationalists and xenophobes to stop buying their clothe… They could theoretically take firmer stances against bigotry by donating a portion of the profits from the affiliated products to an organization that fights hate groups. What Proud Boy would sport a Fred Perry shirt if it signified money flowing to, say, the Council on American-Islamic Relations?” (hristina Cauterucci, Slate, 2017)

Fred Perry does not support and is in no way affiliated with the Proud Boys. It is incredibly frustrating that this group has appropriated our Black/Yellow/Yellow twin tipped shirt and subverted our Laurel Wreath to their own ends. … The Fred Perry shirt is a piece of British subcultural uniform, adopted by various groups of people who recognise their own values in what it stands for. … The Black/Yellow/Yellow twin tipped shirt has been an important part of that uniform since its introduction in the late 70s, and has been adopted generation after generation by various subcultures, without prejudice. … To be absolutely clear, if you see any Proud Boys materials or products featuring our Laurel Wreath or any Black/Yellow/Yellow related items, they have absolutely nothing to do with us…” (Fred Perry, 2020)



4. januar 2020

Matt Ridley: “Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time.”

Jo mere man hører venstrefløjen tale om klimaet, jo tydeligere bliver det, at det handler om alt andet. Ligesom ulighedsdagsordenen skal booste økonomisk omfordeling (Læs: brandbeskatning), er klimakamp blot en ny front i kampen for den revolution de aldrig fik. Jeg har tidligere nævnt historiker Asser Amdissen, men kunne også have nævnt Loud-redaktøren Chris Pedersen, der ser tidens mange hashtag-kampagner som ungdommelige oprør mod ‘den borgerlige nødvendighed’ (mine ord) – en måde at stille spørgsmålstegn ‘til kapitalismen’.

For nogle uger siden aktionerede klima-revolutionære Extinction Rebellion i Klimaministeriet mod fossile brændstoffer med parolen ‘Olie dræber!’. ‘Men de har jo ikke noget tøj på’, sagde ingen i de mange statsmedier, nogensinde. Befriende oprids af 10’erne af Matt Ridley i The Spectator – We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously.

Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

This does not quite fit with what the Extinction Rebellion lot are telling us.

(Collage: Extinction Rebellion på Facebook, 18. november 2019)

… If this doesn’t seem to make sense, then think about your own home. Mobile phones have the computing power of room-sized computers of the 1970s. I use mine instead of a camera, radio, torch, compass, map, calendar, watch, CD player, newspaper and pack of cards. LED light bulbs consume about a quarter as much electricity as incandescent bulbs for the same light. Modern buildings generally contain less steel and more of it is recycled. Offices are not yet paperless, but they use much less paper.

… Land-sparing is the reason that forests are expanding, especially in rich countries. In 2006 Ausubel worked out that no reasonably wealthy country had a falling stock of forest, in terms of both tree density and acreage. Large animals are returning in abundance in rich countries; populations of wolves, deer, beavers, lynx, seals, sea eagles and bald eagles are all increasing; and now even tiger numbers are slowly climbing.

… A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress.

As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction.

Oploadet Kl. 18:27 af Kim Møller — Direkte link26 kommentarer
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper