5. oktober 2015

Mahmut Abbas opfordrede til terror i Jerusalem, jøder myrdes, MSM problematiserer israelsk reaktion

For et par dage siden bloggede jeg om torsdagens dobbeltdrab, og lørdag lykkedes det igen palæstinensere at myrde to tilfældige israelere (og såre en 2-årig med knivstik), denne gang i Jerusalem. Ikke en overraskende udvikling, når nu præsident Mahmut Abbas fornyligt opfordrede sit folk til at myrde israelske jøder med ordene: “We salute every drop of blood spilled for the sake of Jerusalem. This blood is clean, pure blood, shed for the sake of allah…”

De danske medier valgte at ignorere både Abbas’ tale og de efterfølgende terrorangreb, og kom først på banen da israel endelig svarede igen. Fokus er så ikke Abbas’ rolle i mordene, eller mordene, men den israelske reaktion. Meget lig BBC, der headliner med med overskriften ‘Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attacks kill two’.

Fra DR Online – Palæstinensere udelukkes i to dage fra det gamle Jerusalem.

“Palæstinensere vil i to dage være forment adgang til den gamle bydel i Jerusalem. Det oplyser israelsk politi ifølge nyhedsbureauet AFP. Forbuddet kommer efter to voldelige overfald lørdag og vil ramme palæstinensere i det østlige Jerusalem, som ikke bor i den gamle bydel. Ifølge politiet vil kun israelere, turister, beboere i området, forretningsdrivende og skolebørn vil få adgang til bydelen.

… Der har de seneste uger været flere sammenstød mellem palæstinensere og israelsk politi ved al-Aqsa-moskeen i den gamle bydel.

Nogle palæstinensere føler sig truet af, at et stigende antal jøder ønsker at bruge den hellige plads Haram al-Sharif – blandt jøder kendt som Tempelbjerget – til at bede.

(Mahmut Abbas hylder islamiske terrorister, Palestinian Authority TV, 16. september 2015); MemriTV)

“Onward we go, Allah willing. We salute you and all the men and women in ribat. We salute every drop of blood spilled for the sake of Jerusalem. This blood is clean, pure blood, shed for the sake of Allah, Allah willing.” (Mahmut Abbas, 16. september 2015)



24. juni 2015

EB.dk kolporterer Paul Erhlichs klimaforskning – Forudsagde i 70’erne hungersnød med mio. døde i USA

Klimaforskning er forlængst blevet en religion. Vi er på vej mod ‘masseudryddelse’, kan man læse i Ekstra Bladet, der har oversat en artikel fra Daily Mail.

(Ekstra Bladet, 20. juni 2015: Forskere: Jorden nærmer sig ny fase – mennesket uddør før vi aner det)

Erhvervsmanden Lars Tvede kommenterer på Facebook, dansk oversættelse her.

“Historien nedenfor om vor snarlige udryddelse går nu sin gang på verdens medier…

Historien citerer et forskerhold ledet af Paul Erhlich, en af verdens mest berømte økologer, som har modtaget utallige priser for sit arbejde.
Ham har jeg fulgt længe… Eksempelvis har Erhlich bl.a. i 70erne forudagt, at der ville komme hungersnød med millioner af døde i USA, at Indien aldrig ville kunne brødføde sin befolkning, at råvarepriserne ville gå amok og at sandsynligheden for, at England eksisterede i år 2000, var ca. 50%. Om arters udryddelse har han tidligere postuleret, at vi mistede ca. 250.000 arter årligt; at halvdelen af alle arter ville være uddøde i år 2000 og samtlige ville være forsvundet i 2015 (OK, nu har jeg lige set en fugl flyve forbi, men år 2015 er jo ikke slut endnu).

Men i sin nye rapport siger han altså så, at vi alligevel ikke mister 250.000 arter årligt, men derimod at vi har mistet knapt 600 arter på 500 år. Det er altså godt en (1) art om året og altså ikke 250.000 arter, som han tidligere mente (hvilket forklarer min fugl). … Det betyder, at vi på 500 år har mistet tilsammen – hold fast – 0.007 % af verdens arter, svarende til 0.000014 % om året. Samtidig er der dog også kommet nye arter til, men lad nu det være.

Men rapporten viser også, at der forsvandt flest arter mellem 1900 og 2010. Nuvel, men det skjuler, hvad der er sket de sidste årtier:

1. Verdens biomasse er steget 14% siden 1980.
2. Skovene vokser nu i det meste af verden.
3. De globale landbrugsarealer er toppet og begyndt at falde.
4. Vi er kun ca. 10 år fra at verdens befolkning når under replacement fertility.
5. Omfattende samarbejde mellem akvarier, botaniske haver og zoos for at beskytte arter
6. 10-dobling af verdens naturreservarter
7. Vi kan nu teknologisk genskabe uddøde arter via DNA arbejde
8. Masser af frøbanker

Her er et fromt ønske: Kan journalister ikke lige stikke en finger i jorden og bringe en anelse perspektiv, inden de bringer den slags videre?”

Oploadet Kl. 10:29 af Kim Møller — Direkte link20 kommentarer


6. august 2013

Politiken: Boston-jihadister var kun muslimer af ‘bekvemmelighed’, var påvirket af ‘højreekstremisme’

Anders Breivik forklarede i sit meget omtalte manifest, at han var inspireret af Rote Armé Fraktion og Al-Qaeda, uden at det af den grund har fået analytikere til at tvivle på hans ‘højreorienterethed’. Nu viser det sig så, at Boston-bombemændene tidligere havde interesseret sig for nationalsocialistisk litteratur, velsagtens fordi nationalsocialismens jødehad passer som fod i hose med islamismens ditto. Politiken aflirer en BBC-historie, der vender alt på hovedet. Fra Bostonterrorist læste højreekstremistiske bøger .

“De to brødre, Tamerlan og Dzhokbar Tsarnajev, der stod bag terrorangrebet under Boston Marathon i april, som dræbte tre og sårede over 100, er indtil nu blevet opfattet som uafhængige jihadister.

Men et fund af højreekstremistisk litteratur på den ældste bror, Tamerlans, bopæl tyder på, at de har været påvirket af højreekstremisme.

Flere bøger, som er fundet på Tsarnajevs bopæl, handler om motivationer bag massemord og om at nyde at myrde og lemlæste. Nogle højreekstremistiske bøger om hvidt overherredømme lovpriste Hitler og mente, at »han havde en pointe«.

[…]

Det var også først efter udelukkelsen fra boksekampen, at Tamerlan Tsarnajev konverterede til islam. Dog siger Nicole Mossalam, en talsmand fra Tsarnajevs moské i Cambridge, at hans engagement i det islamiske trossamfund var mangelfuldt.

»Han var mere muslim af bekvemmelighed«, siger hun til BBC.”

Oploadet Kl. 16:54 af Kim Møller — Direkte link17 kommentarer


8. februar 2013

Medier: Når en islamkritisk marxist forsøges myrdet, så er han qua sin islamkritik ’stærkt højreorienteret’

Journalisten.dk skriver, at svenske medier betegner historiker Lars Hedegaard som værende ‘islamfjendtlig’, og redaktører fra Dagens Nyheter og Svenska Dagbladet beklager ligefrem at de i enkeltstående tilfælde, var kommet til at bruge den lidt for ‘eufemiske’ etiket ‘islamkritisk’. Personligt mener jeg de svenske aviser er mere Islam-ukritiske end egentlig Islam-kærlig, men dem om det. I Danmark politiserer medierne ikke helt så groft, men de holder sig heller ikke tilbage.

(DR Online, 6. februar 2013: Hedegaards kollega: Ny islamkritisk avis årsag til mordforsøg)

Onsdag aften betegnede DR Nyheder Dispatch International som ’stærkt højreorienteret’. En Urias-læser tog dialogen med en DR-ansat der har en bachelor i Retorik, og for et par år siden blev indstillet til Cavlingprisen.

Urias-læser: Jeg vil gerne spørge jer hvad der i jeres øjne berettiger prædikatet ’stærkt højreorienteret’ om Dispatch International.

Laura Marie Sørensen, DR: Tak for din mail. Jeg synes bestemt ikke, at der i artiklen er tale om en tilsvining, men om oplysning om Dispatch International, der jo selv kalder sig en islamkritisk avis. Det er ikke et prædikat, vi har givet dem.

‘Moderation i forsvaret af frihed er ingen dyd’, men det siger alt om den herskende diskurs, at kritik af Islam automatisk ses som noget ’stærkt højreorienteret’. Selvom Hedegaard stædigt fastholder et marxistisk verdensbillede, så er han først og fremmest velorienteret, og det da interessant, at medier der tænker dybt over brugen af de rigtige nedladende begreber (de facto views), laver så markante fejl i forhold til det faktuelle (news).

Da historien breakede tirsdag eftermiddag fortalte flere medier, herunder TV2 News og Svenska Dagbladet, at Lars Hedegaard var dømt for racisme. BBC News gjorde det samme, hvorefter en i Asien bosiddende Urias-læser skrev til redaktionen.

Urias-læser: “You write :Mr Hedegaard heads the Free Press Society and International Free Press Society, and was fined in 2011 for insulting statements about Muslims.

Fact: Mr Hedegaard was, indeed, fined, BUT in a later Supreme Court case aquitted and the case was dropped, thrown out by the highest legal institution.

Your piece makes him a criminel. He walked off, free of any guilt.

BBC News website: Thank you for pointing out our mistake. We have now made clear that the conviction was overturned.

(BBC News, 5. februar 2013: Denmark shooting: Gunman targets Islam critic Hedegaard)

Oploadet Kl. 16:25 af Kim Møller — Direkte link7 kommentarer


11. december 2012

Udenrigsminister Søvndal efter møde med Syriens kommende ‘Islamist-In-Chief’: Han virkede ‘moderat’

Villy Søvndal er ingen stor politiker. Det er altså børnelærdom, at man som udenrigspolitiker ikke kalder en arabisk leder for ‘moderat’. Fra Jyllands-Posten – Søvndal: Syrisk oppositionsleder er moderat.

“Udenrigsminister Villy Søvndal (SF) har mandag i Bruxelles sammen med de 26 andre udenrigsministre i EU spist frokost med lederen af Den Nationale Koalition for den Syriske Revolution og Oppositionsstyrker, Mouaz al-Khatib.

Og Søvndal er ganske tilfreds med al-Khatib og hans koalition, som Danmark siden søndag har betragtet som “den legitime repræsentant for den syriske befolkning”.

– Vi havde en meget fin drøftelse og et meget opløftende møde. Han er en leder, som virker ikke alene moderat, men også klar på, hvad det er for nogle opgaver, oppositionen står over for, siger Søvndal på et pressemøde efter mødet i Bruxelles.”

(Ahmad Mouaz Al-Khatib Al-Hasani, leder af ‘den Syriske Revolution’)

Fra Foreign Policy – Islamist-In-Chief.

“By dispelling Western fears of growing jihadist influence within the Free Syrian Army, the rebels hope, the new coalition can open the door to increased financial and military assistance from the international community.

The election of the Cairo-based Khatib, a former imam of Damascus’s historic Umayyad Mosque who was imprisoned under Assad, is a crucial part of this strategy. Western media outlets such as the BBC were quick to declare him “a respected figure within Syria” who holds “moderate” political views, citing his trips to Britain and the United States, as well as his teaching experience at the Dutch Institute in Damascus, as evidence. However, public statements posted on the clergyman’s website, darbuna.net, paint a different picture.

Khatib’s website features numerous instances of anti-Semitic rhetoric. In one of his own articles, he writes that one of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s positive legacies was “terrifying the Jews.” He has also published others’ anti-Semitic observations on his site: In one article, written by Abdul Salam Basiouni, Jews are described as “gold worshipers.” Finally, in an obituary of a Gaza sheikh copied from IslamSyria, Jews are dubbed “the enemies of God.”

While Khatib used his post-election speech to call for equal rights for “all parts of the harmonious Syrian people,” his previous rhetoric toward his country’s minorities has been nothing short of virulent. One of his articles describes Shiite using the slur rawafid, or “rejectionists”; he even goes further, criticizing Shiites’ ability to “establish lies and follow them.” Such language, needless to say, will hardly reassure the country’s Alawite community, a Shiite offshoot to which Assad belongs. …

Khatib is also a fan of Qatar-based Egyptian televangelist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. His website places Qaradawi on equal footing with Tunisia’s Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation set off the Arab revolutions, and praised the Egyptian preacher as “our great Imam.” Qaradawi is a controversial figure who has been denied entry to France and Britain for his support of suicide bombings — he has described such attacks, when used against Israel civilians, as “evidence of God’s justice.” Given Qaradawi’s Qatari connections, Khatib’s praise of the cleric may be an indication of where his loyalties lie. …

Taken as a whole, these statements raise disturbing questions about whether Syria’s new opposition leader is truly as “moderate” as he has been described in the press. His religious and political views appear divisive and at odds with the reassuring image Syria’s opposition is trying to present — both domestically and on the international front. Rather than a positive step forward, Khatib’s leadership suggests that Syria’s opposition is poised to repeat the same mistakes that have bedeviled it since the beginning of the revolt.

Oploadet Kl. 19:21 af Kim Møller — Direkte link17 kommentarer


17. oktober 2012

Winston Churchill fik ikke mulighed for at tale mod ‘appeasement’ på BBC i årene op til 2. Verdenskrig

Yderst interessant historie fra Daily Telegraph, der fortæller at Winston Churchill blev syltet af BBC i årene frem mod 2. Verdenskrig. Da han beklagede sig over det, skete det til BBC’s Guy Burgess (foto), der senere blev afsløret som Moskva-tro top-spion. Fra Nick Robinson: Winston Churchill’s bitter battle with the BBC.

“John Reith, the BBC’s founding father, had always disliked Winston Churchill and ended up loathing him. … This was a personality clash with policy consequences. Churchill never forgave the BBC for what he saw as the censorship of his views. Years later, he would exact his revenge.

The way Churchill was handled is a powerful warning of the dangers of the BBC believing it is being balanced by excluding the voices of those who do not represent conventional wisdom.

In the early years of the BBC, Reith’s main way of steering clear of controversy was to aim for political balance. Reith did this by subcontracting the choice of political speakers heard on the BBC. The leadership of each party could choose who broadcast on its behalf. It was an approach that guaranteed exposure for the opinions of ministers and their shadows, while dissident voices were silenced. Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George jointly complained that they were being prevented from broadcasting their views simply because they were not party loyalists. …

Between 1930 and 1939, the number of radio licences issued tripled from three million to almost nine million. Yet in these years, when his voice could have made such an impression on the public consciousness, Churchill was heard only rarely on the BBC. He spoke on just 10 occasions in 10 years, and two of these were appeals for charitable causes.

He was finally invited to give a talk in 1934 and used this opportunity to warn of the danger of ignoring German rearmament. That broadcast demonstrated the impact Churchill could have had in warning the country against appeasement. It was not to be. This was his last radio appearance on the subject before the outbreak of war.

There is no written evidence that Churchill asked the BBC for the opportunity to speak out against appeasement. However, he did complain to a young BBC producer who visited him on the day after Chamberlain returned home from Munich. A memo records their meeting. They spent hours discussing the Nazi threat and “Churchill complained that he had been very badly treated… and that he was always muzzled by the BBC”. The producer was called Guy Burgess. The man who would become his country’s most famous traitor tried to reassure the man who would become its saviour that the BBC was not biased.

After Churchill became prime minister, on 10 May 1940, vast numbers listened to his extraordinary wartime broadcasts. …

On 5 April 1955, E R Thompson, the BBC’s first parliamentary correspondent, delivered the first-ever live TV news report: the announcement that Churchill was retiring. Churchill had unwittingly done the BBC a favour by resigning during a newspaper strike so that the corporation had the story to itself. Not for much longer, though. Some years earlier, Churchill had taken a decision that would change television for good.

He had decided to break the monopoly that his old enemy John Reith had considered so vital for broadcasting. He did so in the face of Reith’s hysterical warning that commercial television would be as disastrous for Britain as “dog racing, smallpox and bubonic plague”. Indeed, that wild overstatement seems to have helped overcome Churchill’s initial doubts. The grand old man explained his conversion to his doctor, Lord Moran: “For 11 years, they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views that proved to be right. Their behaviour has been tyrannical.”

Not for the last time, the BBC was being punished by a prime minister who could not and would not forget how they had mistreated him two decades earlier. Not for the first time Churchill was to be proved right and Reith completely wrong. The legacy of their bitter personal feud was the end of the BBC’s monopoly and the creation of a brand-new TV channel.”

Oploadet Kl. 22:51 af Kim Møller — Direkte link8 kommentarer


3. oktober 2012

Eric Hobsbawm (d. 2012): Et liv dedikeret til stalinisme, men stadig centrum-venstres yndlingshistoriker

Eric Hobsbawms 628 sider lange ‘Age of Extremes’ var noget nær den første bog jeg fik lagt i hånden, da jeg for mange år siden startede på historiestudiet. Allerede som teenager meldte han sig ind i ungkommunistiske Sozialistischer Schülerbund, og først efter Murens fald, 60 år senere meldte han sig ud af Communist Party of Britain, kort før partiet opløste sig selv. Han døde tidligt mandag morgen i an alder af 95 år, og Daily Mails barske gennemgang er lige på kornet – He hated Britain and excused Stalin’s genocide. But was hero of the BBC and the Guardian...

On Monday evening, the BBC altered its programme schedule to broadcast an hour-long tribute to an old man who had died aged 95, with fawning contributions from the likes of historian Simon Schama and Labour peer Melvyn Bragg.

The next day, the Left-leaning Guardian filled not only the front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2 Supplement to the news. The Times devoted a leading article to the death, and a two-page obituary.

(The Guardian, 2. oktober 2012)

came to Britain as a refugee from Hitler’s Europe before the war, but, as he said himself, he wished only to mix with intellectuals. ‘I refused all contact with the suburban petit bourgeoisie which I naturally regarded with contempt.’ Naturally.

If the name Hobsbawm rings a bell at all, people might recollect that it was also the name of Julia Hobsbawm, a PR expert who, in collaboration with the future Mrs Gordon Brown, was one of the spin doctors who sold New Labour to this country.

There is a world of difference between the ideology of Julia’s sleek, modern New Labour ideas and her father’s hard-nosed Stalinism, but one of the things they had in common was contempt for ‘ordinary people’.

Eric Hobsbawm took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.

If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China – would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’.

Just imagine what would happen if some crazed Right-winger were to appear on BBC and say that the Nazis had been justified in killing six million Jews in order to achieve their aims. We should be horrified, and consider that such a person should never be allowed to speak in public again – or at least until he retracted his repellent views and admitted that he had been culpably, basely, wrong.

Yet the awful thing about the phenomenon of Eric Hobsbawm is that the exact opposite to this is what happened.

He was awarded a Companion of Honour by Tony Blair… A professor of history, he was regularly lionised on the BBC and in the liberal newspapers as our ‘greatest’ historian.

(The Guardian, 2. oktober 2012)

It is true he modified his hard-line support for Stalin and his death-camps as the years went by. The elderly Hobsbawm was not the same person who, in 1939, co-wrote a pamphlet defending not only Stalin but Hitler, too – and justifying the Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland and dominate Eastern Europe.

But as far as the history of the 20th century was concerned, he never learned its lessons. The tens of millions dead, the hundreds of millions enslaved, the sheer evil falsity of the ideology which bore down with such horror on the peoples of Russia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany, never occurred to this man.

He went on believing that a few mistakes had been made, and that Stalinism was ‘disillusioning’ – but that, in general, it would have been wonderful if Stalin had succeeded. …

What is disgraceful about the life of Hobsbawm is not so much that he believed this poisonous codswallop, and propagated it in his lousy books, but that such a huge swathe of our country’s intelligentsia – the supposedly respectable media and chattering classes – bowed down before him and made him their guru. Made him our ‘greatest historian’.

The truth is that, far from being a great historian who sometimes made mistakes, Hobsbawm deliberately falsified history.

In his book The Age Of Extreme, published in 1994, he quite deliberately underplayed the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland in 1939-40, saying it was merely an attempt to push the Russian border a little further away from Leningrad. He also omits any mention of the massacre of 20,000 Polish soldiers by Russian Secret Police at Katyn.

In the same book, he dismisses the appallingly violent suppression by the Nazis of the Polish resistance in the 1944 Warsaw uprising – when a complacent Soviet army ignored desperate pleas to come to the Poles’ aid – as ‘the penalty of a premature uprising’.

These are not mistakes – they are wicked lies.

In his 1997 book On History, he wrote the following: ‘Fragile as the communist systems turned out to be, only a limited, even minimal, use of force was necessary to maintain them from 1957 until 1989.’

This again is a blatant lie. A huge and ever-growing Soviet armaments industry ensured there was continued violence in most of the major trouble-spots of the world through those years before Communism collapsed. …

Ask the inhabitants of Prague, where Soviet tanks rolled into the streets in 1968, if they agreed with Hobsbawm that this was ‘minimal use of force’.

Ask the millions of people who were taken from their homes by KGB thugs and forced to live, often for decades, in prison-camps throughout the Gulag, whether force had been ‘minimal’.

Nor were Hobsbawm’s rewards merely the sycophantic praise heaped on him by Lefty academics and silly chatterers at London dinners. Having cultivated his group of Left-wing protégés at Birkbeck College in London, where he dominated the history department and went on to become President, he was showered with accolades by academics of the Left. …

What his death tells us, however, is that the liberal establishment that really runs this country has learned no lessons from history. It is still prepared to bow down and worship a man who openly hated Britain – and who knowingly wrote lies.”

Oploadet Kl. 13:15 af Kim Møller — Direkte link20 kommentarer


1. oktober 2012

Multikulturelle Marseilles, Frankrig: Arabere jager 35 sigøjnere ud af bebyggelse og brænder ulovlig lejr

Søndag skrev Ekstra Bladet atter om familien Levakovic, en kriminel sigøjnerklan bosiddende i Helsingør, der nyder godt af et system der tydeligvis ikke er gearet til multikulturalisme. BBC har en historie om franske ‘vigilanter’ der fik nok af sigøjnere, men fortæller ikke, at selvtægtsmændene var arabere – Vigilantes burn Roma camp in Marseille, France.

“A group of vigilantes have evicted a group of Roma (Gypsies) from a Marseille housing estate and burnt down their camp, French media report. There were no reports of violence when the 35 Roma people were forced out of the city’s Creneaux estate.

Furniture and other items were set on fire at the camp, which was erected on wasteland at the beginning of the week. Residents had reportedly complained to their mayor, blaming the Roma for burglaries in the area. …

It appears that residents went to the authorities on Thursday morning, before the vigilantes took the law into their own hands.”

(France2-indslag via Fdesouche.com)

… the residents who forced the Roma out were not Frenchmen, but Arabs. … The residents threatened the gypsies with “reprisals”. … Apparently gypsies and Arabs have been at war for a while in Marseille. The Arabs are probably longtime residents who regard the Roma as “unassimilable aliens” who should go back where they came from.” (GalliaWatch, 30. september 2012)

Oploadet Kl. 07:03 af Kim Møller — Direkte link21 kommentarer


29. maj 2012

BBC-historiker: Europa er truet af usaglige højreorienterede politikere – lidt ligesom ved Romerrigets fald

Der er også interessante ting i analysen omkring fællesskabets opløsning, men problemet er for historiker Michael Wood, usaglige højreorienterede politikere – dengang som nu. Set på BBC- Viewpoint: The time Britain slid into chaos.

“The news from Europe is getting worse by the day. Economic gloom across the continent and multiple crises in the currency zone. With rising unemployment and inflation there are riots in the streets with forecasts of anarchy in some parts of western Europe.

And along with the simmering discontent there is a worrying rise of radical groups and populist right wing movements…. It all sounds eerily familiar doesn’t it? But this is not Angela Merkel’s eurozone – it is Roman Britannia towards the year 400, the period of the fall of the Roman Empire.

Of course it was a long time ago, and conditions were very different. Modern mass democracies are much more complex than the Roman world. But history tells us that complex societies do collapse. And the great constant, along with climate and economic forces, is human nature. … The fall of Rome serves to remind us that complex societies can, and do, break down”

First was the widening gulf between the social classes, rich and poor. When rich and poor start to live completely different lives this leads (then as now) to the poor opting out of the state. All studies today show that society is happier when the gap between rich and poor is reduced. Widen it and you affect the group ethos of society, and also the ability to get things done through tax. …

The British historian Gildas (c 500-570) in his diatribe against contemporary rulers in the early 500s, looking back over the story of the Fall of Roman Britain, lists the military failures, but behind them he speaks bitterly of a loss of nerve and direction, a failure of “group feeling”.

Gildas talks about right-wing politicians advocating glibly attractive solutions that appealed to the populace while “any leader who seemed more soft, or who was more inclined to actually tell things as they are, was painted as ruinous to the country and everyone directed their contempt towards him”. …

Rome wasn’t built in a day and it didn’t fall in a day either. Its shadow still falls on us, a memory imprinted almost like genetic information, a memory to which we all belong. And is its fall also a distant mirror of our present crises?

Well, the fall of Rome serves to remind us that complex societies can, and do, break down. There is rarely one reason. Rather, there are multiple causes that come together in a perfect storm, as they did around 400AD.”

Oploadet Kl. 13:37 af Kim Møller — Direkte link11 kommentarer
Arkiveret under:


8. februar 2012

BBC vil ikke kalde Al Qaeda-leder for ‘ekstremist’ – DR om ‘højreekstremisten’ Geert Wilders

Et klassisk eksempel på dobbelte standarder i medierne. Fra Daily Mail – BBC tells journalists to stop calling Abu Qatada ‘an extremist’.

“The guidance was issued at the BBC newsroom’s 9.00am editorial meeting yesterday, chaired by a senior manager, Andrew Roy. According to notes of the meeting, seen by The Daily Telegraph, journalists were told: ‘Do not call him an extremist – we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgment.’

BBC staff were also advised not to use library images that show the cleric looking overweight, because he has ‘lost a lot of weight’.”

(Al Qaeda-lederen som han ikke må ses på BBC – Geert Wilders på DR Update ifm. islamkritiske ‘Fitna’)

Det højreekstremistiske Frihedsparti (PVV), der ledes af den kontroversielle Geert Wilders, sikrede sig 14,8 pct. af stemmerne ved valget i dag…” (DR Online, 4. juni 2009)

Oploadet Kl. 15:24 af Kim Møller — Direkte link12 kommentarer
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 

« Forrige sideNæste side »



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper