4. november 2019

Nobelpris-direktør forklarer Obamas fredspris (2009): “… he represented the ideals of the committee.”

Den Norske Nobelkomite udpeges politisk af Stortinget, og man kan vanskeligt modtage den eftertragtede fredspris, hvis ikke man er globalist og bifalder ‘liberal internationalism’. I den verden er kommunisten Gorbachev en helt, i modsætning til republikaneren Reagan. Demokraten Barack Obama er værdig per defintion, og Trump først den dag helvedet fryser til is. Kommentar af Mary Kay Linge hos New York Post – Why Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing — and Trump never will for anything.

“President Barack Obama’s first act as a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2009 — nine months after he took the oath of office — was to try to wriggle out of accepting it.

‘The morning the prize was announced, his staff investigated whether anyone had failed to travel to Oslo to receive their prize,’ writes Nobel insider Geir Lundestad in ‘The World’s Most Prestigious Prize’ (Oxford), out this month.

Apparently, the president was among the 61 percent of Americans who believed he didn’t deserve it.

‘It is true, Obama did not do much before winning,” Lundestad, 74, a member of Norway’s Nobel Committee until 2014, told The Post. ‘But he represented the ideals of the committee. And when we have an American president who supports that message, we like to strengthen him.’

Obama’s advisers soon decided the honor could not be refused. But as ridicule rained down on the committee for handing a peacemaker’s award to a man who was ordering drone strikes on civilians overseas, the White House grew increasingly hesitant, dithering for weeks over how much of the traditional three-day awards gala he would attend.

In the end, Obama stayed just long enough to deliver an acceptance speech that tried to justify the wars he was waging in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Three of the four prize-winning American presidents have been Democrats: Obama, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. The sole Republican is Theodore Roosevelt, who won it in 1906 as a progressive whose outlook bears little resemblance to that of today’s GOP.

Almost all of the other US honorees — such as Al Gore, Martin Luther King Jr. and anti-nuclear activist Linus Pauling — have been on the left end of our political spectrum. …

Ronald Reagan was pointedly snubbed in 1990 when the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev won a solo Peace Prize for ending the Cold War.

‘Gorbachev was not a true democrat, obviously,’ Lundestad said — making him one of the committee’s most controversial picks. But Reagan’s peace-through-strength policies were so unpopular in Norway that a Nobel for him was unthinkable.

President Trump has been nominated for the prize by two Norwegian legislators — valid nominators, under committee rules — for his peace overtures to North Korea. But his ‘America First’ ideology and aversion to globalism make him an equally unlikely candidate. “

(Barack Obama modtager Nobels fredspris, Oslo, 2009; Foto: Independent)

Oploadet Kl. 11:51 af Kim Møller — Direkte link34 kommentarer


9. august 2019

Om det ridende politis anholdelse af sort mand: ‘we need to call this out for what it is: racism at work’

Hvis det næste præsidentvalg i USA kommer til at omhandle identitetspolitik, så sætter jeg mine penge på Donald Trump. Trump var på mange måder en reaktion mod Barack ‘Black Lives Matter’ Obama, og hvis O’Rourke og Warren ikke kommer ned på jorden, men lader sig rive med af Ocasio-Cortez’ firebande, så bliver det meget svært for Biden at stå som en samlende skikkelse. Han har som bekendt også tidstypiske lig i lasten.

Billedet herunder eksemplificerer fint minoritetshysteriet. Tror O’Rourke virkelig, at de to betjente har den anholdte i reb, fordi han ikke er lys i huden. Argumentet skal nok virke på 80-årige negere, men så mange er de trods alt ikke. Tilbage står 77-årige Sanders, der næppe har en chance efter et langt liv i kommunismens slipstrøm. MSM-foragt og babyballoner gør ingen forskel. Trump genvælges med mindre Demokraterne dropper racepolemikken.

“A black man, dragged with a rope by police officers on horses, in 2019. This moment demands accountability, justice, and honestly—because we need to call this out for what it is: racism at work.” (Beto O’Rourke, 6. august 2019)

(Galveston, Texas, 3. august 2019)

“Først og fremmest må jeg undskylde for den unødvendige forlegenhed. Selvom det her er en velkendt praksis og bedste metode at anvende i visse situationer, mener jeg, at der er tale om dårlig dømmekraft fra vores betjente i den her situation, siger politichef Vernon L. Hale i en udtalelse, politiet har lagt på Facebook.” (DR Nyheder, 7. august 2019)



12. april 2019

Stort set intet på dansk om Mueller-relateret sigtelse mod Greg Craig, tidl. rådgiver for Clinton, Obama

Jeg mener ikke danske medier nødvendigvis skal dække amerikansk indenrigspolitik helt ned i detaljen, men det er nu alligevel bemærkelsesværdigt, at kun EB.dk har skrevet om den Mueller-relaterede sigtelse mod Greg Craig. Han arbejdede på vegne af den pro-russiske Yanukovich-regering i Ukraine uden at registrere sig som agent for en fremmed magt, det samme som Trumps tidligere kampagnechef Paul Manafort blev sigtet for. Manafort kunne bruges i den løbende kampagne mod Trump, men Craig er demokrat, og så er det en ikke-historie.

Fra NPR – Greg Craig, Onetime White House Counsel, Charged In Ukraine Case.

“Former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig was charged with making false statements on Thursday in connection with what authorities called failures to report work for powerful clients in Ukraine.

A grand jury in Washington, D.C., returned an indictment on Thursday that included two charges, the Justice Department said.

In short, the indictment alleges that Craig withheld information he knew he should have given to the Justice Department and deliberately gave it other information he knew was false. …

The political consulting of that era is the origin of the legal troubles for Craig and Skadden: Manafort helped arrange for Ukraine’s then-pro-Russian government to hire the law firm at the time the regime was Manafort’s client. …

Craig, who stepped down from the firm Skadden, Arps last year without explanation, is part of the latest investigation by authorities involving the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires disclosures by people in the U.S. working for overseas entities. …

Craig has been a top player in Democratic politics for many years. He joined the administration of President Bill Clinton to help with the impeachment case brought by Republicans in Congress and then later became White House counsel to President Barack Obama.

(Leslie ‘Nothing to see here’ Nielsen som Frank Drebin i ‘The Naked Gun’, 1988; Foto: Youtube)

Opdate. Jeg tjekkede minutiøst DR Nyheder og TV2 Nyhederne online, og fandt intet. Herefter lavede jeg en google-søgning på dansk: ‘Greg Craig’. Intet udover en ældre Trump-basher. Nu viser det sig, at EB.dk faktisk bragte historien om ‘Gregory Craig’. Ret skal være ret, og jeg har derfor tilrettet denne blogpost. Se evt Obama-rådgiver sigtet for at have løjet.

Oploadet Kl. 23:07 af Kim Møller — Direkte link14 kommentarer


7. oktober 2018

AU fjernede ‘blackface’-Obama fra Instagram: Skal ikke ‘fremelske nogen fordomme eller stereotyper’

Såvidt jeg kan aflæse af interviewet, så er det vistnok i orden at klæde sig ud som indianere eller mexicanere, men ikke som USA’s 44. præsident Barack Obama eller ‘blackface’ i almindelighed. Det er formentligt også i orden at klæde sig ud som Obamas efterfølger, da der ikke har været en ‘racestereotyp’ på hvide overvægtige mænd, ‘der tager for meget sol’. Fra Aarhus Universitets Omnibus – AU fjernede fotos af studerende klædt ud som Obama.

“En kvindelig studerende er malet sort i ansigtet. Hun er iført et mørkeblåt jakkesæt med hvide striber, hun har en rød T-shirt indenunder, og hendes eget hår er gemt væk under en stor, sort paryk. Hun kommer gående mod syv andre studerende, som danner espalier med små amerikanske flag og papskilte med slogans fra valgkampen i 2008, hvor Barack Obama blev valgt til USA’s 44. præsident. Studerende omkring dem klapper og smiler.

Sådan ser det ud på et af i alt tre fotos, som AU ikke mener, du skal se – i hvert fald ikke på universitetets officielle Instagram-profil.

Universitetets redaktion for sociale medier havde den 1. september i år lagt billederne op sammen med mange andre fotos fra studiestarten i Universitetsparken. Men universitetet tog dem ned senere samme dag.

Det var Ole Frank Nielsen, der er specialkonsulent og en del af AU’s redaktion for sociale medier, der traf beslutningen efter at have rådført sig med AU’s pressechef Anders Correll. De var helt enige om, at de tre fotos skulle fjernes, da de kunne misforstås ‘ude af kontekst’, som Ole Frank Nielsen udtrykker det.

Hvad er det, man kan misforstå?

Aarhus Universitet skal jo ikke på nogen måde fremelske nogen fordomme eller stereotyper racemæssigt. Vi skal alle sammen kunne være her, uden man skal føle, at man bliver gjort nar af. Jeg så det ikke som en hyldest..'”

(Grafik: Omnibus.AU.dk, udsnit)

Oploadet Kl. 11:27 af Kim Møller — Direkte link12 kommentarer


1. oktober 2018

Regnbueflag i ‘Den Store Bagedyst’ på DR1, lørdag aften: “Det var helt klart et politisk statement.”

Det er noget nær en etableret sandhed, at uanset hvem der vælges til præsident i USA, så gør han hvad der kræves geo-politisk. Det afspejles ikke i de danske medier, hvor et snævert demokratisk flertal samler USA, og et snævert republikansk flertal splitter. Under Barack Obamas besøg i Kolding kunne man på TV2 News høre en ekspert forklare, at Obama havde gjort meget for at samle USA, herunder givet rettigheder til homoseksuelle. Intet om at det faktisk deler USA, og slet intet om Obamas flirten med sekteriske ‘Black Lives Matter’.

Da George W. Bush besøgte Danmark i 2005 var der mere end 40.000 moddemonstranter. JyskeVestkysten fandt kun en enkelt der gad demonstrere imod Obama. En venstreradikal fra Roskilde ved navn Lasse. Det siger alt.

Med fortløbende holdningsmassage udvisker medierne nuancerne, og drejer den folkelige opinion med eller mod udenlandske statsledere. Hvis Vladimir Putin kom til Danmark, ville moddemonstrationerne være massive. Tilfældigt kom jeg til at se lidt af Den Store bagedyst lørdag aften på DR1. Blandt de ti deltagere var 21-årige Albert, hvis kage var en kopi af Moskvas Vasilj-katedral. Først diskret et billede af Putin, og så lige et regnbueflag i den bedste sendetid. Han er aktiv i LGBT-miljøet, og har tidligere haft en tilknytning til Socialistisk Ungdomsfront.

En deltager var i øvrigt iført en ‘No nationality’-trøje, dog ikke yndige Elissa med de bare skuldre, for hun ‘er nemlig tuneser’, som det står i profilen på DR.dk. Man mærker hensigten.

(Collage: Den Store Bagedyst med Putin og LGBT-symbol)

BT kom først – Lagde du mærke til detaljen: Bagedyst-Albert brugte kage som politisk statement.

“Det var ikke tilfældigt, at Albert som sit bud på et mesterværk i første runde af ‘Den store bagedyst’ valgte at bage den russiske Vasilji-katedral. … Først og fremmest begyndte Albert Hangaard Emtofts ‘Den store bagedyst’-rejse i Rusland. …

‘… Siden har jeg lavet meget politisk aktivistisk arbejde i forskellige organisationer, så derfor studerer jeg også østeuropæiske studier på Københavns Universitet med russisk som sprog.’ …

Den opmærksomme seer lagde også mærke til, at Albert valgte at pynte sin kage med et lille LGBT-regnbueflage. Her er det, det politiske kommer ind i billedet.

Det var helt klart et politisk statement. Jeg er selv homo, og jeg vil vise, at homoer også kan bage, være politiske og være interesserede i Rusland, selvom de har meget at lære i forhold til homoseksualitet.'”



22. marts 2018

Afsløring: Trump-kampagnen brugte Facebook til at ramme sin målgruppe, ligesom Obama i 2012

Jeg har ikke fulgt sagen tæt, for selvom MSM tærsker langhalm på Cambridge Analytica-historie, så er der umiddelbart ingen grund til at tage noget for gode vare sålænge det vedrører Trump. DR Nyheder har bragt mere end ti artikler om sagen, og vægtningen afslører ganske fint, at den drivende kraft ikke er afsløringens karakter.

Barack Obama blev skamrost for sin præsidentkampagne i 2012, blandt andet fordi han brugte Facebook-algoritmer til at ramme potentielle vælgere. Trump brugte marginalt Cambridge Analytica, der anvendte Facebook til det samme, og så er det pludselig en kæmpehistorie. DR Nyheder omgår Obama-detaljen ved at fokusere på Cambridge Analytica, ikke Facebook-‘datamining’ som fænomen, og sådan kan journalister vinkle sig ud af ubekvemme sandheder.

Et glimrende oprids af sagen kan læses hos Hot Air – CBS: Trump Campaign Hardly Used Facebook Data At Heart Of Cambridge Analytica Scandal.

“Between this and the fact that Team Obama pulled the same data-harvesting trick in 2012, with quiet acquiescence by the liberals in charge of Facebook, it’s going to be hard for Democrats to turn the Cambridge Analytica scandal into a Trump scandal.

The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data’s reporting — principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value…

In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn’t share its data.

The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump’s campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.

Team Trump did use CA for a major TV ad buy and some digital advertising, notes Major Garrett, but the crucial GOTV data came from the RNC. Why? Because, as noted, it was simply better. …

The question being asked on the right this morning is why this is a scandal when Team Obama did the same thing in 2012 and were cheered by the media for their analytical savvy in doing so. Nominally the key difference is that Team O got permission from its Facebook fans to use the data it scraped from their — and their friends’ — profiles for political purposes whereas CA obtained that data under false pretenses, claiming that it was for academic use only.

Read any story about the CA scandal written this week, though, and you’ll see that the attention to false pretenses pales by comparison to the breathless tones in which the amount of data scraped is described. It’s not the ‘academic use only’ cover story that has people outraged, it’s the fact that so much data could be skimmed from Facebook and applied to self-interested purposes with users only dimly aware at best of what it was being used for. But … that’s what Obama’s team did too. And so did many, many other online outfits…

‘[W]hen Obama did it,’ writes Freddy Gray at the Spectator, ’such practices were written up in glowing terms. His campaign’s social media tactics were widely lauded for harvesting ‘the power of friendship’. But when Trump or Brexit do it, apparently, it’s evil.’ What’s the real ’scandal’ that’s driving media anxiety in this case, that CA used false pretenses to get the data or that it sought to use the data for a Bad Cause, i.e. Trump’s election?

(DR.dk, 17. marts 2018: … Selskab stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump)

“‘They were on our side’: Obama campaign director reveals Facebook allowed them to mine American users’ profiles in 2012 because they were supportive of the Democrats” (Daily Mail, 20. marts 201)

“Washington Post bemærker, at tusindvis af andre udviklere også har høstet data om Facebook-brugere i tidens løb. Herunder i form af apps som FarmVille og Tinder. Derudover er der de politiske konsulenter fra Obama-kampagnen i 2012, som ifølge Washington Post også gjorde brug af brugerdata fra Facebook til at få indsigt i brugernes relationer og præferencer.” (Version2, 20. marts 2018)

Oploadet Kl. 10:07 af Kim Møller — Direkte link14 kommentarer


28. december 2017

Newsweek: Trumps julehilsen politiserer julen, gør den til et våben for hvid supremacisme… Nazisme!

Der skrives mange uhyrlige ting om Donald Trump. Herunder det meste fra en bizar artikel i Newsweek, hvor Trumps beslutning om at omgøre Barack Obamas religionsneutrale julehilsen, ses som politisering af julen, og et forsøg på at gøre den til et våben for hvid supremacisme. Artiklen ender med Nazi-Tyskland, selvom det dog indrømmes, at Trump ikke har opfordret til folkedrab. Han har ønsket glædelig jul, og i kulturmarxistiske saloner er det næsten det samme. Vi lever virkelig i vanvittige tider.

Christina Maza i liberale Newsweek – How Trump and the nazis stole Christmas to promote white nationalism.

“President Donald Trump wants Americans to think he reinvented Christmas.

‘We can say ‘merry Christmas’ again,’ he has said on numerous occasions, both during his campaign for president and his presidency. … Trump supporters say Americans have become too politically correct when they wish people happy holidays, a neutral term that can be used for people who celebrate Hanukkah, Eid al-Adha or any other religious holiday that takes place around the same time as Christmas.

But critics counter that Trump is promoting a version of the holidays that excludes members of other religions, and that his crusade to bring back Christmas is part of a larger attempt by the president to define America as a country for white Christians alone.

Wishing people ‘merry Christmas’ instead of ‘happy holidays’ is thus in line with Trump’s decision to ban citizens of Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, critics say. It fits neatly with his refusal to condemn white supremacists when they march against diversity, and with his condemnation of athletes who protest police brutality against black men.

With this in mind, the fight to end the war on Christmas is exclusionary politics at its most flagrant.

‘I see such invocations of Christmas as a kind of cypher, what some would call a dog whistle. It does not appear to be intolerant or extreme, but to attentive audiences it speaks volumes about identity and belonging—who and what are fully American,’ Richard King, a professor at Washington State University who studies how white supremacists exploit culture, told Newsweek.

‘Much like ‘Make America Great Again,’ panics over the protests by NFL players and the defense of Confederate memory, Christmas is a way to talk about peril, to assert a soft or hard version of white nationalism,’ he said. …

Trump isn’t the first political figure in history to co-opt Christmas. In fact, some see parallels between Trump’s speeches in front of Christmas trees and attempts by authoritarian regimes like the Nazis to manipulate popular celebrations to promote a political ideology. But by weaponizing Christmas in this way, Trump is bringing a dangerous tradition of politicizing religious holidays into the United States, one expert says.

‘Because Americans have enjoyed a relatively stable political system, Christmas in the U.S. has been relatively immune to the overt politicization of the holiday,’ Joe Perry told Newsweek. He is the author of the book Christmas in Germany: A Cultural History, which examines the way Nazis used Christmas to spread fascism. …

Likewise, Nazi Germany’s propagandists rooted their idea of Christmas in visions of ethno-nationalism. They rewrote the lyrics of Christmas carols, promoted Nazified holiday traditions and launched numerous Christmas charity events for poor Germans. The ultimate goal was to draw a clear line between those who belonged and those who should be excluded and not benefit from the joys of Christmas.

Trump’s rhetoric differs from that of Nazi Germany’s, most notably because he has never advocated genocide. But…

(Cristina Maza, Newsweek; Grafik: Twitter)

Oploadet Kl. 11:41 af Kim Møller — Direkte link25 kommentarer


8. december 2017

Adam Holm: “Donald Trump er gal. … Det er ikke et spørgsmål om… ideologiske stridspunkter.”

Adam Holm var en kende for højreorienteret til DR, men fødderne er stadig solidt plantet i karrierens frodige muld. Når Donald Trump holder ord – ord som yndlingen Barack Obama, også har sagt – så er han ikke en ærlig politiker, men en ‘gal’ mand, der mangler logik. Videoen herunder er selvforklarende.

Donald Trump er gal. Ikke bare galt afmarcheret. Hans beslutning om at anerkende Jerusalem som Israels retmæssige hovedstad er så monumentalt forrykt at jeg har brugt det forgange døgn på at gispe efter vejret. … Indrømmet, det er useriøst at betegne ham som ‘gal’. Jeg ved bare ikke hvad jeg ellers skal kalde hans politik. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om klassisk højre-venstre eller ideologiske stridspunkter. Det er manglen på logik… (Adam Holm, 7. december 2017)

Oploadet Kl. 15:44 af Kim Møller — Direkte link18 kommentarer


31. oktober 2017

USA: Hillary-fløj betalte for rapport, der ‘berettede om Trumps skandaler og samarbejde med russerne’

‘Leoparddrengen’, der har 21.000 følgere på Twitter, rettede søndag et angreb mod Berlingske, på grund af avisens bloggosfæriske ‘bataljon af hadspredende galninge’. Identiteten fik støtte fra Paula Larrain, tidligere vært på TV-avisen, der mente redaktør Tom Jensen burde ‘tage kritikken’ til efterretning. Hun var aktiv hos De Konservative for blot to valgperioder siden.

Jeg gætter på, at Larrain & Co. også er bekymret over Bent Blüdnikow-klummen ‘USA set med borgerlige briller’. Fra B.dk – Amerikanske journalister er i chok.

“I sidste uge kom en afsløring, der rystede journalisterne i den etablerede presse. Washington Post skrev tirsdag, at Hillary Clintons kampagnestab og Det demokratiske Partis organisation sammen havde betalt for den rapport om Donald Trump, der berettede om Trumps skandaler og samarbejde med russerne. Det var denne rapport, udarbejdet af den britiske fhv. efterretningsmand Christopher Steele, der berettede, at Trump havde været sammen med russiske ludere på et hotel og at de havde tisset i den seng, hvor præsident Obama og hans hustru tidligere havde sovet. Saftige sager hvoraf intet indtil nu er dokumenteret, men som blev gentaget og gentaget i amerikansk og europæisk presse.

Clinton-staben og Det demokratiske Partis organisation kanaliserede pengene hemmeligt gennem et advokatfirma ved navn Perkins Coie, som betalte et selskab ved navn Fusion GPS, der så igen havde fået fat i Cristopher Steele. Det vil sige, at Clinton-staben og demokraterne samlede smuds med baggrund i russiske kilder for at sværte en præsidentkandidat til. Clinton-folkene og demokraterne tav om deres aktive andel i kampagnen og løj systematisk over for journalisterne. Journalisterne var lette ofre, for de var så forhippede på at få noget skidt på Trump og hans stab, at de blindt troede på alle oplysninger. …

Sagen rejser spørgsmål om FBIs ageren generelt og endnu en sag ryster FBI, fordi det nu er kommet frem, at russerne betalte store beløb til Clinton-parrets fond i 2009-2010, samtidig med at russerne erhvervede rettigheder til forekomster af uran i USA. Det skete i den periode, hvor FBIs leder var Robert Mueller – ja, den samme Robert Mueller, som er sat til at undersøge om Trump-staben intrigerede med russerne. …

Wall Street Journals kommentator Kimberley A. Strassel skriver: ‘Hvis Steele-rapporten endte hos det demokratiske partis organisation og Clintons politiske medarbejdere, så kan du bande på, at den også havnede i Obamas Hvide Hus. Dette forklarer måske, hvorfor Obamas politiske aktører begyndte at aflytte Trump-staben. De ledte efter noget afslørende, noget der kunne diskvalificere Trumps kandidatur. …’

En af de interessante aspekter af de sensationelle nye afsløringer er, at journalisterne fra de etablerede medier, som har brugt store ressourcer for at finde noget snavs om Trump, nu er i chok.”



17. august 2017

Trump angribes for afbalanceret Charlottesville-kommentar – ‘Alt-left’ praler: “… we chased the Nazis”

Først fik Donald Trump stryg i medierne, fordi han efter Charlottesville-optøjerne pointerede, at volden kom fra begge sider af det politiske spektrum. Herefter trak han lidt i land, og tog entydig afstand fra voldelige racister. I seneste kommentar er han tilbage på sporet, og pointerer at ‘alt-left’ består af meget voldelige mennesker. En relativ afbalanceret Trump. Ekstra Bladet er selvfølgelig ligeglad med den slags detaljer, for det afgørende er ikke om begge sider var (lige) voldelige, men hvorvidt en ‘ex-KKK-leder’ takker Trump for fairness.

Barack Obama hyldede i sin tid som præsident flere gange Black Lives Matter-bevægelsen, og sidste sommer, kort efter en sort Black Lives Matter-sympatiserende aktivist myrdede fem politibetjente i Dallas, undgik han behændigt at sætte ord på gerningsmandens anti-hvide udgangspunkt.

Trump har de store medier mod sig, men de kan ikke vinkle sig ud af virkeligheden. Herunder seks udvalgte øjenvidneberetninger sakset fra Los Angeles Times – Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville? Here’s what witnesses say. Når man skærer retorikken fra, så siger højre- og venstrefløjen det samme som tilfældige iagttagere: Moddemonstranterne ville kampen, og fik den – til begge parters tilfredshed.

“Hunter Wallace, a far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: ‘The streets were not barricaded. Violent antifa [anti-fascists] were not penned in their own area as per our agreement with the Charlottesville Police Department, but were roaming the streets and blocking the entrance to Lee Park. They immediately launched an attack on our group with mace, pepper spray, bricks, sticks and foul liquids. The police stood idly by on the sidelines while a brawl was allowed to ensue. We had to fight our way into Lee Park and dozens of our people were injured by mace and pepper spray as we marched through the gauntlet.’

Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group: ‘With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.’

Jordan Green in the Nation, a leftist publication: ‘A phalanx of black-helmeted white supremacists — members of the Traditionalist Workers Party, Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and other hate warriors — commanded the steps at the southeast corner of the park, repelling attempted incursions by Wobblies, communists, and a multiracial cast of irregulars eager to fight back. Water bottles and other projectiles flew in both directions, while police tear-gas canisters thudded into an adjacent parking lot, oftentimes lobbed back into the park by plucky leftists.’

Unicorn Riot: ‘Police then pushed the white supremacists out of Emancipation Park, and closed the park…. Unable to continue rallying in the park, the white supremacists took to the streets, where they were quickly followed and confronted by anti-racists. Several more extremely violent fights took place, with police looking on from their nearby substation.’

University of Virginia student Isabella Ciambotti: ‘I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counter-protester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.’

Leftist anti-fascist organizers from Washington, D.C.: ‘Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move toward a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.'”

(Militante fra ‘Redneck Revolt’ med automatvåben, Charlottesville, 12. august 2017; Foto: NYT)

“In Charlottesville, about 20 members of a group called the Redneck Revolt, which describes itself as an anti-racist, anti-capitalist group dedicated to uniting working-class whites and oppressed minorities, carried rifles and formed a security perimeter around the counterprotesters in Justice Park, according to its website and social media.” (New York Times, 14. august 2017)

The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park. … Rethinking this. Should have said violent, not hate-filled. They were standing up to hate.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 13. august 2017)

(‘Alt-Right scum your time has come’, Antifa-banner, Charlottesville, 12. august 2017; Foto: Buzzfeed)

“From the Midwest to the South, punch a Nazi in the mouth” (Antifa-tilråb, Twitter, 12. august 2017)

Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 

Næste side »



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper