12. august 2019

Advokat Klaus Ewald om ’68’ernes ekstremisme’: “Man stigmatiserer, når der afviges fra normen.”

I 1970’erne var socialisterne i Århus eksempelvis organiseret i fagkritiske fronter, der ville smadre det borgerlige samfund indefra. De vandt, stort set uden kamp. ‘Sex & Samfund’ blev grundlagt i 1956 af læge Agnete Bræstrup, der havde ‘Ønskebørn skaber gode Hjem’ som motto. På lørdag deltager samme forening i Copenhagen Pride med budskabet ‘Kill your norms’. Operationen lykkedes – patienten døde.

Læserbrev af Klaus Ewald i Fyens Stiftstidende – Når skidt kommer til ære.

“Enhver, der har oplevet Danmark igennem det sidste halve århundrede, vil have bemærket voldsomme ændringer i moral, sprog og adfærd på alle niveauer af samfundet. Lige fra gadeplan til de øverste politiske beslutningsprocesser er der sket en adfærdsændring og en proletarisering af den måde, hvorpå vi agerer indbyrdes. Ungdomsoprøret fra det marxistiske overdrev har ændret samfundet og hænger som en tåge, der hvor meninger brydes.

… Den konsensus om, hvad der var acceptabelt for 50 år siden, ændrede de universitetsstuderende til ukendelighed. Vi lever i det tankegods 68-oprøret efterlod sig. De tidligere oprørske studenter, der nu er på pension eller døde, såede de korn, der har skabt et pressekorps og et kontingent af politikere og meningsdannere, der alle som en er rykket syvmileskridt til venstre fra de sammenligningsparametre, der gjaldt tidligere.

… Bundlinjen er, at fra at have været et dansk samfund baseret på respekt for autoriteter, et samfund, hvor man naturligt forventede et nuanceret åndeligt overskud hos meningsdannere, politikere og journalister, har vi fået et samfund baseret på marxistisk, globalistisk, politisk korrekthed, på meningstyranni frem for meningsudveksling. Man stigmatiserer, når der afviges fra normen. … 68’ernes ekstremisme lever i bedste velgående.”

(‘Sex & Samfund’ på Facebook, 18. juli 2019: ‘Kill your norms’)



11. august 2019

Ikke-nyhed (2014): Statsminister Helle Thorning-Schmidt med riffel – “… er det lars hun sigter efter”

Liberal Alliances Alex Vanopslagh fik tidligere på ugen en tur i mediemøllen, fordi han på et feriebillede fra 2017 poserer med et håndvåben. En hyklerisk socialdemokrat så et problem, og pludselig var det en landsdækkende historie. Der var ingen historie, da Magnus Heunicke, vor nuværende Sundheds- og ældreminister, tilbage i 2014 lagde et billede på Facebook af daværende statsminister Helle Thorning-Schmidt med en riffel. Fra EB.dk.

“Billedet blev på daværende tidspunkt offentliggjort af Nicolai Svejgaard Poulsen, der er medlem af Venstre. Det florerede for nyligt igen på hans åbne Facebook-profil, hvor tidligere Regionsrådskandidat for Socialdemokratiet, Runa Dorph Petersen, delte det og stillede spørgsmål til intentionen med billedet.

– Uenighed i politik er der meget af, men man skal ikke stille det op sådan mod hinanden. Uanset hvilken side, man kommer fra. Jeg endte med at lade være med at følge den tråd, efter jeg havde delt billedet. Jeg fik sviner efter sviner, af de andre i kommentarsporet, siger hun til Ekstra Bladet.

Billedet har fået flere af ‘de røde’ politikere på Christiansborg til at tage kraftigt afstand fra Liberal Alliances politiske leders ageren. (EB.dk, 8. august 2019)

(Helle Thorning-Schmidt med en riffel, Facebook, 8. maj 2014)

“er det lars hun sigter efter” (Bent Adolfsen), “Skyder efter billeder af morten massersmits” (Martin Møberg Milo), “Hvis det er Morten ‘flyvmaskine’, der nedlægges, skal du have en stor tak.” (Bent Ottesen)

Apropos Runa Dorph Petersen

(Socialdemokraten Runa Dorph Petersen på Facebook, 27. oktober 2013)

(Socialdemokraten Runa Dorph Petersen på Facebook, 1. maj 2013)



9. august 2019

“Intet tyder på, at drabene på ni personer i Dayton i USA, var racistisk motiveret”, skrev DR Nyheder…

Eneste omtale af Dayton-gerningsmandens ideologiske ståsted i de danske medier, var en kort henvisning i Berlingske til et tweet fra Trump om Connor Betts. Trump tog i øvrigt lige afstand fra ‘racism, bigotry and white supremacy’, noget der stort set blev ignoreret. Det kan være svært at presse virkeligheden ind i ‘Orange man bad’-narrativet, men de gør forsøget. Hele dagen. Hver dag. Her et eksempel fra DR Online – Motiv bag masseskyderi i Ohio stadig uklart: Efterforskningen forventes at trække ud.

“Familierne til ofrene for masseskyderiet i den amerikanske delstat Ohio må væbne sig med tålmodighed. Svaret på hvorfor netop deres kære blev ofre, er stadig uklart, og der kan gå lang tid, før politiet i Dayton kan give en forklaring på, hvad der fik en 24-årig mand til skyde løs i den centrale del af byen natten mellem lørdag og søndag lokal tid.

Politichefen i Dayton fortalte i går på en briefing, at man forventer, at der vil være tale om en langvarig efterforskning, og at betjente stadig undersøger telefoner, computere og videoer for at finde ud, hvad der skete, og hvorfor.

Dog er der intet, som tyder på en racistisk motiveret hadforbrydelse, understregede Richard Biehl.

– Jeg tror, der vil være nogle velkendte temaer, der dukker op i forbindelse med denne efterforskning. Jeg tror, der er nogle helt særlige aspekter af det her, som vi måske ikke har set i andre skyderier, lød det fra politichefen, uden at han kom nærmere ind på, hvad det måtte være.”

(DR Online, 6. august 2019)

“Men Trump var også optaget af at gøre opmærksom på, at gerningsmanden i Dayton ‘havde en historie med at støtte politiske figurer som Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren og ANTIFA’, som han skrev på Twitter.” (Berlingske, 7. august 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 00:32 af Kim Møller — Direkte link9 kommentarer


8. august 2019

Reaktion-talsmand medvirker i 3F-reklame, med antifa-tatovering, iført ‘Moscaw Death Brigade’-trøje

Da Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark (SIAD) i foråret 2015 blev angrebet under en demonstration i Kolding, var Frederik ‘Don’ Hector talsmand for ‘Kolding mod Fremmedhad’. Initiativtager til modddemonstrationen var den lokale antifa-aflægger ‘Reaktion’, der havde selvsammme Frederik som talsmand året efter ved en flygtningevenlig aktion rettet imod Padborg-grænsen. ‘No border – No nations’, blev der sunget i TV2 Nyhederne.

Her er han så igen. 22-årige Frederik er nu aktiv i 3F Fredericia, og deltog i Folkemødet 2019 som 3F’er.

(Frederik ‘Don’ Hector i 3F Fredericia-video, 15. juni 2019; Bemærk t-shirt: ‘Moscow Death Brigade’)

(Frederik ‘Don’ Hector til Folkemøde iført antifa-trøje, 12. juni 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 10:59 af Kim Møller — Direkte link20 kommentarer

Connor Betts demonstrerede imod KKK: “… wore a bandanna covering part of his face… carried a gun”

Som man kan se på Youtube, så var det en broget forsamling Connor Betts var en del af, da han demonstrerede mod Ku Klux Klan i slutningen af maj. Her var AFA’er, kommunister, sorte supremacister mfl., en del bevæbnede med ‘assault rifles’. Fra Dayton Daily News – Dayton shooter was armed counter-protester at Ku Klux Klan rally.

“The man who killed nine people in Dayton’s Oregon District was seen carrying a gun and protesting against the Ku Klux Klan at a rally downtown in May.

Connor Betts, 24, was shot and killed by Dayton police during the Sunday morning rampage. Neither the police nor the FBI have identified a motive for the attack, though the federal authorities said Tuesday he ‘was exploring violent ideologies’ before the shooting. …

Hasan Karim, who knew Betts and grew up in Bellbrook in the same high school class, was in the crowd accompanying freelance journalists and was taking pictures of the event. Karim bumped into someone in the crowd and the man told him ‘You don’t know me.’ The two said hello to each other and Karim recognized Betts by his voice, body and mannerisms in their brief interaction. Betts wore a bandanna covering part of his face and sunglasses. He carried a gun which appeared to be similar in style to the one used in Sunday’s shooting. He did not appear to be part of any group that was in the protest crowd.”

(Maskerede Antifa’er demonstrerer imod KKK, Dayton, 25. maj 2019; Foto: Youtube)

Some counter-protesters brought assault rifles to the event. At the rally were members of the New Black Panther Party, ANTIFA protesters, church groups, LGBTQ supporters, and people of all ages and backgrounds.” (JNS, 3. juni 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 02:00 af Kim Møller — Direkte link12 kommentarer


7. august 2019

Vice Deutschland: Maskeret venstreradikal forklarer hvorfor vold mod politiske modstandere er ok…

Vice Deutschland holder mikrofonen for voldelig venstreradikal, nøjagtig som deres danske aflægger. Et par eksempler fra arkivet: I & II.

“Interview med tysk Antifa-aktivist, der fortæller om vold mod ‘neo-nazis’ (som reelt set vil være dem, som han definerer som tilhørende denne gruppe), om at slå en mand ned bagfra mens hans mor er til stede, om fornøjelsen ved volden, og naturligvis hvorfor lige præcis venstreorienteret vold er OK.” (Daniel Beattie)

(‘Antifascist’ i interview med Vice Deutschland, Facebook, 6. august 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 09:32 af Kim Møller — Direkte link31 kommentarer


6. august 2019

Aslan R. (S): Når vi demonstrerer imod Hizb Ut Tahrir, “er den yderste venstrefløj… altid fraværende”

Socialdemokraten Lars Aslan Rasmussen kommenterer venstrefløjens hykleriske tilgang til Trump-besøget på Facebook.

“Wauuu næsten 17000 danskere er klar til at demonstrere mod Trumps besøg her om få uger.

… når jeg ser hvor mange venstrefløjstyper der er helt vilde for at demonstrere mod Trump, så ville jeg virkelig ønske at den samme entusiasme gjorde sig gældende de gange vi har stået ganske få mennesker og demonstreret mod Hizb Ut Tahrir, der modsat Trump vil slå vores jødiske medborgere ihjel, og vil afskaffe vores demokrati og indføre dikatatur. Og hvor var I da Erdogan besøgte Danmark eller da Irans præsident gjorde?!

Udover vi altid er få til de demonstrationer, så er den yderste venstrefløj også altid fraværende.
I ønskes dog alle held og lykke til demoen mod Trump, selv om hykleriet og prioriteringerne omkring hvornår man skal demonstrere skriger til himlen”

(Lars Aslan Rasmussen på Facebook, 4. august 2019)



5. august 2019

Dayton-massemorder var Trump-hadende venstreradikal: “I want socialism…”, ‘Kill every fascist’

Få timer efter Patrick Crucius myrdede tilfældige i El Paso, dræbte en mand ni ved en bar i Dayton, Ohio. Gerningsmanden var en ‘en 24-årig, hvid mand’, skriver DR Nyheder, og citerer den lokale senator for, at han havde ‘psykiske problemer’. Blandt de dræbte var gerningsmandens søster, og ingen kender motivet, omend Avisen.dk pointerer, at seks af de nu dræbte er ’sorte mennesker’, og “det er uklart, om det er et tilfælde, eller om der eventuelt lå et racistisk motiv bag”.

Gerningsmanden, der blev skudt og dræbt af politiet på stedet, var 24-årige Connor Betts. En skinger venstreorienteret Democrat fra Ohio: “I want socialism…” (2019), ‘Kill every fascist’ (2018).

(Connor Betts, 24-årig mand fra Ohio, skudt af politiet; Fotos: Heavy mfl.)

“Chenoa Sandoval wrote on Facebook, ‘Before the Media portrays this full grown man as an innocent kid who was damaged in high school due to bullying I want to set the record straight right now. Connor Betts had a history of serious harrassment towards fellow female students. Some of which were my friends or siblings of friends. He had a notebook with detailed information on how he wanted to hurt fellow female students. …

His parents’ Facebook accounts are active. Their names are Moira and Steve Betts. On Facebook, his mom posted pictures of pumpkins, family, Christmas ornaments, Christian religious statues and a graphic that declared ’stop the alt right.’ … Betts’ father posted about net neutrality and funny parody videos. He also shared a video that criticized the rhetoric of President Donald Trump.” (Heavy, 5. august 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 11:44 af Kim Møller — Direkte link14 kommentarer


4. august 2019

Fatima: Burkaloven viser ‘effekten af kolonialiseringen fra fortiden’, ‘Muslimer er andenrangsborgere’

Venstrefløjen anså burkaloven for at være ren symbolpolitik, da meget få kvinder herhjemme alligevel gik med niqab eller burka. Tidligere på ugen, kunne man så læse, at rød blok vil give mulighed for ‘juridisk kønsskifte’ for mindreårige børn, måske helt ned til seks år, som det er i Norge. Værdipolitik er ofte symbolpolitik, men højrefløjen er i det mindste ærlige omkring sine intentioner.

Berlingske har talt med ‘Fatima’, der er aktiv i islamistiske ‘Kvinder i dialog’, og mener at tildækningsforbuddet minder om ‘kolonialiseringen fra fortiden’. Man kan ikke kolonisere eget land, men man kan lovgive imod islamisk kulturimperialisme. Hellere skarprettende symbolpolitik, end mere Islam.

Fra Berlingske – Niqab-klædt kvinde efter forbud: ‘Jeg går ikke ud, med mindre det er strengt nødvendigt’.

“Mange ting er blevet mere besværlige for 26-årige Fatima, siden tildækningsforbuddet trådte i kraft for et år siden. … Hun bærer nemlig niqab…

‘Det har betydet, at jeg ikke har de samme muligheder som alle andre i samfundet. Alt er blevet mere besværligt. Jeg tager ikke på legepladsen med mine børn. Jeg vil ikke have, at de skal opleve, at der er andre, som er modbydelige mod mig. Så jeg går ikke ud, med mindre det er strengt nødvendigt,’ siger Fatima…

Jeg føler, at jeg er blevet en andenrangsborger, og jeg føler et eller andet sted, at man med tildækningsforbuddet ser effekten af kolonialiseringen fra fortiden. Vi muslimer er andenrangsborgere på grund af vores tro. Der er kvinder, der ikke kan få et arbejde og i det hele taget ikke kan leve det liv, de ønsker, på grund af deres religion. Det er islamfjendsk og diskriminerende, at der er nogen, der skal diktere, hvordan jeg fortolker min religion,’ siger Fatima…

‘Jeg har taget mit valg som en form for askese, hvor jeg praktiserer islam til det yderste. Det er rigtigt, at det ikke er alle, der behøver at gå med niqab eller burka. Det afhænger af, hvor hengiven du vil være over for Gud, og hvor tæt du vil være på ham,’ siger Fatima.”

(Kulturimperialister demonstrerer imod burkaloven, 2017)



2. august 2019

Jordan B. Peterson om Jacques Derridas filosofi: “It puts the act of categorization itself in doubt.”

Når man nu ikke kan finde tid til at læse bøger fra start til slut, så er det rart med lydbøger. Jeg kom igennem Jordan B. Petersons ’12 rules of life’, og er positivt overrasket. Det er ikke kun smarte onelinere, men også dybere betragtninger om stort og småt, ofte med udgangspunkt i egne oplevelser. Hans kritik af kulturmarxismen, postmodernister og det ideologiske overdrev på universiteterne er lige på kornet.

Postmodernism and the Long Arm of Marx (s. 206ff)

“These disciplines draw their philosophy from multiple sources. All are heavily influenced by the Marxist humanists. One such figure is Max Horkheimer, who developed critical theory in the 1930s. Any brief summary of his ideas is bound to be oversimplified, but Horkheimer regarded himself as a Marxist. He believed that Western principles of individual freedom or the free market were merely masks that served to disguise the true conditions of the West: inequality, domination and exploitation. He believed that intellectual activity should be devoted to social change, instead of mere understanding, and hoped to emancipate humanity from its enslavement. Horkheimer and his Frankfurt School of associated thinkers—first, in Germany and later, in the US—aimed at a full-scale critique and transformation of Western civilization.

More important in recent years has been the work of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, leader of the postmodernists, who came into vogue in the late 1970s. Derrida described his own ideas as a radicalized form of Marxism. Marx attempted to reduce history and society to economics, considering culture the oppression of the poor by the rich. When Marxism was put into practice in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere, economic resources were brutally redistributed. Private property was eliminated, and rural people forcibly collectivized. The result? Tens of millions of people died. Hundreds of millions more were subject to oppression rivalling that still operative in North Korea, the last classic communist holdout. …

Marxist ideas were very attractive to intellectual utopians. One of the primary architects of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, Khieu Samphan, received a doctorate at the Sorbonne before he became the nominal head of Cambodia in the mid-1970s. In his doctoral thesis, written in 1959, he argued that the work done by non-farmers in Cambodia’s cities was unproductive: bankers, bureaucrats and businessmen added nothing to society. Instead, they parasitized the genuine value produced through agriculture, small industry and craft. Samphan’s ideas were favourably looked upon by the French intellectuals who granted him his Ph.D. Back in Cambodia, he was provided with the opportunity to put his theories into practice. The Khmer Rouge evacuated Cambodia’s cities, drove all the inhabitants into the countryside, closed the banks, banned the use of currency, and destroyed all the markets. A quarter of the Cambodian population were worked to death in the countryside, in the killing fields.

Lest We Forget: Ideas Have Consequences.

When the communists established the Soviet Union after the First World War, people could be forgiven for hoping that the utopian collectivist dreams their new leaders purveyed were possible. The decayed social order of the late nineteenth century produced the trenches and mass slaughters of the Great War. The gap between rich and poor was extreme, and most people slaved away in conditions worse than those later described by Orwell. Although the West received word of the horror perpetrated by Lenin after the Russian Revolution, it remained difficult to evaluate his actions from afar. …

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the Stalinist Soviets sent two million kulaks, their richest peasants, to Siberia (those with a small number of cows, a couple of hired hands, or a few acres more than was typical). From the communist viewpoint, these kulaks had gathered their wealth by plundering those around them, and deserved their fate. Wealth signified oppression, and private property was theft. It was time for some equity. More than thirty thousand kulaks were shot on the spot.

The kulaks were ‘enemies of the people,’ apes, scum, vermin, filth and swine. ‘We will make soap out of the kulak,’ claimed one particularly brutal cadre of city-dwellers, mobilized by party and Soviet executive committees, and sent out into the countryside. The kulaks were driven, naked, into the streets, beaten, and forced to dig their own graves. The women were raped. Their belongings were ‘expropriated,’ which, in practice, meant that their houses were stripped down to the rafters and ceiling beams and everything was stolen. …

The ‘parasitical’ kulaks were, in general, the most skilful and hardworking farmers. A small minority of people are responsible for most of the production in any field, and farming proved no different. Agricultural output crashed. What little remained was taken by force out of the countryside and into the cities. Rural people who went out into the fields after the harvest to glean single grains of wheat for their hungry families risked execution. Six million people died of starvation in the Ukraine, the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, in the 1930s. ‘To eat your own children is a barbarian act,’ declared posters of the Soviet regime.

… France’s most famous mid-century philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, was a well-known communist, although not a card-carrier, until he denounced the Soviet incursion into Hungary in 1956. He remained an advocate for Marxism, nonetheless, and did not finally break with the Soviet Union until 1968, when the Soviets violently suppressed the Czechoslovakians during the Prague Spring.

Not long after came the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, which we have discussed rather extensively in previous chapters. As noted (and is worth noting again), this book utterly demolished communism’s moral credibility—first in the West, and then in the Soviet System itself. …

Solzhenitsyn argued that the Soviet system could have never survived without tyranny and slave labour; that the seeds of its worst excesses were definitively sowed in the time of Lenin (for whom the Western communists still served as apologists); and that it was propped up by endless lies, both individual and public. Its sins could not be blamed on a simple cult of personality, as its supporters continued to claim. Solzhenitsyn documented the Soviet Union’s extensive mistreatment of political prisoners, its corrupt legal system, and its mass murders, and showed in painstaking detail how these were not aberrations but direct expressions of the underlying communist philosophy. No one could stand up for communism after The Gulag Archipelago—not even the communists themselves.

This did not mean that the fascination Marxist ideas had for intellectuals—particularly French intellectuals—disappeared. It merely transformed. Some refused outright to learn. Sartre denounced Solzhenitsyn as a ‘dangerous element.’ Derrida, more subtle, substituted the idea of power for the idea of money, and continued on his merry way. Such linguistic sleight-of-hand gave all the barely repentant Marxists still inhabiting the intellectual pinnacles of the West the means to retain their world-view. Society was no longer repression of the poor by the rich. It was oppression of everyone by the powerful.

According to Derrida, hierarchical structures emerged only to include (the beneficiaries of that structure) and to exclude (everyone else, who were therefore oppressed). Even that claim wasn’t sufficiently radical. Derrida claimed that divisiveness and oppression were built right into language— built into the very categories we use to pragmatically simplify and negotiate the world. There are ‘women’ only because men gain by excluding them. There are ‘males and females’ only because members of that more heterogeneous group benefit by excluding the tiny minority of people whose biological sexuality is amorphous. Science only benefits the scientists. Politics only benefits the politicians. In Derrida’s view, hierarchies exist because they gain from oppressing those who are omitted. It is this ill-gotten gain that allows them to flourish.

Derrida famously said (although he denied it, later): ‘Il n’y a pas de hors-texte’—often translated as ‘there is nothing outside the text.’ His supporters say that is a mistranslation, and that the English equivalent should have been ‘there is no outside-text.’ It remains difficult, either way, to read the statement as saying anything other than ‘everything is interpretation,’ and that is how Derrida’s work has generally been interpreted.

It is almost impossible to over-estimate the nihilistic and destructive nature of this philosophy. It puts the act of categorization itself in doubt. It negates the idea that distinctions might be drawn between things for any reasons other than that of raw power. Biological distinctions between men and women? Despite the existence of an overwhelming, multi-disciplinary scientific literature indicating that sex differences are powerfully influenced by biological factors, science is just another game of power, for Derrida and his post-modern Marxist acolytes, making claims to benefit those at the pinnacle of the scientific world. There are no facts. Hierarchical position and reputation as a consequence of skill and competence? All definitions of skill and of competence are merely made up by those who benefit from them, to exclude others, and to benefit personally and selfishly.

There is sufficient truth to Derrida’s claims to account, in part, for their insidious nature. Power is a fundamental motivational force (‘a,’ not ‘the’). People compete to rise to the top, and they care where they are in dominance hierarchies. But (and this is where you separate the metaphorical boys from the men, philosophically) the fact that power plays a role in human motivation does not mean that it plays the only role, or even the primary role. Likewise, the fact that we can never know everything does make all our observations and utterances dependent on taking some things into account and leaving other things out (as we discussed extensively in Rule 10). That does not justify the claim that everything is interpretation, or that categorization is just exclusion. Beware of single cause interpretations—and beware the people who purvey them.

“I think, as well (on what might be considered the leftish side), that the incremental remake of university administrations into analogues of private corporations is a mistake. I think that the science of management is a pseudo-discipline. I believe that government can, sometimes, be a force for good, as well as the necessary arbiter of a small set of necessary rules. Nonetheless, I do not understand why our society is providing public funding to institutions and educators whose stated, conscious and explicit aim is the demolition of the culture that supports them. Such people have a perfect right to their opinions and actions, if they remain lawful. But they have no reasonable claim to public funding. If radical right-wingers were receiving state funding for political operations disguised as university courses, as the radical left-wingers clearly are, the uproar from progressives across North America would be deafening.” (s. 211)

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