synes alle at være de eneste, der ikke har set FITNA, eller også synes de bare de skal sige det, selvom det får dem til at fremstå ekstra idiotiske.  Meget interessant  TV debat her. Se også Lord Pearson, UKIP,der inviterede Wilders til England, han taler sin sag godt – I to You Tube dele.

“Ekstrembloggerne”

“En kontroversiel form for nyhedsformidling, som er indvandringskritisk og fremmedfjendlig og stærkt foruroligende”, siger Sveriges Radio “Medierna” (hør her fra minut 2:57 til 12:30).

Sveriges Radio rapporterade häromdagen (programmet Medierna, lördag 14 februari 2009, kl 11:03) om att systemkritiska bloggar vinner allt större terräng och att de hotar fulmedias monopol. I denna rapportering följde naturligtvis svartmålning av bloggarna. Man introducerar en ny term för att få folk att tänka i rätt banor: extrembloggare. Sedan följer att dessa bloggar i början av programmet kallas för invandringskritiska, för att sedan benämnas främlingsfientliga och när man sedan refererar till s.k. experter på högerextremism är cirkeln sluten.Fria Nyheter, Rakryggad, Thoralf Alfsson og Muslimska Friskolan

SR: Extrembloggar: Främlingsfientliga bloggar utmanar medierna

Bloggarna har blivit ett nytt verktyg för invandringskritiska gruppers opinionsbildning – inte minst utmanas de traditionella medierna med ständiga tillägg och omtolkningar. Det här har fått rätt stor omfattning i dag och oroar flera organisationer som jobbar mot främlingsfientlighet. De tror dessutom att det finns organiserat samarbete mellan vissa av dessa bloggare. SR Lördag 14 februari 2009 kl 11:03

Jeg kender de omtalte  blogs som troværdige og ikke-ekstreme, de vil bare ikke  have deres land ødelagt  med en rate på 100.000 udlændinge om året. De vil vide sandheden om de 5.300 årlige, anmeldte voldtægter, om mord og overfald på bøsser og om hvorfor verdens højeste skat ikke længere giver velfærd af betydning. De dokumenterer ødelæggelserne og medierøgsløret, og det jeg naturligvis præcis det, det hidtidige meningsmonopol, har svære problemer med. Alle ved, de lyver, censurerer og vinkler ud i det groteske, ganske vist med en vis rafinesse, erhvervet gennem mange års øvelse. Det er ved at være en kendt sag i Danmark, at det er den svenske version af folkestyre, ytringsfrihed og masseindvandring, der er ekstrem, ikke kritikerne af det.  Hvor længe får svenskere lov til at blogge frit ? Ericsson hjalp kineserne med deres IT censur, de kan vel gøre det samme på hjemmeplan. Det er svært at tro, at Sveriges elite kan leve  med denne uvante ytringsfrihed længe, hvis de ikke absolut skal.

‘Se intet ondt’

Et fascinerende portræt af det amerikanske Gutmensch, the liberal, som bør læses i sin helhed. Uviljen mod at anerkende ondskabens eksistens, og en prioritering af (rene) motiver på bekostning af konsekvenserne af handlinger, er jo som snydt ud af næsen på vores kulturradikale og socialister (LFPC).

[…] The root problem with the liberal mentality is that it has no viable theory of evil and little conception of its tangible presence in human affairs. However we may wish to define it-as a privation of being, the effect of an original sin, the condition of the natural world, a predilection for violence and domination inscribed in the gene plasm-evil is a reality, and it is in the world as it is in us. […]

The conviction that we all share a mutual hankering for concord is the liberal version of the Rapture. In contending against a real enemy who has blood, infiltration and conquest in mind, liberals are at a loss. […]

The belief that “talking” can solve intractable problems with irrational foes is the panacea of losers or the hope of the desperate. […]

Broadly speaking, the conservative project is what is known in philosophy as an “axiological” ethic, in which the determination of the rightness of an action is contingent upon the value or goodness of that action as embodied in results, however deferred. It is concerned with consequences. The liberal ethic on the other hand is “deontological,” that is, it holds that an action may be considered right if it conforms to a prior set of values even if it does not bring as much good into the world as some alternative action may have. It is concerned with motives.

This is why “the liberal mind” seems incapable of learning from past mistakes or failed initiatives, why predictions that have not come to pass do not prevent it from making similar predictions in the future, and why Neville Chamberlains crop up in every generation. […]David Solway: Liberalism and Evil

Rutinemæssige kvindetæsk i Tyrkiet

Rutinemæssige kvindetæsk i Tyrkiet. Jeg mener en FN rapport fandt en betydeligt højere procentdel for nogle år siden, men dette er også den tyrkiske regerings egen undersøgelse. “Islam agter kvinden” ? Her skulle der vel have stået “tugter” eller “basker” ? Hvis jeg må parafrasere Gustav Wied: “En kultur der ikke behandler kvinder, børn og dyr ordenligt, er syg og mislykket i  sin grundvold.”...42 Prozent der Türkinnen leiden unter Gewalt.

Vi har selvfølgelig masseimporteret denne habituelle misogyni, og det har været tragikomisk at se, hvordan europæiske feminister har slået knuder  på sig selv, for at skjule dette enkle faktum. Bergsjön värst på kvinnovåld (Bergsjön = Gøteborg ghetto). Gøteborgs Posten udfører, som det ses de samme yndefulde pirouetter:

Förklaringarna till varför Bergsjön ligger högst i statistiken är många. De flesta, både politiker och tjänstemän, talar om stadsdelens sociala situation med hög arbetslöshet, ohälsa och utanförskap.- Vi har ännu inte utrett frågan varför, men det finns inget samband mellan våld i nära relationer och arbetslöshet, anser Stig Andersson. Han ser snarare förklaringen i den nya mansrollen. När män känner att deras mansroll är utmanad uppstår konflikt. Utmaningen kan till exempel komma från partnern som vill leva mer jämställt.

Det er en hel central del af den europæiske syge, som svenskerne er særligt prædisponerede for, at æstetikken er vigtigere end sandheden. Vi havde  et dansk eksempel her forleden, SUC lektoren Therkel Stræde, der godt hjulpet af TV-Avisen ikke kunne  sige sandheden om det nye, tilvandrede  jødehad i Danmark, selvom det er det han får sin løn fra det offentlige for.

“Does defending Western values constitute “inciting hatred”?

By Bat Yeor

Britain has just witnessed the spectacle of a duly elected parliamentarian from another EU country, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, being denied entry to the country because he constituted “a threat to public policy.” Wilders, after being detained briefly at Heathrow, was sent back to Holland — where he has further legal troubles. Three weeks earlier, a Dutch appeals court had ordered prosecutors to begin criminal proceedings against Wilders for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and “insulting Muslim worshippers” through his public statements and his 2008 film, Fitna. The order to proceed with the criminal prosecution resulted from pressure put on European states and on the UN Human Rights Council by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC’s aim is to punish and suppress any alleged Islamophobia, around the world but particularly in Europe, and it has been leader in creating the conditions that made the U.K.’s Wilders ban possible.

The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah — the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body. (se også: Wilders  PVV second in polls if elections were held today. Hver 6 hollænder ville stemme  Wilders.)

The OIC is a unique organization — one that has no equivalent in the world. It unites the religious, economic, military, and political strength of 56 states. By contrast, the European Union represents half as many states and is a secular body only, and the Vatican — which speaks for the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics — is devoid of any political power.

Many Muslims in the West resist the OIC’s tutelage and oppose its efforts to supplant Western law with sharia. But the OIC’s resources are formidable.

The organization has numerous subsidiary institutions collaborating at the highest levels with international organizations in order to implement its political objectives worldwide. Its main working bodies are the Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), which seeks to impose on the West the Islamic perception of history and civilization; the Observatory of Islamophobia, which puts pressure on Western governments and international bodies to adopt laws punishing “Islamophobia” and blasphemy; and the newly created Islamic International Court of Justice. As stated in its 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the OIC is strictly tied to the principles of the Koran, the Sunnah, and the sharia. In a word, the OIC seeks to become the reincarnation of the Caliphate.

The OIC regularly reiterates its commitments to protecting the political, historical, religious, and human rights of Muslims in non-OIC states, especially Muslims who form the majority in specific regions of non-Muslim countries — such as the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, and western Thrace in Greece — as well as Muslims in places like the Balkans, the Caucasus, Myanmar, India, and China.The OIC supports Hamas and the Palestinians in their struggle to destroy Israel, as well as the Muslim fight for “legitimate self-determination” in “Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.” It has condemned the “continual Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan,” and it expresses its full solidarity with “the just cause of the Muslim Turkish people of Cyprus” and with Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, whom many hold responsible for encouraging the massacres in Darfur. The seat of the OIC is in Jeddah, but the organization regards that location as temporary: Its headquarters will be transferred to al-Kods (Islamized Jerusalem) when that city has been “liberated” from Israeli control.

In its efforts to defend the “true image” of Islam and combat its defamation, the organization has requested the UN and the Western countries to punish “Islamophobia” and blasphemy. Among the manifestations of Islamophobia, in the OIC’s view, are European opposition to illegal immigration, anti-terrorist measures, criticism of multiculturalism, and indeed any efforts to defend Western cultural and national identities. The OIC has massive funding from oil sources, which it lavishly spends on the Western media and academia and in countless “dialogues.” It influences Western policy, laws, and even textbooks through pressures brought by Muslim immigrants and by the Western nations’ own leftist parties. Hence, we have seen Kristallnacht-like incitements of hate and murder against European Jews and Israel conducted with impunity in the cities of Europe — where respect for human rights is supposed to be one of the highest values.

Geert Wilders is the latest victim of this enormous world machinery. His crime is maintaining that Europe’s civilization is rooted in the values of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and the Enlightenment — and not in Mecca, Baghdad, Andalusia, and al-Kods. He fights for Europe’s independence from the Caliphate and for its endangered freedoms. He had received serious death threats even before Fitna was released.

Many Muslims in the West support him, but Geert Wilders’s principal weapons are his courage and his willingness to resist even his own government, which is slowly submitting to the OIC’s pressures. Wilders’s enemies pretend that he is an insignificant personality who makes “provocative” statements only in search of fame. In fact, if his motivation were self-interest, he could do far better by courting the OIC’s favors — as so many Europeans are doing, consciously or unconsciously — rather than risking his freedom and indeed his life.

— Bat Yeor is the author of studies on the conditions of Jews and Christians in the context of the jihad ideology and the sharia law. Recent books include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, both from Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. National Review