Vi har længe villet poste denne video med Eli Wiesel. Nu er det gjort. Vi er i Oslo i maj 2009. Del 2 her. Kan ses ud i ét på Vimeo. ( Se også idag Etty Hillesum (1914-1943) om lidandet och hatet.)
Oslo Freedom Forum – Elie Wiesel and Soledad O’Brien from OsloFreedomForum on Vimeo.
Enoch Powell: “Let it go on until the civil war comes “
Hidtil uset klip fra 1977. Kan ikke embedddes, men ses på dette link. BBC´s fremragende dokumentar fra marts 2008,der i mangt og meget posthumt giver Powell ret, kan stadig ses på You Tube i bidder, eller i sin helhed 58 minutter her. Oplagt DR 2 stof dengang, men de nappede ikke på. Både højpandet og kontroversielt, det er ikke feel-good på DR 2.
My prospect is that politicians of all parties will say: “Well, Enoch Powell is right, we don´t say that in public, but we know it in private, and it will no doubt develop as he says. But it´s better for us to do nothing now, let it happen, perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisinous nettles, that we would have to seize, if we were to attempt to overt the outcome. Let it go on until a third of central London, a third of Birmingham and Wolverhampton are coloured, until the civil war comes. We won´t be blamed. We will either have gone or we will slip out under somehow.”
Problemer erkendes først, når de ikke mere kan løses, siger Niccolo Machiavelli. Det er en pessimistisk, men ganske dækkende iagttagelse.Problemer i deres vorden syner og mærkes ikke, og det er unødigt og måske upopulært at trække opmærksomheden hen mod dem. For måske går alting over af sig selv. Og hvem vil lege mørkemand? Den modsatte opfattelse gav den engelske politiker Enoch Powell engang udtryk for: »Det er det politiske håndværks opgave at sikre sig mod onder, som kan forhindres. Men her støder politikken på vanskeligheder med dybe rødder i menneskenaturen. En vanskelighed består i, at sådanne onder naturligvis ikke er synlige, før de optræder. Læs eller genlæs Henrik Gade Jensen om Powell: Meningsparasitterne lammer den offentlige debat.
Hovedløs debatstigmatisering
Historien i forrige post om Choudarys aflyste march hænger umiddelbart sammen med vores hjemlige Hedegaardsag, idet den illustrerer hvilken vigtig debat der forsøges lagt låg på med henvisning til budbringerens angivelige suspekte motiver: Fremtiden. Briterne har måske vundet et slag her og nu. Er alt så godt? Det kan man nok godt udelukke, for de involverede femtekolonneelementer opholder sig stadig inden for landets grænser, og iveren efter at omstyrte samfundet er ikke mindsket. Vi taler om en Pyrrhussejr, et eksempel på hvad den britiske skribent El Inglés har kaldt “managing decline”: Man forsøger at opretholde ro og orden her og nu, vel vidende hvilken retning udviklingen går. Det specielle her er udelukkende at udfaldet umiddelbart var til briternes fordel.
Erfaringerne bl. a. med nogle essays af El Inglés på Gates of Vienna, og nu altså også herhjemme, viser altså at der øves særdeles aggressiv modstand mod den blotte omtale af emnet ‘fremtiden’. Selv Søren Pind mente at Hedegaards opstilling af civilatoriske opløsningsscenarier risikerede at blive selvopfyldende. Fremtiden, den skal bare komme, skal den, og det er ikke noget vi snakker om. Men uden denne debat vil nyheden fra Storbritannien blot hænge uforløst i luften.
[…] Having accused the British police of not having a strategy to deal with the increasingly corrosive effects of large and growing numbers of Muslims in British society, I will now suggest that there is one strategy consistent with their behaviour, whether they have ever consciously formulated it or not. Simply put, it is the strategy of managing decline. The police have recognized that brute demographic realities render it impossible to ensure that the rule of British law continues to obtain in Muslim-dominated areas or with respect to Muslims in general, and that there is nothing they can do about it. They therefore take action against the most egregious examples of Muslim criminality, whilst simultaneously recommending that clergymen in London not wear their collars in public for fear of being assaulted by adherents of the Religion of Peace. They are, in essence, fighting a rearguard action against an inexorable demographic process, which can be slowed, but no longer stopped through mainstream political processes. […] El Inglés: Surrender, Genocide… or What?
Men vi kan for så vidt godt springe videre til næste fase: Vi har ikke i sinde at holde mund, uanset hvad pæne mennesker mener, og vil fortsat beskæftige os med fremtidsscenarier. Hvad vil I gøre ved det? (LFPC)
Kun hver fjerde brite har positive følelser for islam
Hvorfor dog? What’s not to like? Memo til Wivel, Vind Jensen, Hadith-Ole, og vores to nye kommentarstjerner, Mohamed og den hidsige Nydansker: Dette er ikke et resultat af Snaphanens eller Vlaams Belangs nedrige rænker i det britiske. Vi fortæller det bare (LFPC).
More than half the population believe Britain is deeply divided along religious lines, according to an official survey. A majority would also strongly oppose the development of a mosque in their neighbourhood, the research into social attitudes found.
Almost half – 45 per cent – say they do not believe that diversity has brought benefits to the country and that religious diversity has had a negative impact. The government-backed inquiry revealed that only one in four people in Britain feel positively about Islam. […] Islam divides us, say the majority of Britons
Dialog, fred og mellemmenneskelig forståelse på Snaphanen. Og et par nazikort
Opmærksomheden skal lige henledes på en opblusset debat i denne gamle tråd. Det er meget lærerigt hvad angår den udefrakommende kommentarskrivers argumentation og påstande. Se også kommentaren fra Mohamed i en anden tråd. Jeg har ikke den fjerneste anelse om hvad det er han prøver at argumentere for, og måske ved han det heller ikke helt selv, men det er en bizar rodebunke af ansvarsbenægtelse, trusler, had til vantro, udenomssnak og offerrollespil. PR-opgaven synes håbløs. Man spærrer dog øjnene op for denne åbenhjertighed:
Læser man Koranen finder man her, sort på hvidt, at muslimerne af Allah er kommanderet til at betragte alle ikkemuslimer som urene, “najis” (ligesom lort) vantro,”kuffar”, der skal bekæmpes “jihad”. Den eneste sikre vej til paradis for muslimen er at dræbe og blive dræbt i krig mod den vantro.
Selvom ikke alle muslimer praktiserer deres tro – omend Allah utvetydigt kommandere dem – så er denne verdensopfattelse kernen i islam.
Tja, han sagde det, ikke os eller Lars Hedegaard (LFPC).
Edderkoppen Prins Al-Waleed bin Talal
Er der et navn man bør bide mærke i er det den saudiarabiske Prins Al-Waleed bin Talal. En særdeles velbeslået herre med indflydelse på vigtige opinionsdannende institutioner i Vesten. Således er Mellemøststudier ved to af USAs absolut førende universiteter opkaldt efter denne generøse donor af $20 millioner, til hver, forstås.
On the same day nearly two years ago, Harvard and Georgetown announced their delight at receiving separate $20 million gifts from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. […] Harvard agreed to establish the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies program, with new faculty positions and research opportunities. Georgetown pledged to do much the same through the HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. […] Clash of Cultures [on the state of Middle East studies, Alwaleed Bin Talal, John Esposito]
Prinsen bør også nævnes hver gang Fox News anklages eller roses for en angiveligt særligt konservativ programflade:
[…] [bin Talal] said that during last month’s street protests in France, the US television network Fox — owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in which Al-Walid himself has shares — ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.” “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.” […] Fox in the tank
Fox, Harvard og Georgetown University bliver nu kædet sammen med the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), der har rødder i Hamas og Det Muslimske Broderskab, på en lidet flatterende måde:
Given CAIR’s proven ties to terrorism – which O’Reilly failed to mention – why would Fox offer the group’s top executives a virtually uncritical forum on prime-time cable TV? Saudi Arabian money may be a factor. It turns out that the same billionaire Saudi prince who owns a major stake in Fox’s parent company also bankrolls Washington-based CAIR. […]
The common financial bond between Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and Fox, and between bin Talal and CAIR, raises questions not only about Fox News’s independence, but about the truthfulness of CAIR’s top spokesman. Hooper repeatedly has denied that CAIR receives foreign support, insisting it’s a “grass-roots” nonprofit organization. In CAIR press releases, Hooper has stated unequivocally: “We do not support directly or indirectly or receive support from any overseas group or government.” However, smoking-gun video footage obtained during a recent six-month covert investigation of CAIR puts the lie to Hooper’s claims.
A State Department cable citing Hooper by name, moreover, directly contradicts Hooper’s denials about foreign support […] “One admitted reason for the group’s current visit to the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) was to solicit $50 million in governmental and non-governmental contributions.” “(Saudi) King Abdullah knows CAIR very well,” the cable added. Among other things, CAIR said the money would be used to “counter negative stereotypes about Muslims in the U.S.” media, a phenomenon described by CAIR as “Islamophobia.” Why does Fox News promote terror-tied, FBI-shunned group?
Sagen har således et højeksplosivt potentiale som øjenåbner, men hvilket tv-medie vil dække den? Pyha, godt at den slags penge al-drig har fundet vej til danske lommer (LFPC).
Muslimsk demografi i Europa
I modsætning til den You Tube video der cirkulerer, ser denne statistik pålidelig ud. Området er selvfølgelig vanskeligt, da officielle statistikker ikke registrerer religiøs tilhørighed. Vi plukker Sverige. Man ser at der i tiåret fra 1996-2006 er tale om en fordobling af den muslimske befolkning.
Sweden

[…] Having accused the British police of not having a strategy to deal with the increasingly corrosive effects of large and growing numbers of Muslims in British society, I will now suggest that there is one strategy consistent with their behaviour, whether they have ever consciously formulated it or not. Simply put, it is the strategy of managing decline. The police have recognized that brute demographic realities render it impossible to ensure that the rule of British law continues to obtain in Muslim-dominated areas or with respect to Muslims in general, and that there is nothing they can do about it. They therefore take action against the most egregious examples of Muslim criminality, whilst simultaneously recommending that clergymen in London not wear their collars in public for fear of being assaulted by adherents of the Religion of Peace. They are, in essence, fighting a rearguard action against an inexorable demographic process, which can be slowed, but no longer stopped through mainstream political processes. […] 




