Da vi hverken er Nostradamus eller et forskningsinstitut, kan vi dårlige gøre andet end at viderebringe med den bemærkning, at så forudsigelig er verden vel næppe heller. Og hvis Tyrkiet bliver så stor en magt, hvor efterlader det Europa med til den tid + – 100 mio muslimer? I september 1683 ? Det er dog en gammel, prøvet sandhed, at problemer der aktuelt fylder det hele, senere i bakspejlet er fuldstændig uden historisk betydning.
De kommende årtiers nye trusler: Islamister kæmper indbyrdes. EU, Kina og Rusland falder sammen. Tyrkiet, Polen og Japan bliver nye stormagter. Sådan lyder den truende spådom fra en amerikansk forfatter, der mener, at Danmark vil blive fanget midt i fronten. Sådan vil verden se ud de næste 100 år
“The Next 100 Years” is fascinating because of its dismissal of the conventional wisdom. Radical Islam is a blip, Friedman believes, and the Middle East is too rife with internal disagreements to ever be a major power. Asymmetrical warfare (smuggling around suitcase-size nukes, for instance) scarcely gets a mention. Even classic boogeymen such as Russia and China aren’t real threats. Instead, we should focus our attention on countries like Turkey and Japan.
The history of the 21st century will be of two opposing struggles, Friedman writes. “One will be secondary powers forming coalitions to try to contain and control the United States. The second will be the United States acting preemptively to prevent an effective coalition from forming. N.Y.Post,
hvor nogle af kommentatorerne mener at Friedman selv kan være “a blip”. Men hvis EU skal kollapse, må det hellere være før end siden:
EU tilbud: 8.50 kroners arbejdere
Rørende tilbud til et Europa i recession fra eurokrater der selv sparer 8.5 mio op på 5 år:
The European Commission launches a new agency which could see thousands of asylum seekers from Africa transferred directly to the UK. Brussels wants Britain to “share the burden” of dealing with 70,000 asylum seekers who cross the Mediterranean from Africa each year to countries such as Italy and Malta. “We know that Britain offers free accommodation and food, but we also want to work. We are certain we’ll get to Britain. It’s easy. All we have to do after that is start earning.” If they fail, they simply wait for their next chance. The scene is replicated in up to half-a-dozen ports, with 2,000 migrants sleeping rough in the Calais region alone. Another migrant calling himself Iqbar and claiming he was 19 and from Iraq said: “We just want to get started. We have great respect for the English, but believe that in the end it is the people who are prepared to work the hardest who should get the jobs. If the British can’t compete with £1 an hour then that’s their problem.”
Few of the dozens of migrants spoken to by the Sunday Express have passports. While many will claim asylum when they get to Britain, others will simply disappear into the black economy. “We’ve all suffered persecution, so a low-paid job doesn’t bother us,” said Omhar, who said he was a 20-year-old Iranian. “Once we are established we will bring our families over. We know everybody is welcome and it’s easy to get over if you keep trying.” The European Commission has drawn up plans to create a European Asylum Support Office to “harmonise” asylum laws across the EU. Home Affairs Commissioner Jacques Barrot said the agency, to be set up next year, would also arrange “intra-community transfers”, shifting asylum seekers from hotspots like Italy to countries like the UK. INVASION OF £1-AN-HOUR MIGRANTS, Recession fuels fears of a ‘summer of rage’ . Fear that the Army will have to be brought in to deal with riots.
Flemmimg Rose: A false analogy
When British Foreign Minister David Miliband was asked earlier this month to explain why Dutch MP Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain in order to show his film ‘Fitna’, which criticises Islam, to a group of British MPs, he declared:
‘We have a profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry “fire” in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land.’
Milibrand’s analogy is misplaced. If you apply it to other public figures, there are scores of current and former Danish MPs and public voices that would never be permitted to enter Great Britain. Such people have for years incited hatred against critics of immigration by comparing them with Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.
The analogy comes from a 1919 US Supreme Court ruling, but the argument behind the ruling differs from Miliband’s application of it on a crucial point. What’s more is that many would agree that the statement Oliver Wendel Holmes was trying to criminalise with his analogy is now completely legal. The case involved Charles Schenck, secretary of the US Socialist Party in Philadelphia. Schenck was being tried for circulating flyers that compared the US military draft during the First World War with slavery, and called on Americans to oppose the war using legal means. Who today would prosecute an American who had protested against the recruitment of soldiers to fight in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? Holmes argued that Schenck’s actions were made while the country was at war, and that they created a ‘clear and present danger’ that would undermine the US Army’s efforts to win the war. Hundreds of Americans were taken to court. Holmes asserted:
‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting “fire” in a theatre and causing a panic.’ Drawing an analogy with socialist Schenck handing out flyers falls short in the Wilders case. What’s more, Holmes later used an opposing argument to defend freedom of speech. But note that in defending the move to keep Wilders out, Miliband forgot that Holmes said you weren’t allowed to yell ‘fire’ unless there actually was a fire. If there is a fire, or if there is smoke, then you have an obligation to draw everyone’s attention to it.
Wilders’s film is made up of documentary pictures, which makes it hard to reject them as false. What’s more, the issue the film takes up – violence carried out in the name of religion – is a part of the European reality, which makes it a subject of heated discussion. You can argue that Wilders’s depiction is one-sided and that it is propaganda, but Michael Moore does the same thing, and he wins film awards.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has pointed out that a more precise analogy for the flyers would have been if someone were standing in front of a theatre, handing out flyers stating that the theatre was unsafe, and urging people to stay away. But that analogy would have made it impossible for Holmes to defend the decision, and it would have made it difficult for Miliband to use the analogy as an argument for keeping Wilders out.
Despite the obvious logical flaws, the false analogy continues to be invoked each time someone wants to forbid unpopular points of view from being expressed. Doing so is foolish, because it tells us nothing intelligent about where the limits of free speech are. If there’s fire – or even just smoke – don’t we have an obligation to make others aware of it? Flemming Rose, Copenhagen Post
Hvor ligger midterpositionen mellem tyranni og frihed?
“Danskerne skal ikke finde sig i at blive beskyldt for forfølgelse af sit muslimske mindretal, islamofobi, islam-forskrækkelse”
Demokratiet har ingen tabuer. Islamisk politik har ikke andet. Det er demokratiernes opgave og ansvar, at hele det internationale samfund forstår og accepterer, at vi aldrig vil tillade islamiske totalitære politiske dogmer at slå rod i vore frie og demokratiske samfund.
Af ASGER AAMUND, bestyrelsesformand




[…] A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill, perhaps President Barack Obama, with a rabid chimpanzee graced the pages of the New York Post on Wednesday.The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.