Fornuften på retræte

"The Retreat of Reason" af Anthony Browne, er en lille bog på lidt over 100 sider indeholdende skarp kritik og udpensling af politisk korrekthed. Bogen kan det stærkt anbefales at læse. Ikke fordi den bringer så meget nyt på området, for læsere af denne og andre kritiske blogge.
Men fordi den er logisk og sprogligt velopbygget, samt koncist argumenterer for sin sag - det meget stærkt og simpelt.

Her lidt af sammenfatningen af bogen:

"Starting as a reaction to the dominant ideology, it has become the dominant ideology. It defines the terms and parameter of any national debate. Anything that is not PC is automatically controversial. Across the public sphere, it has replaced reason with emotion, subordinating objective truth to subjective virtue..."

"The aim of political correctness is to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless. It automatically support those it deems victims, irrespective of whether they merit it, and opposes the powerful, irrespectively of whether they are malign or benign..."

Hans hovedpointe er at selv om politisk korrekthed er dobbelt, det vil sige bunder nogle gange i retfærdighed, så er politisk korrekthed i dag overvejende til mere skade, end gavn - dens fordele forlængst høstet:

Så skaber den blindhed over for Islam.

Gør forbrydere til ofre på bekostning af deres ofre.

Skaber dårlig disciplin i skolen og skaber neddroslede eksamenskrav - dårligere undervisning.

Den gør folk til ofre, ja og hele kontinenter som Afrika, og forhindrer dem i at tage ansvar for deres eget liv.

Forfatteren er engelsk. Så han kunne dagligt finde absurde eksempler på politisk korrekthed og fylde tusinder af sider.

Det gør han heldigvis ikke, men holder sig til enkelte symbolske eksempler og en bred diskussion af emnet og forskellige konsekvenser af politisk korrekthed, som parteres i sine enkelte bestandele.

Men som han påpeger, så er man så langt ude, at man kaster sig ud i en afklapsning af en studine som bestiller sin kaffe hvid - hvilket naturligvis betyder med rigtig meget mælk i - i den politiske korrektheds hellige navn. Det religiøse aspekt af denne, er han ikke blind for.

Det er verden til gengæld, som helst vil fornægte den er politisk korrekt, selv om den er det for fuld skrue og stort set ingen er helt undtaget.

Forfatteren er liberal og mener at politisk korrekthed intet har at gøre med den klassiske liberale model, hvor meningen netop var at alt kunne diskuteres ud fra devisen om; at hvis nogen tager fejl, så er der netop noget at diskutere.

Et samfund som ikke mangler noget, kan tillade sig at blive intellektuelt dekadent, som han skriver. Men i sidste instans kommer samfundet til at mangle sandheden, hvilket i dette tilfælde ikke blot bliver til åndeligt armod, men selv til fysisk fattigdom.

Bogen har en guide til at rense sig for Politisk korrekthed. Den kan jeg lige så vel bringe her:

“When you say something in public, ask yourself are you saying it because it is politically correct, or because you know it to be factually correct? Are you choosing intellectual laziness over emotional discomfort?”

“Be open to self-criticism, and criticism from others.”

“Don’t psychologise those you disagree with: judge what they say at face value, rather than believing there are hidden, dark motives that entitle you to dismiss what they say without thinking about it.”

“Stick to rational, evidence-based arguments, not discussions of emotionally difficult cases.”

“Feel compassion for ‘victims’, but don’t defer to them. If their victimhood is self-inflicted, deferring to them will only entrench their victimhood, rather than help them.”

“Don’t do cultural relativism: stick to a level playing field, and judge everyone by the same ethical standards. Just because someone is a ‘victim’ or a ‘minority’ doesn’t excuse unethical behaviour that you wouldn’t accept in an ‘oppressor’ or a ‘majority’.”

“Don’t feel guilty for something you weren’t responsible for: if you weren’t responsible for it, you can’t be guilty. Visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons is a contravention of the UN Convention on Human Rights.”

“Don’t feel guilt by association. Judge people by what they are in themselves, not by their tenuous links to others.”

“Don’t do zero tolerance. Humanity is not black and white, but many shades of grey. Thinking in absolutes is not thinking at all.”

“Don’t indulge in self-loathing. If you think you should be proud of yourself, and your culture, then be so. Coming from a dominant culture doesn’t make you bad.”

Whistleblower og thistleblower

Ja, der findes jo begge.

Førstnævnte (whistleblower) er en Seidenfaden, hvis forståelse af militære hemmeligheder kan ligge på et meget lille sted, der forarges grænseløst over at forsvaret tillader sig at udøve censur på en bog, der fortæller mere end godt er for kommende jægere på en mission i nattens mulm og mørke.
Og det gør bogen, plus at den fortæller nogle ting omkring sikkerheden for offentlige ambassadører, som er strengt fortroligt.

Bogen fortæller ikke noget om ligene i skabet i Afghanistan, de formodede. For Jægerkorpset undgår jo helst kamp, det får de dog det noget sværere med i fremtiden.

Så har vi thistlebloweren. Hvem er det? Ja, for eksempel er det hende her:

Denne dame ovre på den anden side af kanalen i Orwellistan, formastede sig til at fortælle sandheden om en mishandling af et skolebarn, der var blevet bundet og pisket af fire slemme drenge.
Skolen havde ellers forsøgt at bilde forældrene ind, at hun var faldet og havde slået sig, da hun sjippede.
Pigen selv var traumatiseret og ønskede ikke at tale om det.
Så kom thistlebloweren til at sige sandheden. Uha da da.

Hun blev naturligvis fyret, vi taler jo Orwellistan, og der er sandheden ilde hørt.

EU uncensored

Før jeg fik min blog, samlede jeg masser af interessante informationer på min harddisk, eller i dokumenter.

Da jeg ledte efter linket til en gammel rapport, faldt jeg tilfældigvis over denne her.

Det bliver muligvis, eller lignende, et historisk dokument en dag i fremtiden, når man skal vurdere, hvad der gik galt dengang i slutningen af sidste årtusinde og begyndelsen af dette?
Når man skal ind og fange tidsånden.

En elitær dårskab og arrogance uden lige.

(Kahn kommisionen rapport som er nedenstående ledte på sigt til oprettelsen af "European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. ")

Jeg vil lade nEU-sproget tale for sig selv:

EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 23 May 1995 (26.05)
THE COUNCIL (OR.f,en)
6906/1/95
REV 1
LIMITE
RAXEN 24
FINAL REPORT
from: Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia
to :Permanent Representatives Committee/General Affairs Council
Subject: Activities of the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia
– Final Report

The Consultative Commission was instructed to "make recommendations, geared as far as possible to national and local circumstances, on cooperation between governments and the various social bodies in favour of encouraging tolerance, understanding and harmony with foreigners".
The Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia has met regularly since
September 1994 under the chairmanship of Mr Jean KAHN. Observers from the European
Parliament and the Council of Europe have taken part in the Commission's discussions...


The Europe of Fifteen is now faced with a new threat, sixty years after it was plunged into barbarism by fascism, racism and anti-semitism.
Racism and xenophobia are again killing and wounding people in Europe, arousing anxiety and fear. The victims are mainly foreigners from outside or inside Europe, but also national citizens from minority groups...

(b)Existing educational and youth programmes in the European Union should be used in the best possible way to meet the needs of ethnic minority groups, including third country nationals resident in the European Union. These programmes could also be used when appropriate to counteract racism and xenophobia.

(c)The European Parliament has repeatedly pointed out the importance of education in the
construction of harmonious societies with equal opportunities for everyone. Young people would learn to associate with each other in reciprocal respect for each other's diversity and with mutual loyalty.

(d)All Member States recognize that one of the reasons for the growing racism and the growing
number of instances of racial discrimination in Europe is the lack of acceptance of and respect for human dignity and for cultural and religious diversity.

Education must strive to reflect a multi-cultural society. The school curricula in social sciences, language training, history, geography, philosophy and religion especially must reflect a society open to other cultures. It is of crucial importance that schoolbooks do not have an ethnocentric message. The school should increase the understanding of the different
qualifications and cultural backgrounds that the various individuals bring along. Experience has shown that exhibitions, theatre, films, videos, etc. could be used as relevant teaching
materials.

Many people are unaware of their prejudice against foreigners and immigrants. Therefore the public must be continually and objectively informed and educated about the various aspects of a multicultural society.

The Consultative Commission demands that the governments of the EU Member States carry out regular and comprehensive information and education campaigns on these issues.

The European Union is being flooded with extreme right-wing and xenophobic propaganda material!!!!!!!!!!!!! (mine udråbstegn og så lige min ROFLMAO - Det er jo så langt ude i hampen, hvor er flodbegrebet af udbredelsen af terrormanualer i dag, eller radikal muslimsk propaganda - nå nej det er jo et lille mindretalsproblem)

In this connection the Consultative Commission also suggests that more effective instruments of voluntary self-regulation be set up within the advertising industry to allow consumers to present allegations of discrimination in a swift and unbureaucratic fashion.

Apropos begrebet "voluntary self regulation", så er der en tv sekvens med Goebbels der taler til tyske journalister på et tidspunkt i trediverne, der har brændt sig totalt ind i min hukommelse. Der roser han dem for at have opført sig så pænt og skrevet så pænt om hans parti, at han aldrig har haft grund til at gribe ind over for deres pressefrihed.

Since the advertising industry develops and places its advertisements on the basis of that research, it is especially important that immigrants households be researched as well.
This would soon lead to more immigrants being shown in advertising and thus to a more accurate portrayal of reality.

A sensitive choice of wording and informed tolerance demand a good journalistic training. Particularly in a career such as journalism, which lacks entry criteria, basic and further training are given by numerous groups and associations. This continuous learning process has a moulding effect on the views of opinion-makers. The daily questioning of swiftly-formed prejudice is indispensable for the development of critical analysis in journalism.

The Consultative Commission accordingly calls upon publishers' and journalists' associations, as well as TV and radio networks, to place emphasis in their training programmes upon the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of minorities and the fight against racism and xenophobia. A well-founded journalistic training in this field is an important factor in creating a Europe of solidarity. Sensitive treatment of reports on racism and xenophobia is a prerequisite for a more harmonious coexistence in our modern society. For this reason training must be practical; it should, for example, apart from teaching basic journalistic theory, include regular practical training periods with associations and NGOs concerned with the immigrant issue.

The European Journalism Centre, taking previous national work and experience into consideration, is encouraged to elaborate a handbook for journalists' daily use and as teaching material; the issues of immigrants, asylum law, xenophobia, social exclusion and racism would be clearly set out, especially for journalists working for local newspapers. This handbook must combine topical practical aspects with useful information and serve as a practical guidebook for day-to-day journalism.

(Komm(un)is(t)ionens den lille blå bog?) Jeg er chokeret.

The Consultative Commission calls upon the European journalists' and publishers' associations and those national associations which have already agreed on guidelines for ethical reporting to encourage those countries which do not yet have one to establish such a code of conduct through their national association as an instrument of voluntary self-regulation.

Taking sanctions against bad examples is only one side of the coin. Positive examples, above all, play a stimulating role.

The Consultative Commission requests that the European Commission continue to support the European Institute for the Media and that the latter be expanded by creating a separate department for media monitoring specializing in racism, xenophobia, foreigners and immigrants. The analyses of media monitoring should be regularly published.

Hvad med en for EU politikere?

1.Individual Member States should introduce measures to make racial discrimination in employment unlawful.

These measures should protect both applicants and employees. Conduct which constitutes racial discrimination should include:

(a)direct discrimination – treating a person less favourably on "racial grounds", for example, on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;

(b)indirect discrimination – practices which are discriminatory in their effect on a particular racial group, and cannot be shown to be justified;

(c)the victimization of a person for asserting his/her rights under the legislation should also be unlawful.

2.These provisions should allow for an aggrieved individual to make a complaint to a tribunal or court. After a prima facie case has been established by the employee, the burden of proof would shift to the employer.

Hvilket uafvendeligt vil give ansætteren en meget dårlig retsstilling.

–there should be specific offences of Holocaust-denial and the trivialisation of other crimes against humanity;

Uhm, som foreksempel muslimernes store massakrer og sharia.

Læs endelig hele rapporten, hvis i kan holde det ud.

Negationisme - nogle dyr er mere lige end andre

Konraed Eelst, den fæle nationalist, som ligner en konspirationteoretiker i følge Raapil, har begået et værk som hedder, Negationism in India, hvor han på aldeles konspiratorisk vis sammenligner opfattelsen af nazismens forbrydelser, og det tabu det er at fornægte dem, med det forhold, at Indernes holocaust, er der ingen der bryder sig om, det er faktisk udbredt og almindeligt, at man fornægter det selv i Indien.

Eelst har sammenfattet ti virkemidler eller strategier som benægtere betjener sig af, i kan finde gode eksempler på alle sammen på Raapils blog, han mestrer kunsten, kører med den store apologi, kulturrelativisme og benægtelsesklat.

Prøv blot at kigge på debatten her, hvordan han igen igen forsøger at få gjort muslimerne til ofre, mens Hindus og Israelere er slynglerne:

Lidt i udvalg:

Raapil: Hinduland er altså ikke erobret af Pakistan eller af de indiske muslimer, og de pogromer der foretages i Indien (mod såvel kristne som muslimer), de foretages af radikale hinduer.

Kan du slet ikke se forskellen på at føre kamp på basis af en ongoing og uløst konflikt og så i Indien på basis af gammelt nag til muslimerne og mere eller mindre ekstrem nationalisme?

Jeg har skrevet som svar:

I Pakistan blev omkring 600.000 hinduer dræbt under partitionen, i 1971 blev måske op til 3 millioner mennesker dræbt, primært hinduer eller Bengalesere af anden tro end ortodoks islam, vil du ikke kalde det en ongoing konflikt? Der findes mennesker i dag som personligt har oplevet det.

De skal naturligvis bare tilføjes som en bæk til den flod af blod Islam har frembragt i Indien og i øvrigt i resten af verden, hvilket jeg kun er nået til toppen af isbjerget omkring her.

Raapil fortsætter:

Israel jagede 600.000-700.000 arabere på flugt, så den israelske stat blev mere jævn og ikke overfyldt med perkere.

Og nej det er usandt, de forlod selv stedet så muslimerne som Azzam Pasha udtrykte det kunne slagte alle jøderne og på grund af paranoid propaganda fra araberne selv:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."Azzam Pasha arabisk ligaleder.

Enkelte steder i Israel blev de bønfaldt om at blive, og Israels egen uafhængighedserklæring sagde:

"we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.

* Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on (14 May 1948)"

Mange arabere valgte at blive i Israel og deres efterkommere lever der endnu, det er altså direkte, meget direkte løgn, hvad Raapil siger.

De som flygtede fik så tilgengæld ikke lov til at rejse hjem igen, de blev syndebukke for, hvad de arabiske nationer havde gjort.
Det samme gjorde 450.000 jøder rundt omkring i den arabiske verden, de blev syndebukke, de blev smidt til Israel og fik deres ejendom konfiskeret, Israelerne betragter den situation som en bytter.
De flygtede jøder er kommet videre, mens Palæstinenserne hænger fast i deres skæbne som ofre, godt hjulpet af FN som har det palæstinensiske folk som yndlingsofre.
I dag vil Hamas, stadig havde flygtninge og efterkommere tilbage, for at ville indgå en 50 årig våbenhvile, som de ganske åbent og ærligt kun vil indgå midlertidigt, for at opbygge styrke til deres store projekt, at overvinde staten Israel og ligge den under Islamisk herredømme.

Hvis Araberne og palæstinenserne aldrig havde terrorangrebet Israel på stribe, var dette her aldrig sket, Palæstinenserne ville have haft deres egen stat og levet i fred og velstand.

Golda Meir har ret i, at hvis Israel nedlagde våbnene, ville der ikke være noget Israel mere. Men hvis Palæstinenserne gjorde det samme, ville der blive fred. Det er sagens kerne.

Mere om Israel som man normalt ikke ved her:

Alligevel synes Raapil, at Palæstina rimer mere på offer, end Hinduerne gør.

Men nu til Konraed Eelsts formulering af de ti negationistiske strategier, som i som sagt kan finde eksempler på Raapils blog.

Head-on denial: The crassest form of negationism is obviously the simple denial of the facts. This is mostly done in the form of general claims, such as: "Islam is tolerant", "Islamic Spain was a model of multicultural harmony", "the anti-Jewish hatred was unknown among Muslims until Zionism and anti-Semitism together entered the Muslim world from Europe". Since it is rare that a specific crime of Islam is brought to the public's notice, there is little occasion to come out and deny specific crimes. Exceptions are the Armenian genocide, officially denied in Turkey and the entire Muslim world,

Til den kan man tilføje sådan noget som, "Jihad betyder en fredelig indre kamp." Og "Muhammad var en stor og moralsk leder." Karen Armstrong, Jørgen Bæk Simonsen, den slags rosenrøde løgne skriver man gerne om Islam og dens profet, men ikke om Nazismen eller Israel, eller DF, hvor hver lille sten skal vendes for at finde noget negativt - indrømmet, samme tendens findes blandt enkelte Islamkritikere, hvor intet er for småt til at blive fundet frem i blandt.

2. Ignoring the facts: This passive negationism is certainly the safest and the most popular. The media and textbook-writers simply keep the vast corpus of inconvenient testimony out of the readers' view.

Fokusere på andre træk end de blodige lig, naturligvis den mest brugte og i øvrigt gennemgående i det meste af historieskrivningen, "den som udelader, lyver ikke" som en spin-regel siger.

3. Minimizing the facts: If the inconvenient fact is pointed out that numerous Muslim chroniclers have reported a given massacre of unbelievers themselves, one can posit a priori that they must have exaggerated to flatter their patron's martial vanity - as if it is not significant enough that Muslim rulers felt flattered by being described as mass-murderers of infidels.

Betvivle omfanget af holocaust, det ville være en dårlig idé, men hvad angår Islams massakrer, er det helt ok, eller Stalins osv. Det kalder man også kulturrelativisme, en nyvariant af det uforglemmelige citat fra Kammerat Napoleon, "Alle dyr er lige, men nogle er mere lige end andre".

4. Whitewashing: When one cannot conceal, deny or minimize the facts, one can still claim that on closer analysis,, they are not as bad as they seem. One can call right what is obviously wrong. This can go very far, e.g. in his biography of Mohammed, Maxime Rodinson declared unashamedly that the extermination of the Medinese Jews by Mohammed was doubtlessly the best solution.

Hvidvask, jo det er forståeligt nok, at de stakkels undertrykte Palæstinensere simpelthen er nødt til at blæse civile Israelere ihjel og i småstykker, i den grad at 2/3 dele af de Israelske døde er civile og selv om Israel slår flere ihjel, så slår Palæstinenserne langt flere civile ihjel relativt.

5. Playing up unrepresentative facts: A popular tactic in negationism consists in finding a positive but uncharacteristic event.

Ellers koranvers, som "den der dræber et menneske dræber menneskeheden," siges Muhammad jo at have sagt, med de tusinder han personligt fik dræbt, eller folk under hans kommando, har han dog dræbt menneskeheden mange gange.

6. Denying the motive: Negationists sometimes accept the facts, but disclaim their hero's responsibility for them. Thus, Mohammed Habib tried to exonerate Islam by ascribing to the Islamic invaders alternative motives: Turkish barbarity, greed, the need to put down conspiracies brewing in temples. In reality, those rulers who had secular reasons to avoid an all-out confrontation with the unbelievers, were often reprimanded by their clerical courtiers for neglecting their Islamic duty.

Raapil er et glimrende eksempel på dette, det har intet med kultur og religion at gøre, men skyldes almindelig magttrang og imperialisme. Hvilket er en dårlig forklaring, når millioner og atter millioner bliver dræbt, eftersom de kunne have beriget en imperialist med skatter eller i det mindste som slaver, eller er det magten over liv og død som kan være forklaringen alene?
Det er for så vidt lige meget, faktum som illustreret af historien er at kun totalitære ideologier og mennesker med en slags overmenneske mentalitet gør den slags i stor stil. Udrydder man et hjælpeløst folk der ikke skyder igen, betragter man det også som mindre menneske end en selv. Der findes masser små Saddam Husseins, hvis eneste felt for udøvelse af magt er konen og børnene og svage mænd omkring dem. Men de helt store folkemord kræver konsekvent ideologi eller undermenneske billede.

7. Smokescreen: Another common tactic consists in blurring the problem by questioning the very terms of the debate: "Islam does not exist, for there are many Islams, with big differences between countries etc." It would indeed be hard to criticize something that is so ill- defined. But the simple fact is that Islam does exist: it is the doctrine contained in the Quran, normative for all Muslims, and in the Hadis, normative at least for all Sunni Muslims. There are differences between the law schools concerning minor points, and of course there are considerable differences in the extent to which Muslims are effectively faithful to islamic doctrine, and correspondingly, the extent to which they mix it with un- islamic elements.

Islam er mange ting, ja men gennem 1400 år har den konstant været drab og forfølgelse i stor stil og med måske over 100 millioner dræbte til følge, hvorfor skulle den egentlig være anderledes i dag, når den i øvrigt stadig er årsag til mange dræbte, forfulgte og undertrykte hvert år. Her taler vi ikke om forfulgte af kritik eller tonen, men konkrete fysiske drab og forfølgelser. Inden for de sidste 50 år, er op omkring 5 millioner blevet dræbt alene i Pakistan og Sudan. Tilbage i tiden blev hele egne ladt totalt øde, alle dræbt som ikke flygtede.
Hvis en ideologi ikke kan gøre en forskel, hvad er så forskellen på Syd og Nordkorea, forskellen på demokrati og nazisme, forskellen på Islam og jainisme? Ingen? Det er for dumt at påstå at der ikke er en forskel og en i øvrigt en stor en.

8. Blaming fringe phenomena: When faced with hard facts of Islamic fanaticism, negationists often blame them on some fringe tendency, now popularly known as fundamentalism. This is said to be the product of post-colonial frustration, basically foreign to genuine Islam. In reality, fundamentalists like Maulana Maudoodi and Ayatollah Khomeini knew their Quran better than the self-deluding secularists who brand them as bad Muslims.

Ja, gøre det hele til en lille ubetydelig klike, som Bolchevikkerne, Hitlers partisoldater, Taliban, Hamas, er jo glimrende eksempler på ubetydelige kliker, hvis fanatiske tro på en sag og villighed til at bruge alle midler intet betød overhovedet. Der er slet, slet heller intet mainstream over fundamentalistisk islam, den sendes slet ikke åbent og ærligt i de store medier i mellemøsten, nej dada, de ser Matador og Morten Korch, Aftenshowet lige som os andre.

9. Arguments ad hominem: If denying the evidence is not tenable, one can always distort it by means of selective quoting and imputing motives to the original authors of the source material.

Raapils yndlingsstrategi og i en verden der ikke kan skelne argumenter fra tilsvininger virker den. Kan man skyde budbringeren slipper man jo helt for at argumentere for værdien af ens påstande og underkende modstanderens. Kan man finde blot et lille slemt citat af en DFer, eller en inkrimerende gerning af hindunationalister, så må man helt og aldeles betragte dem som værende untouchables, uanset hvor mange millioner langt værre gerninger og udsagn prominente muslimer kommer med. Disse citater og gerninger kan så generaliseres i en grad man bestemt ikke må generalisere mod Islam, hvilket også burde være overflødigt, eftersom Islam klarer generaliseringen selv.

Helt ufrivilligt morsomt bliver det i eksempeldebatten, som jeg allerede har linket til flere gange over dette, hvor et Citat af William Durant, som fejlagtigt tillægges Hr. Konraed Eelst, helt og aldeles afvises, fordi det jo er denne fæle konspirationsteoretiker med knyttede bånd til ubehagelige hindunationalister.

I sennelsdebatten blev alt brugt i et forsøgt karaktermord, og når det ikke virkede blev noget nyt forsøgt, ad hominem, og mere til, når det er bedst.

10. Slogans: Finally, all discussion can be sabotaged with the simple technique of shouting slogans: prejudice, myth, "racism/communalism".

Nazisme og racisme kortet er efterhånden overbrugt, men så kan man jo kalde folk for alt muligt andet, den dæmonisering, man gerne vil anklage andre for, praktiserer man i højere grad og mindre velbegrundet selv, hykleri af værste skuffe.

En beretning fra et fanatisk multikultursamfund

Jeg var egentlig ved at læse en bog om EU, men så kom den kyndige og velskrivende Engelske psykiaters, Theodore Dalrymple (Pseudonym), bog, "Our culture, what´s left of it, the mandarins and the masses". Siden den kom har jeg af uransagelige årsager haft svært ved at lægge mig til at sove om natten.

Endnu et glimrende essay fra bogen, "The man who predicted the raceriots", at læse denne her herre kan simpelthen ikke anbefales nok! Jeg startede i ung alder med essaygenren, ved at læse klassikeren, over alle klassikere er jeg tilbøjelig til at mene, selv om andre angiveligt vil pege på andre, men jeg valgte Francis Bacons essays.

Jeg vil ikke sige, jeg er updated med hensyn til moderne essaykunst, men Dalrymples er under alle omstændigheder glimrende skrevet, og berører emner som kultur og ondskab, med en dybde og indsigt som er sjælden.

Om dette essay kan der siges, at det handler om England i 1984, hvor et hysteri spredte sig omkring om engelsk skoleforstander, som påpegede at den nuværende politik på det multikulturelle, ledte til manglende assimilation, segregering og ville eventuelt lede til raceuroligheder, hvilket han jo fik ret i, og det er kun begyndelsen.
Hvad Ray Honeyford anbefalede, var at man sætte læring og engelsk i centrum, spredte immigrant elever så de ikke dannede parallelsamfund.
Det ramaskrig som spredte sig var at uden sidestykke, det røg i medierne med orkanstyrke og demonstrationer blev en del af hverdagen uden for skolen. Dødstrusler væltede ind, som var så alvorlige at Honeyford fik tildelt politibeskyttelse. Ydermere blev han tilbudt $ 30.000, for at love at ikke skrive i en årrække, da man jo ikke kunne få lov til at fyre ham, eller få ham dømt i retten.
Honeyford var slet ikke nogen ond racist, han kom selv fra en fattig baggrund og vidste personligt hvad god dannelse betød, at man fik muligheden for læring uden skelnen til baggrund.

Altså en surrealistisk historie fra et fanatisk multikulturelt samfund, skrevet med skarphed og vid, læs den endelig helt, men her følger uddrag:

One man was not at all surprised at this outbreak of inchoate racial fury. He was Ray Honeyford, the headmaster of a middle school in an immigrant area of Bradford in the early 1980s. He knew that the official multiculturalist educational policies that he was expected to implement would sooner or later lead to social disaster such as these riots: and when he repeatedly exposed the folly of these policies in print, the advocates of “diversity”—who maintain that all cultures are equal but that opinions other than their own are forbidden—mounted a vicious and vituperative campaign against him. For at least two years, the Honeyford Affair, as it was known, was a national preoccupation, calling forth endless newspaper and broadcast commentary, the man himself often branded a near-murderous racist and ultimately drummed out of his job. Hell, it seems, hath no fury like a multiculturalist contradicted...

Honeyford’s fundamental ideas were as logical, sensible, and coherent as they were unfashionable. He argued that the 20 percent of Bradford’s population who were Islamic immigrants were in Britain to stay, with no intention of returning home; and that both for their own sake and for Britain’s, they needed to be integrated fully into British society. The children of immigrants needed to feel that they were truly British, if they were to participate fully in the nation’s life; and they could acquire a British identity only if their education stressed the primacy of the English language, along with British culture, history, and traditions.

Honeyford did not believe that the cultural identity necessary to prevent the balkanization of our cities into warring ethnic and religious factions implied a deadening cultural or religious uniformity. On the contrary, he used the example of the Jews (who emigrated to Britain, including to Bradford and nearby Manchester, in substantial numbers at the end of the nineteenth century) as an example of what he meant. Within a generation of arrival, Jews succeeded, despite the initial prejudice against them, in making a hugely disproportionate contribution to the upper reaches of national life as academics, cabinet ministers, entrepreneurs, doctors and lawyers, writers and artists. The upkeep of their own traditions was entirely their own affair, and they relied not at all on official patronage or the doctrines of multiculturalism. This was Honeyford’s ideal, and he saw no reason why the formula should not work again, given a chance...

In his article, Honeyford enumerated some of multiculturalism’s problems and contradictions. The debasement of language that multiculturalist and anti-racist bureaucrats have brought about, he argued, has made it extremely difficult to talk honestly or clearly about racial and cultural matters. By lumping together all ethnic minorities as “black” in order to create a false dichotomy between white oppressors on the one hand and all minorities on the other, for example, these bureaucrats could obscure such complex and unpleasant realities as the continued hostility between Sikhs and Muslims, or the Muslim ill-treatment of women. Only by means of such deliberate blindness can the tenets of multiculturalism, feminism, and universal human rights be reconciled. Honeyford quoted Orwell to the effect that politicized language “is designed to make lies sound truthful” and “to give an impression of solidity to pure wind.”

He held up a very concrete example of how the multiculturalist mindset was damaging education. Immigrant parents, he observed, frequently sent their children back to Pakistan and Bangladesh for months or even years at a time, often precisely to keep them from acquiring any British cultural characteristics. Though this practice had obvious social and educational disadvantages for people destined to spend their adult lives in Britain—and though it was entirely illegal, as well—the authorities turned a blind eye to it.

British law obliges a parent, once his child is registered at a school, to ensure that he attends regularly; any white parent who kept his child away for so long would undoubtedly be prosecuted and punished. In the case of the children of immigrants, however, school authorities never pressed charges but instead directed teachers to keep absentees’ places open indefinitely and to regard their absence as a culturally, and therefore educationally, enriching experience. As Honeyford summed up: “I am left with the ethically indefensible task of complying with a school attendance policy which is determined not, as the law requires, on the basis of individual parental responsibility, but by the parent’s country of origin—a blatant and officially sanctioned policy of racial discrimination.” Seventeen years after he described the problem, it remains unsolved...

Finally, and even less forgivably, Honeyford made mention of the plight of another ethnic minority in his school: the white children, who, when the article appeared, made up a mere 5 percent of the pupils. Their education suffered in a school dominated by pupils from non-English-speaking homes, he said, and he suggested that officials disregarded their plight because their parents, ill-educated and inarticulate, had formed no pressure group, and no political capital could be made of them. (Once, in the 1960s, the city council had tried to disperse the children of non-English-speaking immigrants to schools throughout the city, precisely to prevent the development of ghetto schools such as Drummond, but race-relations experts and bureaucrats declared this practice to be discriminatory and therefore stopped it—to Honeyford’s regret.)...

(I repeat: he had proposed only that Muslim children should be fully integrated into British society—the very opposite of suggesting that they should be discriminated against or in any way maltreated.) For months, he had to enter his own school under police protection from the small but militant group of pickets that formed outside and grew in size and volume whenever a television camera appeared. A few small children, too young to understand what was at issue, learned from their parents to chant “Ray-cist! Ray-cist!” at him and to hold up denunciatory placards, some with a skull and crossbones above his name. The Bradford Education Authority considered the possibility of a court order against the demonstrators, since children who continued to attend the school were likewise insulted as stooges and sell-outs, but it decided that such an order would only inflame passions further. Thus political extremists learned a valuable lesson: intimidation pays...

The affair took its toll on him: after all, he was not a career politician but merely a schoolmaster who had spoken out against what he thought was wrong. His health, and his wife’s, began to suffer; and when his employer arranged to meet him secretly and offered him $30,000 in cash to agree to publish no further articles for three years, he was tempted to accept. His wife dissuaded him, however, telling him that he would never be able to live with himself if he concluded so sordid a deal...

The campaign against Honeyford disregarded entirely the fact that no complaint had ever been received about his competence as a teacher, or the fact that there were always far more applications to his school (mainly by Muslim parents) than there were places. Several attempts by political zealots on the city council to have him dismissed failed for lack of legal cause. Eventually, however, he accepted early retirement: constant abuse, however unjustified, is wearing—and he wanted to spare his pupils, who, like him, had to enter the school through a daily gauntlet of 40 vituperative pickets. Although teaching was his vocation, Honeyford never returned to it. Instead, he wrote several books about race relations and education, and became a freelance journalist...

But it is impossible to meet Honeyford for long without realizing that he is a passionate believer in the redemptive power of education and in the duty of schools to give the children of immigrants the same educational opportunities as everyone else. His only regret about the affair was that it drastically shortened his teaching career. It is a tribute to the power of Orwellian language that a man who believes these things should successfully have been labeled a racist...

The scene is set for a battle of competing resentments. If we had only listened to Ray Honeyford, we should not have sown what we are now reaping and what we (and others) shall reap for many years to come.

Essayet i fuld længde:

Dagens baby-eater nyheder

Jeg er blevet træt af Israelerne-spiser-babyer historier. Man kan knap nok åbne en avis uden at få det indtryk, at det næsten kun er små børn som bliver dræbt og private boliger bliver direkte ramt.
Ikke at det ikke sker, men 64 er civile er FNs tal indtil videre.

Det meste af mit liv har jeg været neutral i den konflikt, Israel har sine høge og sine ulovlige bosættelser, mens Palestina har sine selvmordsbombere og raketter. Ja det er mest dem, vi hører om, men mange Isralere bliver dræbt af håndvåben og knive, og når vi taler om israelske døde, ja så er mindst 3/4 civile, inklusive mange børn, der er dræbt næsten 1000 Israelere siden 9/11 2001, dem hører vi stort set aldrig om, medmindre det er en raket eller en selvmordsbombe.

Men jeg kan ikke være neutral, når man har så overfladisk et indblik i konflikten og lader tudehistorier fra Gaza fylde så meget.

Så jeg er begyndt at droppe de danske mediers dækning og bruger i stedet i stigende grad Israelske og Al-Jazeera (Som faktisk er mere nuanceret og dækkende, end selv visse danske - i hvert fald den engelske del).
En liste over israelske medier online findes her:
Al-jazeera på engelsk findes her:

En glimrende analyse i Jerusalem Post belyser den dobbelttænkning som foregår i den arabiske verden:

Moreover, their hearts may tell them to bankroll Hamas, but their brains tell them that the fanaticism, political intolerance and social backwardness championed by the Islamists pose a profound threat to the Arab future.

...

Arab elites suffer from a sort of split personality disorder. Even as they are trying to pull Hamas's chestnuts out of the fire by pressing Washington to lean on Israel to back off, they know that Hamas (like Hizbullah and the Muslim Brotherhood) threatens not just their own regimes, but political development in the Arab world

Det er dilemmaet for den arabiske verden i en nøddeskal. De må støtte deres brødre, samtidig med at de selv forgæves forsøger at få Hamas til at indgå en permanent fredsaftale, hvilket hamas er utilbøjelig til, samtidigt med at Hamas repræsenterer en trussel mod selve den politiske orden i hele den arabiske verden. Som artiklen fortsætter:

The Arab elites need to offer their people an alternative to Islamist extremism. They could begin by redefining what it means to be pro-Palestinian and dissociating the Palestinian cause from anti-Israel rejectionism.

In this context, if Israel can deflate Hamas, it will be advancing an Arab interest as much as its own citizens' security.

Hvis der skal blive fred nogensinde, skal ikke blot Israel være villig til at overgive Palestina en stat inden for 1967 grænserne og fjerne ulovlige bosættelser. Så skal Hamas enten væk, eller tvinges til at acceptere Israels eksistens, noget som er et rent anathema til at hvad Hamas står for.
Hvis Hamas og Islamisk Jihad stadigvæk er en faktor i processen, vil der aldrig blive en ende på angreb på Israel og dermed aldrig nogen fred. Muren vil aldrig blive revet ned, checkpoints vil aldrig blive fjernet, streng kontrol med hvad der kommer ind i Palestina vil aldrig ophøre. Døde på begge sider vil aldrig ophøre med at eskalere konflikten.

Som en tragisk bemærkning til hele dilemmaet og det absurde der foregår, skete der dette i Irak at en selvmordsbomber, som jo uden at tænke sig meget om går efter forsamlinger af mennesker:

A protest by the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party in the northern city of Mosul ended abruptly when a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up, killing one and wounding 16. Some might wonder why al-Qaida would attack other Sunni anti-Zionists. Plainly, the extremists' lust for chaos and bloodshed trumps all.

Israel håber at knække Hamas og tvinge dem til seriøse forhandlinger. Det her drejer sig ikke kun om raketter. Men de ved godt, at det ikke bliver let, derfor holder de ambitions niveauet lavt.

Religiøst vanvid

Hvis man synes, det er hjernelamt det som sendes på fjernsynet i vesten, skulle man en gang i mellem prøve at se det som sendes i Mellemøsten. Det kan man løbende følge med i på MEMRI TV.

På bloggen Skepticisme, kan man se et lille udvalg af disse tåbeligheder, og tillad mig at føje nogle ekstra til:

En af de mest repsekterede lærde inden for moderne Islam, Yusuf Qaradawi, blandt andre, taler om Jihad:



Qaradawi igen om erobringen af "Rom", i bredere forstand Europa:



En muslimsk "Cecillie Frøkjær", interviewer en sød lille pige:



Og jeg updater, på opfordring af William jansen, lige med en stærk og bestemt røst af fornuft midt i vanviddet, Wafa Sultans "historiske" tale, der skabte røre i andedammen.
(Hvis hun improviserer det hun siger og ikke læser op fra en skærm, er det i øvrigt en fantastisk bedrift):

Med snablen i privatlivet

Bloggeren Rasmus Kongshøj har et ganske interessant og velskrevet indlæg på sin blog i dag.
Det er blevet moderne, at diverse personager placeret på diverse autoritære pedestaler skal blande sig i stadig flere og flere detaljer i privatlivet.
Man kan på den ene side argumentere for fornuften i den moderlige rolle, som samfundet påtager sig i stigende grad.
Omvendt, er der også tale om de facto intolerant eksklusions proces, hvor mennesker som ikke lever efter lineal stigmatiseres, dæmoniseres, problematiseres.
Vi kommer ikke uden om, at det de facto er et overgreb på individet, et personligt angreb på dets psyke og dets indre struktur. Eller med et tankebillede; "Microsofts" forsøg på at få deres software installeret på alle computere i verden.
Vi har med en monopol tankegang at gøre, hvor nogle mener de har patent på, hvad der er godt for andre.
Det er i sin yderste konsekvens, og i stigende grad i sin implementering, i skarp kontrast til den frihed som bør tildeles individet. I skarp kontrast til grundidéen om alle menneskers lige værd.

For noget tid tilbage, da jeg stod og spiste et lille mellemmåltid i solen, faldt jeg i snak med en indvandrer, som havde været længe i Danmark og var i færd med at skrive en bog om Danmark og danskerne. Jeg har desværre glemt hans navn.
Men en af hans definitioner, af at være dansk, glemmer jeg aldrig. Det er ikke mange steder i verden, hvor det ikke kun er lovligt, men accepteret at nyde en øl på en bænk i en park. I Sverige er det for eksempel helt forbudt. I Danmark er det, eller i stigende var det, noget, som ingen tager den store notits af.
Netop at den rummelighed, den tolerance, at det frisind var på retur, var noget han i høj grad begræd ved udviklingen i Danmark.

Når man i stigende grad italesætter, fra alle hold - ikke blot diverse autoriteter, men også såkaldte livstilsmagasiner, medier, hvordan mennesker skal være, gøre og tænke.
Så underminerer man per automatik den rummelighed, den tolerance, det frisind.

Men hvad langt være er. Man begår overgreb på individet og dets frihed til at være sig selv.
Man hetzer mennesker, for at være deres indre natur, deres biologiske arv, deres hjernes funktion. For at være sig selv. Placerer dem bag skillelinjer i en stadig mere omfattende eksklusionsproces. Placerer dem uden for samfundets af monopoltanker veldefinerede centrum.
Det er tragisk, det er at ødelægge noget af det, som er det bedste Danmark har at byde omverdenen, nemlig frisindet, tolerancen, respekten for det enkelte menneske uanset, hvem og hvad det er.
Mikrostasi og sindelags, samt adfærdskontrol kan aldrig forsvares på andet grundlag, end når de udgør en alvorlig trussel mod andre individer.