«Dagens liberale elite kan ikke tåle kritikk fordi de
oppfatter den som et angrep på deres verdensbilde. Uten drøfting har
vi sakte, men sikkert, beveget oss bort fra et kristent verdensbilde. Vi er
blitt tvunget til å akseptere et komplekst verdensbilde der vi i det ene
øyeblikket får høre at de materielle betingelsene forklarer det meste, før vi
det andre får høre at mennesket har evne til å alt, også å definere sitt eget
kjønn. Vi skal i det ene øyeblikket avvise rasisme, men deretter akseptere
ideen om hvite menneskers kollektive ansvar for slaveriets historie. Ideen om
nasjonalstaten forkastes, men milliardærer som flytter til Sveits, får høre at
de svikter Norge og de som er tilbake.
Derfor er ikke dagens politiske debatt slik den var for
bare 25 år siden. Våre
politiske motstandere diskuterer ikke, de blir krenket. Ikke nødvendigvis på
egne vegne, hadde det bare vært så vel – nei, de krenkes på vegne av alle
andre, de såkalt sårbare gruppene.
Derfor får vi ikke lov til å si noe om barnet i mors mage som blir abortert,
eller barnet med to fedre som aldri vil få oppleve en mors kjærlighet.
Vi kan ikke holde noen for ansvarlige når det er de
materielle betingelsene og sosialisering som avgjør vår forståelse av moral og
rettferdighet. Eller som Joe Biden sa: «Å nekte barn kjønnskorrigerende
behandling er nesten syndig». Et utsagn som sier mer om dagens
forståelse av mennesket enn vi liker å tenke på». (Sitert fra Kjell Skartveit på
document.no 020423).
Vi forsøker nå å hoppe over på et annet utkikkspunkt, hvor vi kan suplere det større bildet:
Hva skjer I Den tyske forbundsdagen? Vel, noen forsøker å forhindre at islamistiske organisasjoner får penger fra fremmede land til å finansiere opplegg som i seg selv innebærer diverse angrep på Forbundsdagen selv og Tyskland lover.
Det så ut til at ønsket om å stoppe slike overføringer fra utlandet ville bli godt mottatt i Forbundsdagen og blant tyske politikere flest, fordi ønsket var velbegrunnet og bygget på ubestridelig empiri.
Men hva skjer?, jo:
Peggy Schierenbeck, en sosialdemokrat, stopper hele prosessen med disse ord: «Lovforslaget uttrykker fordommer mot folk med en annen religiøs tro og muslimer fra det sivile samfunn vil føle seg viktimisert, stigmatisert og generalisert».
Og dette: Lamya Kaddor, fra De grønne, erklærte at «islamisme
er ikke noe annet enn å gjøre politikk med religion. Hun insisterte på at «alle
som problematiserer islamisme også må problematisere islamofobi».
Kommentar: Dette er altså «eliten» i Europa av
i dag. Den er veldig liten, og nesten ynkelig av natur og vesen, men høyst
aktivt og innflytelsesrik og deres politiske motstandere er svake, feige og
forvirrede, og gir etter for det minste press, for de minste ytringer, fordi de
skal så gjerne være så emosjonelt korrekte som mulig. De fremstår da ikke som
særlig godt empatisk egnet til å sitte i viktige demokratiske posisjoner. De at
de føler seg emosjonelt korrekte og fremstår og fremstiller seg som emosjonelt
korrekte, en farlig blanding av hovmod og ynkelighet.
Det er som Skartveit skriver:
Våre politiske motstandere diskuterer ikke, de blir
krenket. Ikke nødvendigvis på egne vegne, hadde det
bare vært så vel – nei, de krenkes på vegne av alle andre, de såkalt sårbare
gruppene.
Eksempler på det Skartveit sikter til er mange og tydelige. Vi skal her bare nevnt to meget lesverdige til erkjennelse og oppfordring til ansvar:
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/07/hatprat-personangrep-horn-morken-og.html
https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/01/vitne-til-vanvidd-vitne-til-skrudde-sinn.html
Vi er - som presumtivt et sympatisk kollektiv - inne på farlige stier, og de fleste flykter inn i
sin likegyldige selvgodhet mens de lar «la delyge» i en kanskje svært nær
fremtid ramme alle andre enn dem selv. Og de tror de vil slippe unna med det.
Les det meste her:
The AfD proposal called for the government to “prevent the financing of Islamist organizations from tax revenue and by means of foreign donations” and to “create a directory in which all information about the sources of funding for the existing mosque communities is collected.” It further called on the government to submit an annual report to the Bundestag on the financing of Islamist organizations in Germany.
… He
added that Germany’s political establishment “has reacted with only isolated
and sometimes ineffective measures” that focus primarily on violent Islamists.
Steinberg noted that Germany currently lacks legal measures to prevent foreign
governments from funding Islamists in the country.
… In a parliamentary debate before the two proposals were rejected, Bundestag Member Peggy Schierenbeck of the center-left Social Democrats branded the proposed bills as “prejudice against people of other faiths” and claimed that if they were to be approved, “people from Muslim civil society would fall victim to generalization and stigmatization.”
Bundestag
Member Lamya Kaddor of the Greens declared that “Islamism is nothing more than doing
politics with religion.” Kaddor, a first-generation German of Syrian origin
known for her efforts to expand the teaching of Islam in German schools, said
the sponsors of the proposals “want to determine who is a ‘good’ Muslim and who
is a ‘bad’ Muslim — ‘good’ means ‘secular,’ they want Muslims without Islam.”
She insisted that anyone who “problematizes Islamism
must also problematize Islamophobia.”
… Germany’s
parliament has rejected two legislative proposals aimed at clamping down on
political Islam in Germany. The sponsors of the proposed bills argued that
Islamism is subversive and must be opposed because it poses a growing threat to
liberal democracy and social cohesion. Lawmakers representing Germany’s
left-wing coalition government countered that measures to curb Islamism would
unfairly single out Muslims.
At public Bundestag hearings held in September 2022, expert witnesses overwhelmingly agreed on the need for more effective government action to counter Islamism in Germany.
The
legislative setback comes just six months after Germany’s government dissolved a high-profile expert working group
on political Islam — opting instead to fight “Islamophobia.”
A number of
German analysts (who preferred to remain anonymous) told FWI that the
government’s refusal to confront Islamism stems from its obsession with woke
ideology (which posits that Muslims are an oppressed group and need
protection). …
In its
latest annual report, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (Bundesamt für
Verfassungsschutz, BfV) estimated that the country is home to at
least 30,000 hardcore Islamists, although the actual number probably is much
higher.
The BfV
report listed more than 20 Islamist groups active in Germany
including: al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Islamic
State, Milli Görüs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi Jamaat, and the Taliban.
The groups have ties to — and are believed to receive funding from — governments and Islamist organizations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
BfV
warned that violent and
non-violent Islamists are seeking “the partial or complete abolition of the free
democratic basic order” in Germany. They are “particularly opposed to the
principles of popular sovereignty enshrined in the Basic Law [German
Constitution], the separation of state and religion, freedom of expression and
general equality.”
Despite the
burgeoning threat, the German parliament (Bundestag) on March 16 rejected two legislative proposals aimed at giving German
officials more power to tackle the Islamist threat. …
The CDU/CSU proposal called on the federal government to require mosques and Islamic associations in Germany to disclose any foreign sources of financing to German tax authorities. …
The CDU/CSU
proposal further asked the government to hold talks with countries
such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey with the aim of “terminating
financial support for organizations of political Islamism from these states.” …
The AfD proposal called for the government to “prevent
the financing of Islamist organizations from tax revenue and by means of
foreign donations” and to “create a directory in which all information about
the sources of funding for the existing mosque communities is collected.” It
further called on the government to submit an annual report to the Bundestag on
the financing of Islamist organizations in Germany.
At public
Bundestag hearings held in September 2022, expert witnesses overwhelmingly
agreed on the need for more effective government action to counter Islamism in
Germany. The head of the Center for Islamic Theology at the University of
Münster, Mouhanad Khorchide, warned that Islamists are attempting “a creeping
takeover of power” by “exploiting or abusing the existing legal system to
undermine the rule of law and its free and democratic basic values.”
Another
expert witness, Guido Steinberg of the German Institute for International and
Security Affairs, said that although Germany has had an Islamism
problem “since the 1990s,” it has “gained importance” in recent years due to
the mass immigration of Muslims “from countries where Sunni Islamism is
widespread.” He added that Germany’s political
establishment “has reacted with only isolated and sometimes ineffective
measures” that focus primarily on violent Islamists. Steinberg noted that
Germany currently lacks legal measures to prevent foreign governments from
funding Islamists in the country.
… In a parliamentary debate before the two proposals were rejected, Bundestag Member Peggy Schierenbeck of the center-left Social Democrats branded the proposed bills as “prejudice against people of other faiths” and claimed that if they were to be approved, “people from Muslim civil society would fall victim to generalization and stigmatization.”
Bundestag Member Lamya Kaddor of the
Greens declared that “Islamism is nothing more
than doing politics with religion.” Kaddor, a first-generation German of
Syrian origin known for her efforts to expand the teaching of Islam in German schools, said the sponsors of the
proposals “want to determine who is a ‘good’ Muslim and who is a ‘bad’ Muslim —
‘good’ means ‘secular,’ they want Muslims without Islam.” She insisted that
anyone who “problematizes Islamism must also problematize Islamophobia.”
German
political observers consulted by FWI all said that the current government’s
commitment to woke ideology would prevent any meaningful action against
Islamism in Germany. One analyst noted that the German government is obsessed
with “semantics” and that it would “block any bill that does not conform to
woke vocabulary.”
Another
remarked that the government does not want to “tackle the issue” of Islamism
because “Islamists are seen first as Muslims in need of protection” and that “under no circumstances do they want to be seen as hostile to
Islam.”
… Christoph de Vries, told FWI that he was “very disappointed” with the government’s “unwillingness to unmask and prevent the foreign financing of radical mosques in Germany.” …
De Vries
also accused German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser of duplicity. “The whole
hypocrisy of Mrs. Faeser is shown in the fact that she wore a ‘One Love’
armband for human rights and tolerance at the German World Cup opening game in
Qatar, but when it comes to the money flows to Germany from Qatar, the world’s
largest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood, she does nothing at all.”
… De Vries said that Faeser’s decision to dissolve the group
of experts represents “the culmination of a policy of looking the other way and
ignoring Islamism as a phenomenon that endangers democracy.” He described the move as “a slap in the face to
all those who work against religious extremism and for our democracy.” Soeren
Kern is a Middle East Forum Writing Fellow.
Se disse I sammenheng:
Germany: Berlin court rules anti-White Critical Race Theory can be taught in schools
Germany: Leftist state government takes ‘clear stance against antisemitism’ while ignoring Islamic Jew-hatred
UK: Anglican cathedral to host Ramadan iftar during Easter season
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/04/uk-anglican-cathedral-to-host-ramadan-iftar-during-easter-season
1786: America's First Brush with Islamic Jihad
|
by Raymond Ibrahim, March 28, 2023, |
"Admiral Stephen Decatur Boarding the Tripolitan Gunboat," by Dennis Malone Carter.
Exactly 237 years ago today, on March 28, 1786, two of America's founding fathers documented the United States' first exposure to Islamic jihad in an important letter to Congress.
One year earlier, in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or "Barbary," had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom its enslaved crew and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams—then ambassadors to France and England respectively—met with Tripoli's ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, the Americans laid out the source of Barbary's hitherto inexplicable animosity in a letter to Congress:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary's] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise [dated March 28, 1786].
… One can only imagine what the U.S. ambassadors—who years earlier had asserted that all men were "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"—thought of their Muslim counterpart's answer.
… Centuries
before preying on the newborn American nation's vessels, the Barbary States of
Muslim North Africa—specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis—had been thriving on
the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal
Europe—going as far as Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were
so successful that, "between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a
million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European
Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast," to quote
historian, Robert Davis.
… The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: "If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive," continued Foxe. "If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire."
Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
As such,
when Captain O'Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that
"our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception," he was
clearly not exaggerating.
Back in Congress, some agreed with Jefferson that "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them"—including General George Washington: "In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?" he wrote to a friend. "Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence."
But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: "We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever." …
Congress initially decided to emulate the Europeans by placating and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. Inevitably, however, hostilities again broke out, leading to the Barbary Wars (1801 to 1805; again in 1815). But by now, the U.S. had built six war vessels.
Thus the
United States' first war—which erupted before it could even elect its first
president and intermittently lasted some 30 years—was against Islam; and the
latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale that had been used to
initiate hostilities for the preceding 1,200 years.
… In short, although the question "Why do they hate us?" became immensely popular after 9/11, it was actually answered during America's founding, including through a little remembered letter written to Congress 237 years ago today.
https://www.meforum.org/64286/1786-america-first-brush-with-islamic-jihad
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar