søndag, juli 08, 2007

Pastorale

Gjorslev (1396) , Vemmetofte (1356) og Bregentved, (1650) , fotos © Snaphanen
.....og årets første velvoksne katareller !
"Apocalyptic abysses"
In an interview with Jörg Plath, Nobel Prize winner Imre Kertesz talks about the "Apocalyptic abysses" that have opened in Europe – they were also the subject of his speech at the conference "Perspective Europa."
"I don't want to argue politically. Politics is like soccer: everyone thinks they understand it. I don't understand politics at all. But I think the abysses have not been closed again, not even in Yugoslavia. And they can open anywhere. These days, as London is living in a state of shock, we see how vulnerable everything is. How vulnerable civilisation, how vulnerable daily life. One must be conscious of the dramatic side of life. Every day, every moment. Europe is in fact a cheerful, wise and strong entity – and has been since the ancient Greeks. I think Europe represents something that no other civilisation represents: the freedom of awareness. Freedom period. It mustn't betray that."

Stunde der Wahrheit, Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Europe's oppressive legacy

The case for mistrusting Muslims
The latest terror plots are confronting tolerant Britons with uncomfortable choices.
By Theodore Dalrymple, July 8, 2007
ARRIVING IN BRITAIN by air the day after two men crashed a gasoline-laden Jeep Cherokee into the main terminal at Glasgow's international airport, and a couple of days after two car bombs were discovered in the heart of London, I was surprised by how calm everybody was. Apart from the prohibition of passenger drop-off and pickup next to the terminal building at Birmingham Airport, everything was as usual. Men and women in Muslim garb mingled in the crowd with perfect tranquillity, expecting neither violence nor even verbal reproach.

Was this a sign of the admirable tolerance of British society, or of its bovine complacency born of an inability, or unwillingness, to make the effort to defend itself? Was it decency, cowardice or stupidity?I really don't know anymore, which is an indication of the problem: Only time will tell, and by then it might be too late.[..]
The fundamental problem is this: There is an asymmetry between the good that many moderate Muslims can do for Britain and the harm that a few fanatics can do to it. The 1-in-1,000 chance that a man is a murderous fanatic is more important to me than the 999-in-1,000 chance that he is not a murderous fanatic: If, that is, he is not especially valuable or indispensable to me in some way.And the plain fact of the matter is that British society could get by perfectly well without the contribution even of moderate Muslims.
The only thing we really want from Muslims is their oil money for bank deposits, to prop up London property prices and to sustain the luxury market; their cheap labor that we imported in the 1960s in a vain effort to bolster the dying textile industry, which could not find local labor, is now redundant.
L.A. Times

Julelys

»Når man rejser rundt i Mellemøsten eller Latinamerika eller for den sags skyld i andre dele af Den Tredie Verden og fortæller, at man kommer fra Danmark, og at man er socialdemokrat, får folk julelys i øjnene. Det gælder alle, lige fra den fattige skopudser til den rige oliesheik.« Egon Balsby, Groft Sagt

Not so amazed
Those who eagerly follow the sayings of Inayat Bunglawala, the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain whose claimed ‘moderation’ has been repeatedly exposed as an aspiration that has yet to be realised (see here, here and here,) might be interested to hear him on last night’s BBC Radio Four Moral Maze (1:36) declaring that he is committed to the Islamisation of Britain. Non-violently. So that’s all right. Melanie Phillips


Terrorism awareness - David Horowitz , video 6 min.



Øresundsbroen
set fra indsejlingen til Falsterbo kanalen, foto © K.D.



Røgslør i "Det åbne samfund"
Politiken kalder altid Sverige "mere åbent" end Danmark. Fordi man kan gå på nettet og lure på hvad naboen har af formue og betaler i skat ? Smag og behag. Læg mærke til uigennemtrængeligheden i Irak beslutningen. Alle henviser til alle andre. Hvis dagens beslutning er "lovlig", så må den hidtidige altså have været "ulovlig", for alle andre faktorer er de samme. Men lad være med at prøve at trænge igennem røgsløret, det nytter intet, det er netop derfor det er udlagt.

I de senaste Irak-besluten från Migrationsverket och Migrationsöverdomstolen framgår det att det inte råder en väpnad konflikt i Irak "i utlänningslagens mening" och inte heller i "folkrättslig mening". Men vad beslutsfattarna stödjer sig på framgår inte av besluten. Migrationsöverdomstolen hänvisar till Migrationsverket och tvärtom. Det vore mera rättssäkert för alla beslutsfattare på Migrationsverket att veta vilken rättskälla som bör hänvisas till då det gäller att bedöma om det råder en "väpnad konflikt" eller inte.Vi är beslutsfattare och vi vet inte. Bör inte den svenska regeringen ha en klar ståndpunkt i denna fråga?
Läs hela texten av beslutsfattarna Birgitta Elfström och Arne Malmgren på Migrationsverket här.

Ministeren er en mand med hår på brystet. Han reder trådene ud sådan her:

Migrationsminister Tobias Billström (m) säger att han har förståelse för att människor inte är tillfredställda med de beslut som fattas.
-"Så här kommer det alltid att vara, människor kommer inte att kunna erbjudas ett system som alltid gör som man själv vill," säger han.


Hvis ikke de har siddet i ministeriet og talt på knapper og set at EU lader Sverige aftage borderparten af irakerne, så er de dummere end politiet tillader. Men derfra til ligefrem at sige det højt. Så hellere løbe an på at befolkningen er idioter.

In February, Swedish government officials asked European Union members to receive more Iraqi asylum seekers, saying Sweden alone could not assume the responsibility. Iraq updates


Merit Wager
Hård kritik mot nytt Irak-beslut

Morten Østergård, R

som ingen kan beskylde for at være tynget af bare den blegeste viden om Sverige, siger til Berlingske Tidende:

" Men svenskerne er i bevægelse, og det er vel ikke unaturligt, når landene omkring dem, b.la. Danmark behandler asylansøgerne så dårligt, at svenskerne er kommet til at stå med hele byrden. Det her understreger behovet for en fælles europæisk tilgang til dette problem for at komme ud af en negativ spiral, som gør de irakiske flygtninge til de sikre tabere."

man spørger sig om Østergaard har gjort sig klart, at der findes ca. 23 mio. potentielle irakiske flygtninge endnu ? Hvor mange skal bo permanent i Europa, R ?

Svenske lederskribenter i moralsk oprustning

Vad beror denna folkvandring på?
Varför väntas ytterligare 24 000 irakier hit? När den svenska juristprosan så entydigt slår fast att i deras land pågår ingen inre väpnad konflikt.Visst har Sverige gjort mer än många andra länder. Och visst är det en påfrestning för Malmö att man tagit emot fler flyktingar än Tyskland, Storbritannien, Danmark, Norge och Irland tillsammans. Men att blunda för våldet och skicka hem dem till ett levande helvete kan inte – får inte – vara lösningen.
Omänskligt

Nordisk Råd og Foreningen Norden
synes at være udenfor pædagogisk rækkevidde hvad angår Sveriges indtag af 3 verdensborgere, fremtiden i Norden og Søren Espersens advarsler. Heldigvis savner de begge enhver betydning. Jeg tør godt spille på at den dag kommer , hvor Danmark og måske Norge, vil være nødt til at kræve visum af svenske statsborgere. Lidt lyrik her:

Dansk folkepartis utspel om att invandringen till Sverige skulle utgöra en tickande bomb för Danmark känns lite löjeväckande med tanke på att vi lever i en globaliserad värld med en ständigt ökande rörlighet av människor, varor och tjänster. Sverige är ju inte heller den enda EU-grannen som har land- eller sjögräns med Danmark. Tvärtemot Dansk folkeparti anser vi att de regler om fri rörlighet mellan de nordiska länderna som gäller för de nordiska medborgarna också bör utvidgas till att gälla tredjelandsmedborgare.
"Löjligt danskt utspel"

"Islamophobia" idiocy
THE car-bomb/suicide-terror operations in London and Glasgow should have provided a fresh opportunity for reminding everyone, especially Muslims in Britain, that terrorism in the name of Islam still poses a major threat to public peace and safety. Yet this is not what is happening.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam - but, at the same time, keeps inviting "Muslim community leaders" to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim "leaders" rather than Buddhist monks?
Brown hasn't deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.
Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by "Muslim bitterness" about Salman Rushdie's knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some "moderate community leaders," like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have "foreign-policy issues" that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.

Amir Taheri i New York Post

View Guestbook Sign Guestbook
Powered by iguest.net