‘Dear Labour Party: Nineteen Eighty-Four is not a manual for statecraft’

Den britiske regering har, udover planerne om at registrere alle bilture, indføre obligatoriske ID-kort og generelt opsætte overvågningskameraer over det hele, også planer om at lave en national database over samtlige borgeres rejseaktiviteter. Data om borgernes rejser vil blive opbevaret i 10 år:

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: “The government seems to be building databases to track more and more of our lives.

“The justification is always about security or personal protection. But the truth is that we have a government that just can’t be trusted over these highly sensitive issues. We must not allow ourselves to become a Big Brother society.”

Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. “A lot of this stuff will have a legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s what else it could be used for that presents a problem,” said one.

“It will be able to detect whether parents are taking their children abroad during school holidays. It could be useful to the tax authorities because it will tell them how long non-UK domiciled people are spending in the UK.”

The database is also expected to monitor people’s travel companions.

Som vi også skrev for cirka et år siden, arbejdes der på en lignende registrering af al rejseaktivitet på EU-niveau i form af det såkaldte PNR-direktiv.

Spy centre will track you on holiday
(via Boing Boing)

Stop usmagelig tvang mod indvandrerforældre

Vi har modtaget denne pressemeddelelse fra Netværket Sorte Får om socialdemokraternes seneste tvangsudspil:

I en udtalelse til Ritzau, citeret i Politiken, foreslår socialdemokratiets Ole Hækkerup, som en del af socialdemokraternes ”ghettoudspil”, at indvandrerforældre der ikke har styr på deres egne børn skal tvinges på skolebænken for at lære hvordan man opdrager børn i Danmark, og at det skal have økonomiske konsekvenser, såfremt forældrene ikke vil deltage.

Det fremgår af samme artikel at kommunernes sociale afdelinger samtidig bugner af sager om børn af etnisk danske forældre, der har de samme adfærdsproblemer som børn af forældre med udenlandsk baggrund.

Jeg skal som følge af det meget underlige forslag på vegne af netværket Sorte Får anmode om at få besvaret nogle spørgsmål.

Hvorfor så den forskel på folk Ole Hækkerup? Hvorfor skal alle ikke behandles ens? Hvorfor skal minoritetsgruppen af forældre, som forældre i Danmark med udenlandsk baggrund jo er, negativt forskelsbehandles? Koster det for mange stemmer at svinge pisken over de etniske danskere?

For folk på starthjælp er det åbenbart tøjet du vil trække af dem – for der er jo stort set ingen penge at trække.

Kære Ole Hækkerup: Du udtaler, at ”uden en her og nu indsats, der får forældrene til at tage ansvar, ender vi med et fuldstændigt etnisk opdelt Danmark”. Jamen det er jo netop dig, der som ordfører for dette forslag står i spidsen for en etnisk opdeling af Danmark – værre end den der er i forvejen. Du påfører gruppen af forældre med udenlandsk baggrund en sanktion som ikke skal ramme den etnisk danske gruppe af forældre. Det er grov forfølgelse af en minoritetsgruppe i Danmark, og det tager vi helt naturligt kraftigt afstand fra i netværket Sorte Får.

Hvis det virkelig er alt hvad du kan bidrage med til Folketingets Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalg, så lad en anden få pladsen i udvalget. Ærgerligt at man skal være medlem af Folketinget for at sidde i udvalget, for ellers kunne du give mig pladsen – jeg er selv medlem af Socialdemokratiet, men har i modsætning til dig en tankegang der harmonerer med sunde socialdemokratiske principper, og jeg skal garantere dig for at der er mange der tænker ligesom jeg, og jeg tør godt love dig for at den kurs du og andre har udstukket for partiet skal blive konfronteret ved enhver lejlighed fremover – både i selve partiet og gennem netværket Sorte Får.

Jeg er sikker på at dette fuldstændig vanvittige forslag har vakt stor jubel hos Dansk Folkeparti, men efter jublen måske også en anelse bekymring over at Socialdemokratiet i højere og højere grad helt åbenlyst er begyndt at bejle til DF’s vælgere. Om det er en god ide? Prøv at kigge på socialdemokraternes historisk lave vælgertilslutning der illustrerer meget tydeligt at fravalg sker oftere end tilvalg. Kom nu tilbage i kampen for et anstændigt Danmark!

Ras Anbessa, Netværket Sorte Får

Brød til Gaza – hæv blokaden

Cecilie Surasky fra Jewish Voice for Peace skriver:

While waiting in line at the only open bakery he could find, Gaza resident Mohammed Salman said, “I’m going to buy something that my family can keep for only two days because there is no electricity and no refrigerator. We cannot keep anything longer than that.”

This was in January – of last year.

Today, many Gazan bakeries are closed because, like Mohammed’s family, they don’t have power either. Some don’t even have flour.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza had already made it impossible for Palestinians to live in dignity and have access to the barest of essentials: bread, clean water, medical supplies and electricity.

This is no coincidence. This is official policy. In a moment of candor, Dov Weissglas, a top aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying, “the Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but [they] won’t die.”

His prediction was true. Last April, UNICEF reported that more than 50% of children under five in Gaza are anemic, and that many children are stunted due to a lack of vitamins.

And now?

As Gaza is smoldering from the siege that killed 1,285 people – nearly 70% of them civilians, destroyed at least 4,000 homes, and sent more than 50,000 people to temporary shelters, the Israeli blockade has not been lifted.

A tenuous cease fire is in now place. Humanitarian aid is starting to pour in.

But the civilian infrastructure is crippled. The borders of Gaza remain controlled by Israel. And just as Gazans could not leave during the siege to escape the bombing and shelling, they cannot leave now to get food and fuel.

There is not enough electricity for the bakeries that are left standing to produce bread, or for families that still have homes to refrigerate food.

Palestinians cannot even feed their children with the fish from the nearby sea. Israeli gunboats offshore have been enforcing the blockade with rounds of cannon and bursts of heavy machine-gun fire, to warn keep Gaza fishermen out of the sea.

Unless we end the blockade, long after the world’s attention has shifted to some other crisis, some 1.5 million Gazans will still be under-nourished, without proper medical care, fuel and water – and trapped. Israelis too, who live in the south, will be even less safe from the threat of Hamas’ Qassam rockets falling on their heads.

Lasting peace and stability in the region is simply an impossible dream while Palestinians in Gaza are denied the right to protect their children, feed their families, and expand their worlds beyond the few feet in front of their homes, or for many, tents.

Tell Obama, now: “Lift the blockade.”

Den overlegne kristne kultur

Næste gang i hører om de barbariske muslimer og den overlegne kristne kultur, kan I jo linke til denne historie:

Plejefar krænkede Flygtningebørn

En 52-årig mand fra Skælskør blev i dag i Østre Landsret idømt fem års fængsel for gentagne seksuelle overgreb, daglig vold og blufærdighedskrænkelser mod tre små flygtningebørn, han var plejefar for.

Link til skik følge eller land fly?

Klimaforandring – hvad ved vi, og hvor kom det fra?

American Institute of Physics har en glimrende side med baggrund og oplysning om global opvarmning, herunder en forklaring på, hvor den eksisterende videnskabelige konsensus om CO2 som en væsentlig faktor i global opvarmning kommer fra.

Læs bl.a.:

In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature. This “greenhouse effect” was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found good reason to believe that our emissions could not change the climate. Anyway major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1961 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

Over the next decade a few scientists devised simple mathematical models of the climate, and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly variable. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollens and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a few centuries. This finding was reinforced by computer models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, the fruit of a long effort to learn how to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. A 1967 calculation suggested that average temperatures might rise a few degrees within the next century. The next century seemed far off, however, and the calculations were plainly speculative. Groups of scientists that reviewed the issue saw no need for any policy actions, although they did draw official attention to the need for a greater research effort.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. The mass media (to the limited extent they covered the issue) were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes warning of the prospect of a catastrophic new ice age. Study panels, first in the U.S. and then elsewhere, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The only thing most scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system, and much more research was needed. Research activity did accelerate, including huge data-gathering schemes that mobilized international fleets of oceanographic ships and orbiting satellites.

Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a great shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in such a system a shift might even come all by itself — and suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past.

Greatly improved computer models began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts predicted droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over the effects of agriculture and deforestation in adding or subtracting carbon dioxide from the air. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for a more coherent research program. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges. The effort was dispersed among many different scientific fields, each with something different to say about climate change.

One unexpected discovery was that the level of certain other gases was rising, which would add seriously to global warming. Some of these gases also degraded the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer, and the news inflamed public worries about the fragility of the atmosphere. Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had evidently begun to rise again. International panels of scientists began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists’ claims about climate change first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. (Most since then have been hotter.) But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made for vehement debate over what actions, if any, governments should take. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation spent large sums to convince people that there was no problem at all.

Scientists intensified their research, organizing programs on an international scale. The world’s governments created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions.

Link: The Discovery of Global Warming (via Boing Boing).

Læs også: Klimadebat, CO2 og miljø

Skattekommisionen – de fattige skal betale for skattelettelser til de rige

Skattekommisonen er er nu efter lang tids tænken og forskning kommet frem til den konklusion den var bestilt til at lave. De rige skal have skattelettelser – de fattige skal betale. Overraskelsen er vist til at overse.

Nyhedsmedierne er af uransagelige årsager hoppet på limpinden – det svømmer med oversigter der viser at alle danske borgere kommer til at vinde på reformen – hvilket jo er fantastisk, da reformen er fuldt finanseret. Det vil sige at når der er en borger der vinder én krone på reformen, så er der en anden der taber én krone. Så denne oversigt fra epn.dk kan da kun undre (link).

Et eller andet sted er der altså en masse mennesker der kommer til at tabe på reformen – i epn-oversigten skal man ikke være et økonomisk geni for at regne ud hvem der kommer til at tabe – og det bliver naturligvis manden på gulvet. Pensionister og SU-studerende kommer til at betale for at direktøren i Gentofte får en større bil og kan slappe lidt mere af.

Hele baggrunden fra skattekommisonen er naturligvis forfejlet – folk arbejder ikke mere hvis de får skattelettelser – de arbejder naturligvis mindre. Hvis man tjener mere ved samme arbejde, så bruger man sin tid på andet end at arbejde.

Lad os håbe nyhedsmedierne vågner op inden S og SF hopper på limpinden og afskaffer velfærdsstaten baseret på forkerte beregninger.

Link til tema om skattekommisonen

Den hvide klovn

Ole Wolf har begået et længere indlæg, der beskriver en bestemt type debattør eller politisk personlighed, som man også af og til kan støde på i blogosfæren – “virkelighedens hvide klovn“:

Virkelighedens hvide klovne har ikke hvid sminke og overdrevent elegant påklædning, men ellers er deres adfærd ganske som den hvide klovns. Man finder dem med jævne mellemrum på nettet, hvor de står som selvudråbte orakler, der uden relevant – eller større held med – uddannelse mener at besidde en væsentlig indsigt. De hvide klovne blæser gerne sig selv op med “store projekter” (med ligegyldigt indhold), pompøst eller stiliseret sprog og overdreven brug af fremmedord, ganske som den hvide klovn i cirkuset bærer en dragt, der er alt for elegant til hans personlige format. Men de siger intet nyt, kun banale, uinteressante og ofte forkerte ting.

Overfor andre udviser den hvide klovn en ekstrem skepticisme af den form, hvor de ikke vil acceptere et udsagn, før alt tænkeligt omkring udsagnet er blevet bevist i helt absurd grad. (Og selv hvis det var muligt, er det nok ikke sandsynligt, at det ville hjælpe.) Han fokuserer i overdreven grad på detaljer og ord, der ikke har nogen væsentlig betydning for pointen. Den hvide klovn piller ordene ud af konteksten og fordrejer dem, men behandler dem alligevel, som om de var helt centrale.
Man sidder med fornemmelsen af, at ord som “kontekst” og “sammenhæng” slet ikke findes i den hvide klovns paradigme. Hvor vi andre benytter skepticisme som et værktøj til at undgå fejl, benytter virkelighedens hvide klovn det som et værn mod erkendelse. Den hvide klovn evaluerer ikke et udsagn i forhold til dets sandhedsværdi, men i forhold til dets associationsværdi for klovnen selv. En sandhed bliver ubehagelig, hvis den associeres med noget ubehageligt, og så bliver den afvist.

Den hvide klovns selvoptagethed gør ham ude af stand til at følge en forfatters tekst loyalt, og får ham i stedet til at læse sine egne meninger ind i teksten og se ting, der helt åbenlyst ikke er til stede. Den hvide klovn overser de væsentlige pointer eller endda den forklarende titel på teksten, og insisterer på, at forfatteren har skrevet om fårene, selv hvis forfatteren har understreget lige fra begyndelsen, at det kun handlede om bukkene. Og som om det ikke er nok, bliver man også dømt af den hvide klovn ud fra de detaljer, som virkelig kun klovnen kan se, også hvis man påpeger, at klovnen ser syner. Hos den hvide klovn får ordene en anden betydning end hos de fleste, idet den hvide klovn tillægger ordene en betydning, der bygger på den hvide klovns helt private associationer…

Lærerigt, for beskrivelsen er i mange henseender taget lige på kornet.

Link: Virkelighedens hvide klovn

Almindelig høflighed ved reportage fra Mellemøsten

Hvis du er en kommentator eller journalist, der dækker Mellemøsten, er det vigtigt for dig at lægge dig disse regler på sinde:

Rule #1: In the Middle East, it is always the Palestinians that attack first, and it’s always Israel who defends itself. The name of this is “retaliation”.

Rule #2: The Palestinians are not allowed to kill Israelis. The name of this is “terrorism”.

Rule #3: Israel has the right to kill Palestinian civilians; the name of this is “self-defense” or “collateral damage”.

Rule #4: When Israel kills too many Palestinian civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the “reaction of the international community”.

Rule #5: Palestinians do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even 1 or 2.

Rule #6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (around 10,000 to date being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or a trial. All that is needed is the magic word: “terrorism”.

Rule #7: When you say “Hamas”, always be sure to add “supported by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran”.

Rule #8: When you say “Israel”, never say “supported by the USA, the UK, European countries and even some Arab regimes”, for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.

Rule #9: When it comes to Israel, don’t mention the words “occupied territories”, “UN resolutions”, “Geneva Conventions”. This could distress the audience of Fox, CNN, etc.

Rule # 10: The Palestinians are always “cowards” who hide behind a civilian population that “they don’t care about”. If they (militants) sleep in houses with their families, the name of this is: “cowardice”. Israel has the right to annihilate the towns where they sleep using bombs and missiles. The name of this is “high precision surgical action”.

Rule #11: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. The name of this is “neutral journalism”.

Rule #12: If you don’t agree with these rules or if you favor the Palestinian side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite.

I modsat fald risikerer du nemlig at skabe problemer for din TV-station eller avis eller ikke komme så hurtigt frem i verden, som du havde tænkt dig.

Link: Political Correctness – Rules of Democracy (via UrShalim)

Kammerateri og pamperi i Danske Bank

Politiken har en historie i dag om hvorledes Peter Straarup, direktør i Danske Bank afstår fra bonus og lønforhøjelse i 2009 af hensyn til finanskrisen. Citat:

»Aktionærerne har haft en svær periode. Derfor har Peter Straarup besluttet at afstå fra lønstigning og bonus i 2009«, siger Jonas Torp, pressechef i Danske Bank, til Ritzau.

En fin lille historie, serveret af Danske Banks pressechef, der gerne skulle vise at bankerne tager krisen alvoligt. Men i virkeligheden viser det at bestyrelsen i Danske Bank er helt og aldelelse fra snøvsen! For de har tilsyneladende TILBUDT Peter Straarup en bonus og en lønforhøjelse! Et tilbud tilsyneladende baseret på hvorledes bankdirektøren har misholdt og smadret banken og dens aktier? For hvis bankdirektørerne har “ansvaret” og “skal belønnes” når bankerne i opgangstider får succes, så har de det vel også i nedgangstider? Men bestyrelsen i Danske Bank mener tilsyneladende at Peter Straarup kun har ansvaret når det går godt – når det går skidt så skal han da have en trøstebonus?

I virkeligheden viser denne sag lige præcist hvorfor der er en finanskrise lige nu. Det er ganske almindelig kammerateri og pamperi der foregår. Der er ingen konsekvenser når bankdirektører laver fejl – og deres millionlønninger har intet at gøre med størelsen af deres ansvar eller evner – det har noget at gøre med en branche hvor man deler millionerne og overskuddet ud til dem man kender. I politik ville det være dybt ulovligt – i bankbranchen er det skik og brug.

link til pamperi af værste slags

Anti-islamisme = antisemitisme, 2

Det er ikke kun her i Europa, vi kan se lighederne mellem den klassiske antisemitisme og højrefløjens “islamkritik”. I Israel kan de også, og sandt at sige springer parallellerne da også lige op i hovedet.

Typisk for de islamkritiske ekstremister, f.eks. Trykkefrihedsselskabet og de højreorienterede blogs, er at alle med en kras, rabiat kritik af islam bliver båret i guldstol som en genfunden broder. Et eksempel på dette er en debattør som Ayaan Hirsi Ali, der nærmest har opnået helgenstatus i visse kredse, på trods af, at hendes skriverier om kvinder og islam faktisk afslører fordomsfuldhed og stor uvidenhed om emnet.

En anden er den britiske “historiker” Bat Yeor eller Gisèlle Littman. Det følgende er et åbent brev fra den israelske fredsaktivist Adam Keller til forlaget Shocken, der havde besluttet at udgive Littmans bog “Eurabia” på hebraisk:

Yours is one of the oldest and most respectable publishing houses in Israel. Every year, you are undertaking the translation into Hebrew of books from other languages. Your choice in such matters is dictated (or so I was led to believe) not only by the commercial consideration of which books might sell well among the Israeli public (a completely valid and legitimate concern for a commercial publisher) but also by your judgement of which books might make a useful and constructive contribution to the Israeli public discourse.

In 1886 the French antisemite Edouard Drumont published `La France Juive` (Jewish France), creating the false nightmarish image of a France dominated by Jews, and sowing the poisonous seeds which came to fruit when Vichi French officials collaborated in the mass murder of French Jewry. Drumont`s book was never, as far as I know, translated into Hebrew – either by yourselves or by any other publishing house. That is to be regretted, since making Drumont`s book available to Israelis in their own language might have considerably contributed to their understanding of the disastrous effect of modern antisemitism on Twentieth Century Jewish history – as well as their perception of the workings of populist racism in general, whoever its target.

This year, however, you have seen fit to select – out of tens of thousands of potentially interesting and useful books published worldwide – to produce and present to the Hebrew-reading public a translation of `Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis` by Gisèle Littman aka `Bat Yeor`, a British inflammatory writer who presumes to be a historian and who, I regret to note, is Jewish.

In this book – which, like the other works of this writer, is little more than a rabid anti-Muslim tract – `Bat Yeor` follows in notorious footsteps indeed by creating the false nightmarish image of a Europe dominated by Arabs and Muslims. As Edouard Drumont sought to arouse the French people to persecute and kill their Jewish neighbours, so does Ms. Littman intend to drive Europeans into a continent-wide orgy of hatred and violence against the Muslim immigrants who are now a significant ethnic minority throughout the continent, and the great majority of whom seek nothing but to live useful and fruitful lives in their new homelands.

Ms. Littman`s reasons for writing her racist and inflammatory book are all too obvious. The reasons why you, a respectable publishing house, have chosen to present it to the Israeli public are far more obscure. Whatever these reasons might be, surely – now that you already taken this step – it would be appropriate to complete your task and produce also a companion volume, i.e. a Hebrew translation of `La France Juive`? After all, the informed Israeli reading public deserves to be given the chance of comparing the classical work of a master racist demagogue with that of his loyal present-day disciple and successor.

Som vi før har set, har Littman tætte kontakter til det eurofascistiske, belgiske parti Vlaams Belang såvel som til danske ekstremister omkring Trykkefrihedsselskabet og blandt højrebloggere.

En parallel til den klassiske antisemitisme er måske den overraskende ukritiske tilgang til åndsfæller; det er ligemeget, hvor useriøs og dårligt funderet enhver rabiat kritik af islam er, når blot den er hadefuld og rabiat nok.

Egentlig skulle man således forvente at folk som Lars Hedegaard eller en “pæn” nyfascist som Vlaams Belangs Filip Dewinter ville holde sig på kædelig afstand af en rabiat konspirationsteoretiker som Littman, hvis ideer om Eurabia går ud på, at EUs projekt  siden 70erne i virkeligheden er en skjult plan om at  overdrage magten i Europa til de arabiske lande, en teori, der ikke burde få mange til at ligge vågne om natten.

Omvendt skulle man egentlig forvente, at Littman med sin jødiske baggrund ville holde sig på lang afstand af en person som Filip Dewinter, hvis parti har en lang tradition for Holocaust-fornægtelse og antisemitisme og hvis historiske rødder er flamske nationalisters kollaboration med den tyske besættelsesmagt under 2. Verdenskrig. Men sådan er det ikke, fordi de kan bruge hinanden. Og de kan bruge hinanden, fordi de bestyrker hinanden i dette: Et ubegrundet had til muslimer og islam, på samme måde som diverse antisemitiske grupperinger i det 20. århundrede kunne enes i deres had til jøderne.

Antisemitismen er virkelig kommet tilbage til Europa, denne gang i en ny forklædning; men ellers er der ingen forskel. Når der skal en israeler som Adam Keller til at påpege det, er det måske ikke så underligt – netop i Israel har de trods alt megen, om ikke god, erfaring med europæisk antisemitisme.

Link: Drumont’s Jewish Disciple (tak til SHansen for tippet!).