Saudi Arabiens ambassade informerer

(Rituel henrettelse i Saudi Arabien)

10 års plan for muslimsk verdensherredømme..

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

We, the Kings, Heads of State and Government, and Emirs of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), meeting in the Third Session of the Extraordinary of the Islamic Summit Conference, held in Makkah Al-Mukarramah from 5 to 6 Dhul Quidah 1426H (7-8 December 2005), declare:

We praise high the Name of Almighty Allah, Who has blessed us with the grace of gathering together on the soil of this hallowed land, cradle of the revelation of Islam and its message, and Qibla of all Muslims, from which the light of Islam shone forth to guide humanity to the path of prosperity and peace, thus enabling the foundations to be laid of an Islamic civilization that was able to bring a much-needed, timely, and decisive contribution to human civilization.

Whereas the purport of the lofty essence of Islam was to ultimately bring the world out of the darkness of ignorance, oppression, and tyranny and into the light of truth, justice, developing sciences and knowledge, and peaceful co-existence, we find ourselves today at an age of muddled concepts, misguided values, and pervasive ignorance, as diseases and epidemics gain ever-greater grounds, injustice takes hold, and man’s environment grows despoiled by the day. More than ever before, we stand in dire need of a fresh vision to turn the tide and the Ummah, as Almighty Allah has rightfully ordained, into a guiding beacon and source of light that radiates forth science, knowledge, and morality for the benefit of all humanity.

Protecting our Islamic identity, our basic values, and the higher interests of the Ummah can only be achieved through the sincere loyalty of Muslims to true Islam and their commitment to its original principles and values as their cherished way of life. Only then will the Ummah be able to rise to the challenge of playing an instrumental, proactive role in the service of humanity and human civilization.

Therefore, our conscience throbs in deep synchronicity with the hearts and minds of the Ummah as expressed by its scholars and intellectuals – may God bless them on our behalf – in their meeting only weeks before this Summit Conference. Thus are we only too aware of the political, developmental, social, cultural and educational challenges they brought to the fore; only too aware are we of the internal and external threats that have helped to exacerbate the Ummah’s current plight, as they not only menace its very future but also that of the whole of humanity and civilization.

These challenges must, therefore, be dealt with through a strategic vision, which needs to plan for the future of the Ummah just as it needs to maintain a responsive pulse to international developments so as to gradually refine itself into a forward-looking vision that enables the Muslim world to tackle the challenges of the Twenty-first Century by leveraging the collective will and Joint Islamic Action.

At this stage, we are consequently called upon to take a pause for a sincere and firm reflection on reforming the Ummah, which is a process that starts with reforming the self by rallying round a common stand based on Almighty Allah’s Holy Quran and the Noble Tradition of His Prophet (PBUH). This reform process should then naturally end in a staunch counteraction of any miscreants who would wantonly work evil sedition, who would misguide and mislead, and would distort the loftiest tenets of our Islamic faith enshrined in its intrinsic call for love, peace, harmony, and the civilized way out. How can they speak and act for such perverted ideas entrenched as they are in ignorance, isolationism, hatred, and blood-letting?

Nevertheless, our Muslim Ummah is called upon to meet today for the highest good and right in affirmation of Almighty Allah’s words enjoining us to: “Hold fast to Allah’s rope [in unity] and not to be divided”. And that unity requires our scholars and experts of jurisprudence to unify their stand on exposing the corruption of these miscreants and the falsehood of their claims in a determined show of strength and undivided condemnation.

While we affirm, in this regard, that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations is a global phenomenon that is not confined to any particular religion, race, color, or country, and that can in no way be justified or rationalized, we are determined – with Almighty Allah’s help and grace – to develop our national laws and legislations to criminalize every single terrorist practice and every single practice leading to the financing or instigation of terrorism. Similarly, we are also called upon to redouble and orchestrate international efforts to combat terrorism, including the establishment of an International Counter-Terrorism Center as endorsed by the Riyadh International Conference on Combating Terrorism.

Even so, all the governments and peoples of the Ummah are unanimous in their conviction that reform and development are the priority to which all efforts should be channeled within a framework that is intimately molded in our Islamic social make-up. At the same time this framework needs to remain in harmony with the achievements of human civilization and steeped in the principles of consultation, justice, and equality in its drive to achieve good governance, widen political participation, establish the rule of law, protect human rights, apply social justice, transparency, and accountability, fight corruption, and build civil society institutions.

Indeed, the Islamic civilization is an integral part of human civilization, based on the ideals of dialogue, moderation, justice, righteousness, and tolerance as noble human values that counteract bigotry, isolationism, tyranny, and exclusion. It is therefore of paramount importance to celebrate and consecrate these magnanimous values in our Muslim discourse inside and outside our societies.

As we reaffirm our unwavering rejection of terrorism, and all forms of extremism and violence, we strongly voice our feelings of stigmatization and concern over the growing phenomenon of Islamophobia around the world as a form of racism and discrimination and declare our resolve to work hard to combat this phenomenon with all available means.

Given the deep import of economic and social cooperation in strengthening solidarity among Islamic States, maximizing the advantages and averting the pitfalls of globalization, we consider the eradication of illiteracy, diseases and epidemics, and the fight to alleviate poverty in Islamic States as urgent, strategic objectives requiring us to drum up all necessary resources.

If we are to succeed in achieving our desired objectives, then of necessity we must show commitment and credibility in our Joint Islamic Action. Therefore, proceeding from a new vision of the Muslim world that tackles head on international challenges, as well as political, economic, social, and cultural variables in a manner that safeguards the values and interests of the Ummah, we adopt and endorse the Ten-Year Program of Action to face the challenges of the Muslim Ummah in the Twenty-first Century.

To Almighty Allah we pray that He may guide us onto the right path, crown our endeavors with success, and bless our lives with abundant prosperity.

“Allah has promised those who believe among you and who have done good deeds that He will surely empower them in the earth just as He did with their predecessors and that He will surely establish for them (therein) their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security (for) they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those indeed are the evil doers.” (Al-Nour 53, True are the Words of Allah).

Thank you for your attention.

Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia

Thank you for your attention !! Det fik I, det lover jeg.

(stening til synderen)

(Kvinder.. På deres plads..)

(Bøsser hænges)

(Nakkeskud til de heldige)

(stening til utro koner)

(og så lige en gang heil)

Det var ikke photoshop.. Det var virkelighed..

og PS: Jeg kunne godt have vist noget endnu værre, men det må I selv lede efter.

Det ser sort ud

People are affolés, like the thirties. People are leaving. Especially the Jews. But if you try and make the parallel to the thirties, you get cut off. Your colleagues won’t talk to you, stop having you speak at colloquia. In 2002, the cry was “Synagogue brulé, République en danger.” In 2006, it was “Ilan Halimi brulé, République en danger.”
It’s gotten worse. Before we had hope. We told ourselves, they’re unaware. If we can get them to look at this clearly, we can persuade them. Now we’ve persuaded them, and they do nothing.
The level of appeasement is depressing: every time the Muslims get angry, the French trip over themselves to calm their passions. It’s far worse now. I am losing hope for France.
Even the French communities in good neighborhoods, with fancy Kosher restaurants nearby, are feeling the cold wind blow.
Now, in market places, in schools, even when it doesn’t involve immigrants, Jew is used as an epithet. You can even call a Chinese “dirty Jew” if you want to insult him. via Atlas Shrugs

Det ser ikke godt ud i Frankrig, eller i Danmark. Eller EU, for den sags skyld. Franske jøder er åbenbart begyndt at rejse ud af landet, og i lille Danmark udtaler politiet selv at det ikke længere er sikkert i visse områder.

Blandt danske jøder har det længe været kendt, at Nørrebro er et farligt område. Chefkriminalinspektør Per Larsen har rådet jøder til ikke at bære Davidstjernen og mener i øvrigt, at jøder bør opføre sig diskret: »Insisterer man som jøde på at gå rundt på Nørrebro, så kan det da godt være, det giver nogle problemer. Jøderne må selv være med til at undgå konfrontationerne,« sagde han til Jyllands-Posten 11. august sidste år.

Hverdagens had

Kulturel forståelse ?

Kronik Berlingske. Saudi-Arabien set med en dansk kvindes øjne.

På en børneafdeling havde en ung ugift pige på 15 år født en søn uden for ægteskab. Det var – efter hvad vi erfarede – et af mange incesttilfælde, eftersom kvinder som følge af de meget strenge restriktioner absolut ikke har mulighed for at møde mænd, de ikke er nært beslægtede med. Deres hjem er veritable fæstninger, som der ikke levnes kvinderne nogen mulighed for at forlade uden ledsagelse af et mandligt familiemedlem. Denne fødsel havde i sig selv været ret dramatisk. Moderen var blevet ført fra fængslet til hospitalet under politieskorte, havde født sit barn under narkose og blev herefter transporteret tilbage til fængslet uden af have set sit barn. Hun skulle derefter opholde sig i fængslet i de næste 18 år. Barnet, som var ca. 1 år gammelt, da vi besøgte afdelingen, ventede stadig på en børnehjemsplads for forældreløse børn. Han vil fremover altid blive betragtet som et udskud, og familien vil aldrig kunne kendes ved ham. På grund af de saudiske traditioner, hvor familien går foran alt andet, vil han livet igennem stå alene. Når han fylder 18 år, vil han blive afkrævet en beslutning fra de retslige instanser om, hvorvidt han ønsker Koranens bestemmelse om afstraffelse af moderen i form af stening pga. førægteskabelige forhold. Da moderen i fængslet bliver betragtet som den hore, der er årsag til hans kummerlige tilværelse, vil den til den tid unge mand givetvis ønske sin mor stenet.

Skål piger !

Læs resten: Saudi-Arabien set med en dansk kvindes øjne

Via Mackety

Franske protester

When one million French protestors take to the streets to scream over the so-called injustice of a law recognizing the right of employers to fire young employees without cause, but only a brave few take a stand over the blatant attempt to curtail freedom of speech in the recent reaction to the Danish cartoons, one knows that Europeans are abandoning individual rights.

There is no right not to be fired from a job, at any age, by any employer. Employers, those footing the salaries of the employees, have the right to hire the best available and to fire the incompetent. But there is a right to express your thoughts, regardless of whether they offend someone — without the right to offend, freedom of speech is meaningless.

Ayn Rand Institute

Ja sku..

Naser Khader overvejer at forlade politik

Det radikale folketingsmedlem Naser Khader overvejer at forlade dansk politik. Det sker, efter at den danske imam Ahmed Akkari har fremsat dødstrusler mod ham i en fransk dokumentarfilm fra France 2, som TV2 Nyhederne sender senere torsdag aften.

Til TV AVISEN siger han, at han nu overvejer at trække sig som politiker for at beskytte sig selv og sin familie. De seneste måneders optrapning i debatten efter Muhammed-tegningerne har gjort truslerne mere nærværende.

Ifølge TV2 Nyhederne er han meget rystet over dødstruslerne og er gået under jorden.

Du skal selvfølgelig beskytte din familie, ingen snak om det.. Tag bare en velfortjent pause, så håber jeg du er klar igen på et tidspunkt. Du har min respekt uanset hvad du gør.

og ps: Lidt medie lir kan vel aldrig skade ;o)

Damp Radioen

Svindel og humbug

De store statsejede virksomheder er blevet til finansielle malkekøer for Thor Pedersen & Co. Staten henter to milliarder kroner i aktieudbytte.

Thor P, lad mig lige høre om jeg forstår det her korrekt.. Først investerer du mine penge (på min risiko, og uden at spørge mig) i en virksomhed. Derefter tvinger du mig til at være kunde til overpris ved at drive det som et statsmonopol. Nu skal jeg så være imponeret forbi dine investeringer har givet gigantisk overskud ? Du beholder selvfølgelig pengene.

Øhh, jeg er ikke økonom, men det virker ikke sundt..

Dansk humor ?

Ahmad Akkari under skjult kamera: »Hvis han (Khader) bliver minister for udlændinge eller integration, skulle man så ikke sende to fyre ud for at sprænge ham og hans ministerium i luften,«

Ahmad Akkari til pressen: Det var udelukkende sagt som en spøg, og jeg kan her i bakspejlet godt se, at det måske var en malplaceret og lidt for grovkornet spøg.

Ahmad Akkari er nu begyndt at benytte dansk humor, synes han selv. Hmm jeg synes ikke det var særligt morsomt, og jeg vil faktisk gå så vidt som til at mene at han skal i fængsel RIGTIGT LÆNGE for den udtalelse.

Og iøvrigt. Det hele er fanget af en fransk TV station. Hvad laver Danmarks Radio med de 3 MILLIARDER som de årligt stjæler fra licensbetalerne ?

Tak, Ahmed Akkari

En mutant fødes..

Det afsløres i aften i en dokumentarfilm fra Danmark på den franske tv-station France 2, hvis journalister har brugt skjulte kameraer for at trænge ind bag facaden af imamerne.
I en central passage i udsendelsen fremgår det, at imam Ahmed Akkari indirekte truer lederen af Demokratiske Muslimer, det radikale folketingsmedlem Naser Khader (R), som foreslås myrdet, hvis han kommer i regeringen.

»Hvis han bliver minister for udlændinge eller integration, skulle man så ikke sende to fyre ud for at sprænge ham og hans ministerium i luften,«

Endnu engang, Birthe Weiss, tak for den humanitære opholdstilladelse han fik af dig i 1994.

Vi tager nu den stakkels dreng Akkari og tilføjer masser af socialdemokratiske velfærdskroner.


Og tak, Ahmed Akkari, fordi du beriger vores kultur med dine input.. Du må undskylde at de danske skatteydere har givet dig husly og mad på bordet i dette vantro helvede alle disse år. Det var ikke meningen vi ville såre din fine muslimske følelser. Undskyld vi er her, og vi vil snarest overdrage al magt til dig og din fantastiske kultur.

Arrrrrhhhhggggggg…. Pis af, Akkari.. Du er ikke velkommen mere..

Og ps: Tag lige at betal det du har lånt. Du behøver ikke udskyde din afrejse, bare send pengene.

P1 professor Niels Ole Finnemann

Et citat fra et indslag i gårsdagens P1 Eftermiddag med “internet professor” Niels Ole Finnemann.

Radioværten: Sådan politisk set, hvem er så gode til at bruge internettet i Danmark?

Niels Ole Finnemann: Ja altså der er mange der bruger det, men jeg tror nok man må sige at vi kan se de højreradikale kræfter er meget aktive. Både har de et meget udbygget system med det der hedder weblogs, altså de er virkelig oppe på noderne teknologisk set og de er meget ihærdige. De kommenterer alt hvad der sker i de store medier og de kommunikerer internationalt og det ser ud til at være et relativt velorganiseret, men alligevel byggende på enkeltpersoner, men koordineret med hinanden og diskuterende med hinanden, og med et bredt internationalt kontaktfelt.
Radiovært: Men hvorfor lige højrefløjen?

Niels Ole Finnemann: Ja, men sådan noget svinger jo lidt. Altså nu er det nok højrefløjen der sætter tonen i Danmark i øjeblikket og venstrefløjen føler sig vel meget i defensiven og skal vi sige det med at mobilisere på nye medieplatforme, det ligger måske ikke så meget til midten. Så det bliver tit ydergrupper der ligesom er… dels fordi nu er nettet jo nemt at komme til, man behøver ikke at have en stor avis for at udtrykke sig her, så små grupper kan nemt komme til. Men hvis de har stor energi, så vil de jo også sætte deres præg på det. Og det er det vi ser i øjeblikket, hvor vi har skal vi sige en mærkbar højredrejning i samfundet.

Højreradikal ? Højreradikal ? Er med i den gruppe ? Niels, hvis der er nogen der er radikale, så er da dig. Jeg er ikke højreradikal, jeg er liberalist. LIBERALIST. LIBERALIST. Mange tak ! Slå det op mand.. Du skal fandme ikke kalde mig højreradikal, din stud.

Liberalisme bygger grundlæggende på den forestilling, at individet ejer sig selv og dermed også produktet af eget arbejde, samt at vold eller tvang ikke kan legitimeres uanset målet. Liberalismen står dermed i modsætning til kollektivistiske ideologier som nazisme, socialisme, kommunisme og islamisme.

Man kan undre sig over hvordan man bliver professor i Danmark. Kik på de danske weblogs som geniet kalder højreradikale. De fører allesammen en utrættelig kamp for ytringsfrihed i klar og forståelig tale. Og de angriber og/eller gør grin med alle der tror de er hævet over demokratiske grundprincipper. Respekt til den liberale blogosphere, og dig professor – du burde have dine skolepenge tilbage.

og ps: Vi taler på egen tid, og finansierer vores medie selv. Hvem betaler din løn og medietid ?

Angantyr via Uriasposten

Statsmonopoler ribber forbrugerne – uden konkurrence

De tre statslige selskaber DSB, Post Danmark og Scandlines har alle meget høje profitrater. Danskerne betaler en høj pris for at holde statsmonopoleti live, lyder private selskabers kritik.

Hvorfor skal staten drive transportvirksomheder, energivirksomheder, rederier, pakkepost, TV kanaler, osv ?

Kunne statsmonopoliserede pølsevogne måske være en ide ?

Statspølser !!

»Vi har en meget høj forrentning af vores egenkapital i forhold til mange andre brancher,« sagde koncerndirektør Søren Eriksen fra DSB

Sagen er nok i sidste ende at magtliderlige socialister (i forskellige afskygninger) bare gerne vil bestemme over os, og afgøre hvad vi skal bruge vores penge til.

Ene men stærk

Plakaten er altså dum, men den er ikke ondsindet over for den danske legobrik, for det er den, der er offer: Holdt udenfor. Stigmatiseret. Marginaliseret. Offer for strukturel racisme. Underkendt. Miskendt. Isoleret. Etnisk. Minoritet.

Flot skrevet..

Fra Ullas blog via Polemiken

Update: Prins Charles doktor på racist universitet Al-Azhar

Nå, så kom der alligevel lidt krudt i den historie efter et besøg hos Angantyr. Det var unægteligt lidt krydderi at Al-Azhar universitet, som prins Charles nu er æresdoktor på, er en samling muslimske racister.

The University of El Azhar is a racist university, with all that the word “Racism” entails. Its Imams and scholars always decry countries of the West, which reached a high caliber in terms of human rights, for having been racist countries at one point of their history.Would those turbans void of brains remove the speck from their eyes first before blaming others for actions carried out centuries ago?

It is a racist university for; in spite of the fact that it is a public university financed by all Egyptian taxpayers – Muslims and Christians alike – it only accepts Muslim students! Isn’t that racism?

It is a racist university because it separates male and female students and places them in separate campuses. It even goes as far as banning its female students from studying certain specialties. Isn’t that racism? If there is one thing for which I would like to thank that university of El Azhar, it is for having showed me its unveiled face that I would not have been able to witness had I not been one of its students.”

Læs historien om en elev fra El Azhar

Charles: >>Den seneste grufulde strid og vrede over de danske tegninger viser hvilken fare, der kommer ud af vores manglende evne til at lytte og respektere det, som er helligt og dyrebart for andre< <...... .....tilhørerne i Kairo, der kvitterede for det kongelige besøg med et stort bifald...... .... Prinsen modtog forinden en æresgrad ved universitetet for sit arbejde for at fremme forståelsen af islam i den vestlige verden....

Må jeg foreslå at du starter med at opdrage lidt på dine børn, før du begynder at lege bademester overfor os..

Fly, Zentropa og DR.. uha det bliver grimt

Efter succesen med “Bænken”, “Arven” og “Drabet” skal filminstruktøren Per Fly lave tv-drama for DR…… bla bla

Per Fly er en af sin generations største danske filmmagere. Derfor synes jeg selvfølgelig, at det er skønt, at han ville lave denne miniserie for os. Alt er nu klart til optagelse, siger DR’s dramachef Ingolf Gabold, der allerede for to år siden kontaktede Per Fly… bla bla

bla bla bla… produceres af filmselskabet Zentropa i samarbejde med DR.

Kejser Fly og socialisterne på Zentropa har nu fået deres snabel dybere ned i danske skatteyderes lommer. Nu er filmstøtteordningerne åbenbart ved at være malket tomme, så nu skal licensbetalerne malkes.

Hvor længe skal tvangudskrevne midler, i form af skatter og licens, bruges til at socialister på Zentropa og Danmarks Radio, kan lave propaganda for deres væmmelige system ? Lad dem dog selv (eller dem der gider se det) betale for at få det lavet. Jeg forstår ikke hvor jeg skal tvinges til at være med.

Aldrig mere Arla

Arla i aviser og TV spots:

Ærede borgere. De år, vi har haft i jeres verden, har lært os, at retfærdighed og tolerance er fundamentale værdier i islam. Vi vil samarbejde med islamiske organisationer for at finde en løsning på boykotten af Arlas produkter. Vi beder jer blot om at tænke over dette, og at I forhåbentlig vil genoverveje jeres holdning til vores virksomhed”, står der i Arlas annonce.

Jens Rohde:

Arla er parat til at sælge sin bedstemor for at sælge sine varer i diktaturlande. Jeg kan slet, slet ikke forstå, at man kan tage så let på vores principper. Mine frihedsrettigheder er ikke til salg for to liter mælk,« siger Jens Rohde

Nu er det noget tid siden efterhånden at vi holdt op med at købe Arla produkter, og har kunne konstatere at produkter som ikke hedder Arla, bliver revet væk fra hylderne i de lokale butikker. Vores familie er åbenbart ikke den eneste der synes Arlas mælk har fået en ulækker bi-smag den sidste tid.

FN sviner LEGO og Danmark til

FN kæder nu den danske legetøjsgigant LEGO sammen med racisme. Det sker i dag – på den internationale dag for racisme – da FN’s Højkommissariat for Menneskerettigheder som blikfang for en stribe verdensomspændende arrangementer har lanceret en plakat med sloganet: »Racisme kan antage mange former.« Umiddelbart under sloganet, der også er gengivet på arabisk, er afbilledet en LEGO-klods

FN bruger dansk legetøj til at svine Danmark til overfor arabere i hele verden.

Nu bliver det spændende om LEGO koncernen har modet til at køre en retssag mod FN, for misbrug af deres produkter.

Kom så LEGO, vis hvad I er gjort af.

Asger Aamund for president

Dansk erhvervslivs organisationer har svigtet og tilladt, at danske virksomheder er blevet taget som gidsler i forbindelse med den internationale kampagne fra muslimske lande mod Danmark. En planlagt kampagne, hvor Danmark slet ikke er hovedmålet, men blot en brik i en større kulturkamp, mener Asger Aamund.

Et mandfolk og en fornuftens røst midt i galskaben.

Læs iøvrigt hans bog “Det modige Danmark”.

Han er jo ikke liberalist, og derfor er jeg uenig med ham i mange ting – men han er pt det bedste nationen har at byde på.

Via Hodja

Imamser på ny mellemøst-rejse

De “lærde” (ha ha ha) imamser:

Abdul Wahid Pedersen
Abu Laban
Abu Bashar
Shaykh Raed Hlayhel
Ahmed Akkari
Jihad Al Farra.

Den nye rejse skaber da også frygt for, at vreden mod Danmark på ny blusser op, når den danske delegation skal tale for omkring 300 muslimske lærde og repræsentanter for muslimske organisationer fra hele verden.

Lærde ? Hvad har de opfundet ?
(Imamser først spottet hos Polemikken)

Niels Due Jensen igen igen

Niels Due Jensen : Regeringens tætte parløb med Dansk Folkeparti skaber en polarisering og konfrontation i det danske samfund, som skader Danmarks renommé i udlandet i katastrofal grad,« siger Niels Due Jensen til dagbladet Børsen.

Hvad øhh.. Ridder Jensen (ohh du korsfarer for demokratiet) !! Er du ikke flyttet til Sverigstan endnu ? Jeg er ikke den nogen fan af DF, men de er jo trods alt demokratisk valgt. Det må da have en betydning.. eller hvad ? Og de er da mere fornuftige end noget alternativ jeg kan se.

Islamister, nazister, klu klux klan, manden på gaden i Cairo og FN er enige

Det er jøderne der er problemet !

(David Duke ved brændende kors. Via AS)

David Duke: The people who are pushing Jewish supremacism, Zionism – they are absolute evil and they are crazy. All they know is more power, and so there is a real danger, I should say, for Syria, and a danger for Iran at this point.

Video: David Duke, tidligere Grand Wizard i Klu Klux Klan – nu nazist, bliver interviewet af syrisk TV. Her udtrykker han sin beundring for Syrien(MemriTV)

Læs interviewet.

(Stormufti i Berlin)

(Stormufti med Himmler)

(Stormufti med Hitler)

In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:: … to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.

(Gadebillede fra Cairo – idag. Via lgf, Jimmy og Sandmonkey)

Me: Hello, nice shirt.
Him: Thanks (then turning his face away to the mobile in his hand)
Me: May I ask you a question?
Him: (With a who-is-that-freak face) Yeah
Me: You like the sign on the shirt?
Him: It looks stylish.
Me: (laughing) Sure you know what it really is?
Him: (Bored) Hitler’s sign.
Me: Nazi sign… You know if Nazis were here you could have been dead?
Him: (anger starting taking over) I am not a Jew, fellow!
Me: But you are not an Aryan, so you are inferior, so you are, according to them, a slave minor being.
Him: What’s an Aryan??
Me: (Eyes wide open) Umm.. oh nothing… thanks man!
Him: OK.

(John Dugard , UN Human Rights Commission)

“Has come to symbolize Israeli territorial expansion and oppression.”

Ikke yderligere kommentarer herfra..

FN: Det er jødernes skyld

Nu kan det fandme være nok. Se så at få meldt Danmark ud af den betændte, korrupte, antisemitiske forbryderbule. FN har udspillet sin rolle som som repræsentant for demokratiske nationer, og er nu ensidigt talerør for islamister, forbrydere og formørkede tåber.

FN kan rende mig, jeg betragter hermed mig selv som meldt ud. Israel har ret til forsvare sig, og det ved jeg de vil. Bare begynd at varme motoren op, I vil kun høre lovsang herfra. Palestina er en terrorstat, drevet af islamister. Deres regering består nu KUN af HAMAS terrorister. (HeraldSun) Alle penge der sendes til Palestina fra EU og Danmark er terrorstøtte, og bør behandles efter “anti-terror-loven”. (PET)

Lech tiezdayen, FN
(Oversættelse fra Hebraisk: “Go fuck yourself “)

UN envoy: It’s all the Jews’ fault
Suggests Israelis, not the Arabs, are the real terrorists

Almost completely disregarding Palestinian Arab aggression against Israel’s Jews, a United Nations envoy has sought to lay the blame for regional conflict at the doorstep of the Jewish state by misrepresenting and exaggerating Israel’s defensive measures and isolated acts of frustration.

In a special report prepared for next week’s annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission, South African lawyer John Dugard charged:

“It seems that settlers are able to terrorize Palestinians and destroy their trees and crops with impunity.”
What he failed to mention, however, are the innumerable stoning, shooting and bombing attacks carried out against the Jewish settlers by the hostile Arab population surrounding them. Often those attacks are launched from the cover of olive groves and fruit orchards, prompting frustrated and threatened Israelis to take matters into their own hands.

Dugard also criticized official Israeli defensive measures both in Gaza and the “West Bank.”

Regarding Israel’s tight border restrictions, sonic booms, artillery fire and targeted killings in and around Gaza, Dugard said they:

“Serve as a constant reminder to the people of Gaza that they remain occupied.”
Left out of the equation were the hundreds of rockets and mortar shells that have been fired from Gaza at nearby Negev towns and villages since Israel withdrew from the Strip last summer. Nearly 500 Kassam rockets have been fired since the beginning of this year alone.

That no Jews have been killed in these bombardments apparently made them irrelevant to Dugard.

In Judea and Samaria, Dugard took issue with Israel’s security fence, which he said:

“Has come to symbolize Israeli territorial expansion and oppression.”
Again focusing on the result rather than the cause, Dugard seemingly forgot about the years of weekly “suicide” bomb attacks emanating from Judea and Samaria that Israel has been made to endure over the past decade. Controversial as it may be on both the left and right of the political spectrum, the fence has managed to largely curb the threat of “suicide” bombings, saving numerous Israeli lives.

Israeli envoy to the UN Itzhak Levanon told the Associated Press in response that Dugard’s report is:

“Misinformed and inaccurate… [and] guided by a clear political agenda, and bears little relation either to the facts or existing principles of international law.”
Israel likely has little to worry about, as Dugard’s credibility among the Jewish state’s true allies has deteriorated about as far as has that of the Human Rights Commission to which he reports.

According to the Associated Press, UN member states are considering replacing the commission, which has come under growing criticism for allowing a number of brutal dictatorial regimes to use their seat on the commission as a shield against condemnation for their actions.
Via AtlasShrugs

South Park har erklæret Scientology krig

(Tom Cruise)

Flere religiøse kvababbelser.. Nu med indbygget filmstjerne. Det burde blive underholdende.

De to mænd bag “South Park” har erklæret Scientology krig. Matt Stone og Trey Parker er rasende over, at det lykkedes Tom Cruise at forhindre genudsendelsen af et afsnit fra november sidste år og nu får sekten med grovfilen. I det famøse afsnit “Trapped in the Closet” gøres skuespilleren til grin som skabsbøsse og det skal have fået ham til at lægge pres på ejerne af den TV-station, der sender “South Park” i USA. Ved hjælp af trusler om at boykotte PR-begvenhederne i forbindelse med premieren på “Mission: Impossible III” skal det være lykkedes Cruise at trumfe sin vilje igennem.
Skuespilleren nægter, at det forholder sig sådan, men programmet blev ændret i sidste øjeblik og der er ingen tvivl hos Stone og Parker. Det hele lugter langt væk af magtmisbrug og Scientology I en udtalelse til brancheavisen Daily Variety skriver de, at sekten måske nok har vundet dette slag, “men millionårs-krigen om jorden er først lige begyndt”.
Bataljen begyndte i mandags, da Isaac Hayes sagde op på “South Park”, hvor han lagde stemme til kokken Chef. Sangeren, der også er overbevist scientolog, begrundede sin afgang med vrede over den måde, tegneserien gør grin med religion. Han henviste blandt andet til Muhammed-tegningerne og sagde, at han ikke kunne klare mere religiøs intolerance. Dén købte Stone og Parker ikke. De påpegede, at Haayes havde haft det fint med at hænge kristendommen ud og først fik moralen galt i halsen, da løjerne gik ud over Scientology.

Se afsnittet “Trapped in the Closet” her
Eller her

The Fountainhead

Fantastisk slappe-af søndag med familien. Fik endelig set filmen “The Fountainhead”, efter Ayn Rands bog. Det er et manifest, læs uddrag:

“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures–because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer–because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received–hatred. The great creators–the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors–stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane, or a building–that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

“His vision, his strength, his courage cam from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power– that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.

“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons–a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man–the function of his reasoning mind.

“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. it is a secondary consequence. The primary act–the process of reason–must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man con use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the nest step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.

“Nothing is given to man on earth . Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways– by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality–the man who lives to serve others–is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.

“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution–or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer–in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.

“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self.

“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative-and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism–the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal–under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rest upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.

“The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man–and he asks no man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule–alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

“Rulers of men are not egoists. They create nothing. The exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

“But men were taught to regard second-handers–tyrants, emperors, dictators–as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.

“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

“”The creator–denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited–went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

“The ‘common good’ of a collective–a race, a class, a state– was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.

“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is–Hands off!

“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building supersede all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an unessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. NO one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they need from me. they wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. they took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. i do not contribute gifts of this nature.

“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them a right to my work. that their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.

“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.

“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, i wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.

“My act of loylty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend–and to the battles he won. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”

Jeg er revitaliseret og klar.

Køb bogen
Køb videoen
Video online

Tekst fra Howard Roark on trial

Skattesystemet skaber nasserøve

Der er ingen stolthed tilbage i dette land. Skattesystemet har forvandlet 1 million arbejdsduelige danskere til knælende tiggere, der lever af andres arbejde. Der er ikke økonomisk motivation til at tage personlig risiko, arbejde hårdt og tænke kreativt. Danmark er et paradis for nasserøve og et mareridt for de arbejdende.

Hopper man f.eks. ud af folkeskolen og får et ufaglært arbejde, så bliver man mødt med en marginalskat på 43 pct. Lytter man derimod til statsministerens opfordringer og sætter sig på universitetsbænken i fem-syv år, bliver man i sin erhvervskarriere mødt med en marginalskat på 63 pct.

Cepos artikel

En million mennesker i den arbejdsdygtige alder (16-66 år) nu lever af at nasse på andre mennesker………..

Velfærdsstaten og demokratiet har skabt en nation af svæklinge, som efterhånden er mere optaget af at kvalificere sig til et hav af offentlige ydelser ved at opføre sig asocialt og uproduktivt end at forbedre deres egen situation ved egen hjælp.