6
sep
Seneste opdatering: 7/9-08 kl. 2104
12 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

“I en tid hvor kunsten er holdt op med at betyde noget,” som Jalving  skriver  idag, og hvor vi pludselig  skal interessere os for surrealisme på Arken, som andet end ørkesløse kuratorernes eksamenspensum, kan  man opleve dette i  Versailles. Europas  mondæne efterlønneres seneste  tidsfordriv: en åndsarbejders plastik hummerbadedyr, Warhol i Euro-Disney, en fis i  en lysekrone – post, post, post Duchamp.

An article in Le Figaro from June 2008 announced an exhibit within the rooms of the Palace of Versailles of works by American kitsch artist Jeff Koons.  Gallia Watch, Vampires in Versailles

De  svenske RUC -marxister

“Jag tror inte jag skrattade en enda gång när jag läste de 364 sidorna, det är torrt, det är marxistiskt, det är tråkigt – den aura av dödande tråkighet som vidlåter marxismen tycks ha häftat sig fast på Arvidsson trots att han lämnat den; inte ens när han beskriver kärleksförhållanden får språket någon innerlighet, en abort omnämnes kort och kliniskt…….
Många av de kommunistiska koryféerna fick tjänster vid universiteten, men när Roskilde Universitet i Danmark öppnades tycks alla kommunistiska dårfinkar i Sverige ha sökt sig dit och fått jobb, så även Arvidsson.”

Læs : Kurt Lundgren :  20 år av total galenskap. Arvidsson har kørt parløb med en anden gammel marxist og  RUC ér, Lasse Dencik, når det gjaldt at smæde den danske regering i villige  svenske medier.*  Galskaberne døde  dog ikke  da Arvidsson blev mere  voksen. Ny  kom for de  gamle som faldt, de  fylder bare  betydeligt mindre, undtagen i medierne. Vänsterns bizarra konspirationsfestival – European Social Forum i Malmö. Sidste år  var det i Kødbyen på Vestrebro, hvor Tina Magaard  skulle  diskutere med Asmaa – der dog ikke mødte op – men måtte  nøjes med Enhedslisten, Dagbladet Arbejderen, BUPL og  alle  de  andre ultra-leftists, som bevægelsen består  af. Jeg var der  selv. Jeg husker det, som var det igår.  (* en anden gammel rød svensk-dansk, P.O. Enquist, græder i dag ud i Svd over sin overståede  alkoholisme, men medgiver at  han selv endelig er kommet til den erkendelse, at  han er en stor forfatter. Forhåbentlig har han ret – det eneste  jeg husker  af ham idag, er  hans udtalelser i Ahlmarks ” Vänstern och Tyranniet , Det  Galna Kvarseklet”. Arvidsson var også med, men nu  synes  pdf bogen borte  fra  nettet.)

Norsk professor: »Ogräspartierna«

Set herfra skylder Tor Bjørklund en forklaring : Hvordan kan “ukrudspartierne” på én gang  være “højreradikale” og “arbejderpartier” ? Svenske arbejdere  er  altså kvasi-nazister ? “Round-up” ?

Samtidigt som flera opinionsundersökningar visar att sverigedemokraterna klarar riksdagsspärren efterlyser både socialdemokraterna och moderaterna tuffare asylpolitik. Men att närma sig sverigedemokraterna räcker inte för att hålla partiet borta från riksdagen. “De högerradikala partierna har rotat sig i det skandinaviska politiska landskapet och är lika svåra att rensa bort som ogräs”, skriver Tor Bjørklund.

Precis som i Norge och Danmark gäller det i Sverige för de etablerade partierna att hitta ett sätt att förhålla sig till ett högerradikalt parti. Störst blir utmaningen för socialdemokraterna, som främst vänder sig till arbetare. Denna väljarbas delar socialdemokraterna med de främlingsfientliga partierna. Det är omöjligt att stoppa SD

Bare en drengestreg

Prøv at lægge mærke til hvor tit man hører ledende politifolk nedtone betydningen af diverse kriminalitet begået i etniske miljøer. Jeg har ikke noget belæg for at påstå at dette er en linje der er afstukket fra højere sted, fordi man for alt i verden vil prøve at lægge låg på et uløseligt problem, og tendensen kunne lige så vel afspejle enten almindelig konfliktskyhed i forhold til et sensitivt område, eller et politikorps som mangler ressourcer til at udføre deres arbejde. Men tendensen er der, og hvis man følger dækningen af lignende historier i USA, kan man se det samme mønster. Selv gerningsmænd som selv har legitimeret deres handlinger som jihad er blevet afskrevet som psykisk syge. Måske opfattes det som vigtigt for den nationale selvtillid at kunne pege på at der ingen terrorhandlinger har været her siden 9/11 (LFPC).

Politiet måtte i nat flere gange rykke ud til anmeldelser om skud på Nørrebro i København.

– Vi har fundet flere patronhylstre fra gaspistoler, men heldigvis er ingen blevet ramt, fortæller den centrale efterforskningsleder.

Politiet rykkede først ud til Heimdalsgade og kort efter til Hothers Plads ved Mjølnerparken.

– Vi vurderer, at der er tale om de samme gerningsmænd. Der er nærmest tale om drengestreger, forøvet af nogle, som ikke fatter alvoren af, hvad der foregår i København i øjeblikket, siger efterforskningslederen med henvisning til den spændte situation mellem rockere og indvandrerbander den senere tid. Flere løse skud på Nørrebro

Jødehadende hadith fjernet af universitet – gæt hvem der nu er ‘krænket’

Dette er langt fra danske kyster, men beslutningen taget af rektor ved University of Southern California om at fjerne en række hadith med opfordringer til drab på jøder fra deres hjemmeside, er skelsættende. Rektoren har endda haft den frækhed at kalde de citerede ord af Muhammed for “forkastelige”. Det er ikke fordi at fjernelsen i sig vil have nogen betydning for troende muslimer, som har fri adgang til samme hate speech adskillige steder, og det er heller ikke censur (som er noget statsmagter evt. kan udøve), så meget desto mere fordi det altså er opfordringer til mord. Det skelsættende består i, at ellers føjelige vantro her har trukket en streg i sandet og fjernet den mur af beskyttelse som ideologien islam har nydt godt af alene i kraft af at være en verdensreligion. Dette var i øvrigt samme hadith som Hizb ut-Tahrir herhjemme blev trukket i retten for for nogle år siden, men hvor medierne ikke turde beskæftige sig med dens ophav. Om det drejer sig om ‘ægteskab’ med ni-årige, eller religiøst legitimeret hate speech, ligger den grimme virkelighed frit tilgængelig, og udgør en kæmpe Achilleshæl. Må der blive kradset mere i overfladen, og trukket flere streger i sandet.

Provost C. L. Max Nikias has approved the deletion of part of a Muslim student group website that hosted religious documents urging Muslims to kill Jewish people. The material was removed from a collection of scriptures known as hadiths, historical sayings of the Prophet Muhammad not included in the Quran. The hadith in question, along with thousands of others, are hosted in their entirety on a USC server as part of the now defunct Muslim Student Association’s website. […]

Members of the Muslim Student Union, which is the dominant Muslim student organization on campus but which is not associated with the MSA, declined to be interviewed, but in a statement, they called Nikias’ actions “unprecedented and unconscionable” and said they amounted to unwarranted censorship. Nikias did not consult the group before he took down the hadith, they said.

“We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or any religious authority first,” the group said in the statement. “[…] Deleted site causes stir for Muslim organization

En af hade-hadith’erne lyder således (LFPC):

Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. University of Southern California provost: Muhammad’s words “truly despicable”

Pakistansk pige, bortgiftet som 9-årig, dræbt af sine forældre som 17-årig

Hun ville skilles fra manden, der forresten var 36 år ældre end hende selv, og måtte derfor dø. Pakistan betyder ‘de renes land’, og hentyder til muslimernes ‘renhed’ i forhold til de urene hinduer i Indien. Der er ingen screening for æresbegreber som disse ved udstedelse af opholdstilladelse i Danmark, og selv hvis man kunne screene, ville ingen drømme om at foreslå det indført. Engang havde vi bare den slags mennesker på lang afstand. Via Jihad Watch (LFPC):

DESPAIR among human rights workers in Pakistan over a rash of so-called “honour killings” intensified yesterday when it was disclosed that a girl forced into marriage with a 45-year-old man at the age of nine had been killed by her parents because she asked for an annulment.

The girl, 17, who had been fighting a lonely but successful legal battle, was coming out of court in the Punjabi city of Sahiwal after being granted the annulment by a judge when she was surrounded by a group of men and shot in view of police. […] Married at 9, slain by parents at 17

»Who killed Britain?«

uddrag af The Mails  lørdags-essay:

A new book reveals that the land Queen Elizabeth II once ruled no longer exists

All in all, when one compares the cold, the poverty, the sheer misery of 1952 Britain with the Britain of today, the improvement is as amazing as anything the Victorians achieved.

And yet, it would be a bold person who stood up and said that the past half-century had been Britain’s most glorious period. For the reign of Elizabeth is the one in which Britain effectively stopped being British.The chief reason for this is mass immigration on a scale that has utterly transformed our nation.

Governments needed cheap labour, and the first immigrants from the West Indies helped the expanding health service, the improved transport system and burgeoning industry. Not everyone was welcoming.

At the end of 1952, shortly after he was re-elected as Prime Minister, the old war hero Winston Churchill wanted to know the number of coloured people – as they were called in those days – who had entered Britain and where they lived.

In Cabinet he asked whether the Post Office was employing any, pointing out that ‘there was some risk that difficult social problems would be created’ if this was so.

Then he set up an inquiry to see how further immigration could be prevented and ‘coloured’ people kept out of the Civil Service.The generation of old men who had grown up with a British Empire, and who were still occupying senior office until the Seventies, saw the question of immigration entirely in terms of colour.

Horrified by this, the next generation built up a race relations industry in which discrimination on grounds of skin pigmentation became illegal.

Meanwhile, for fear of being thought racist, successive governments allowed in thousands more immigrants and their innumerable dependants, most of whom, far from bringing necessary skills, were a drain on the welfare system or took jobs that could have been done by those already living here.

Though some of these newcomers undoubtedly helped Britain prosper, it is equally inescapable that they have changed the character and composition of whole areas of Britain – and not always for the better.

Eager to be tolerant, governments did not insist that they learn the language or integrate properly. Because many primary schools were Church of England, it seemed only fair – didn’t it? – to have Muslim schools, too.

This folly ignored the fact that Church of England did not mean narrowly Christian but schools-for-all that historically just happened to be run by the church.

By creating Muslim schools, however, governments have allowed the growth of a disaffected, ‘radicalised’ young Islamist population, many of whom are intent on destroying Britain itself.

When terrorists strike from this quarter, the indigenous population can feel justifiable anger at a political class that allowed the situation to come about in which such suicide-bombing fanatics could exist.

In the past decade, immigration has been on a scale unprecedented in our nation’s history.

The Labour Government’s figure of new settlers is 1.1 million; other estimates are half a million higher.But we just don’t know. For all its love of statistics and minding the business of the law-abiding and tax-paying population, the Government could not keep tabs on the migrants it let in.

And no wonder, since, quite apart from asylum seekers and immigrants from the rest of the world, Britain signed up to the enlargement of the European Union.

All the biggest countries in Europe – France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain – saw the dangers of allowing unlimited movement of workers from Eastern Europe, the chaos it would create in the labour market and the intolerable burden it would put on hospitals, public transport and housing.

In a move that was little short of insanity, Britain allowed open entry. Around 420,000 Eastern Europeans piled in here, many willing to work for less than their British equivalents.

Strange as it was for a Labour Party – even a New Labour one – to be so blatant about importing cheap labour, it was also embarrassing to see how much harder working and more skilful were the workers trained under communist regimes than under 50 years of ‘consensus’ politics.

Polish plumbers and Czech bricklayers with their willingness to work 50-hour weeks mending the lavatories and building the kitchens of the British middle classes, made the indigenous poor of this country seem all the more pathetic.

But it is not just immigration that has changed Britain. Its very essence and nature have been radically undermined in many other ways.

National sovereignty has been sacrificed to Europe. The constitution has been tinkered with by the mutilation of the House of Lords. The Church of England nears dissolution.

All these things are symptoms of a simple, palpable fact: that the Britain of February 6, 1952, is not merely different from the Britain of today. It has ceased to exist.Above all, we have lost any sense of what it means to be together as a nation.

Once, a shared sense of identity and purpose united us. It was part of the national myth that during the heroic summer of 1940 Britain stood alone against the rest of the world. But it was a myth that happened to be true.At the time, Britain had an Empire, a vast industrial base at home, an unwrecked landscape, unspoilt townscapes, a rail network, a national Church, a class system. But within a decade of the end of the war, almost all of these faded or were forcibly removed.

Social experiments proved disastrous and divisive.

Comprehensive education was meant to destroy the class system; instead it deepened class division by making anyone who could afford to – and many who could not – educate their children privately.

The fact that so many parents choose to subsidise state schools through tax and then spend a large amount of their taxed income on private education is an indictment of the gross incompetence of generations of politicians.

In 1944, when drafting his Education Act for post-war Britain, the reforming Conservative minister, R.A. Butler, recognised that there was a strong case for abolishing private education.

Had he done so, then it might have resulted in a more cohesive society.Some old optimists still think this can happen, that the iniquity of division can be abolished.

The playwright Alan Bennett recently called for private schools to be brought to an end.

‘It is the fact that you can buy advantages for your children over and above their abilities that seems to me to be wrong,’ he wrote.

‘It’s a fissure that runs right through English society. If the state schools were the best, if you had to compete to get into them and their education was better than what was on offer privately, then the whole nature of education would be transformed.’

Such a viewpoint pre-supposes that the same educational values exist in 2008 as when Bennett enjoyed the benefits of an old-fashioned grammar school education in the 1940s.

But when Antony Crosland, Education Secretary in Harold Wilson’s Labour Government, expressed the wish to abolish ‘every f***ing grammar school in England’, he ushered in a mob of theorists who questioned the very standards of excellence that enabled schoolchildren, regardless of income bracket, to prosper.

Bennett’s notion of clever children <cite>competing with one another to get into the ‘best’ schools was anathema to the egalitarians of the Seventies.

Had Crosland and his successor, Shirley Williams, made the state schools better than the private sector then there would have been no problem.

Today, the good intentions of the educational theorists have ended in disaster, with a higher proportion than ever of privately educated children being admitted to the better universities, and landing the better jobs.

Meanwhile, the children born into the underclass – the lumpenproletariat, as Karl Marx called it – stand less chance than their British working-class equivalents in 1952 of rising through education and shaking off the constraints of their upbringing.

Constant television, computer games and overcrowded inner-city schools are unlikely to train them in the gifts of concentration that would make such a life change possible.

The Britain of Elizabeth II’s accession, then, and the Britain that will see her funeral are in reality two different, equally awful, places.We have gained much in terms of physical well-being, of medical care, of opportunities for travel and cultural enrichment. But at some stage along the journey we ceased to be a society.

Much of our common culture has been destroyed.

Take the so-called Big Bang, which in 1986 opened up the financial markets of the City of London to traders from all over the world.

Almost overnight, an institution that had been central to Britain as a nation since the 17th century was no longer in British hands.Electronic dealing ended the arcane rituals of the stock market floor, men in top hats, bells ringing and so on.

The old Forsyte Saga-style banking and stockbroking families retreated before the invasion of American and European firms.

In their place appeared a class of super-rich City slickers, yuppies, Porsche drivers, second and third home-owners, crankers-up of the housing market, draughtsmen and women of a new social map in which previous levels of income and standards of living seemed puny.Geographically, the Square Mile was still in the same place. The Thames still ran softly, but the song was no longer sung in English.

The dome of St Paul’s, that great emblem of national solidity in the face of destructive threats from outside, as it had been in 1940 when it survived the Blitz, was soon dwarfed by huge American-style blocks and slabs that soared above the City’s skyline.

Within its walls, the cathedral church of London had become the chief meeting place of a sect rather than the seat of a national Church.

The liturgy of 1662, part of the inner music of English heads and English ears for three centuries, was discarded in the late Sixties, as was any claim by the Church to utter the Common Prayer of the nation.

No longer answerable to Parliament, the Church had an assembly of its own, the General Synod, in which it conducts divisive discussions from which there appears to be no retreat.

Gay bishops? Women priests? In these Lilliputian squabbles the Church has never looked more like breaking up. Disestablishment seems inevitable.

And with that will come a further weakening of any bond that might hold the nation in an imaginative and cultural knot.

The union between Scotland and England is under threat, too. It had been the beginning of the story of British Imperial greatness.

Despite occasional dramatic spats, the two nations achieved remarkable feats of statecraft, of philosophy, of engineering, of empire-building.

But, like a married pair who wonder whether they ever liked each other, they have drifted almost heedlessly towards separation, via a series of devolutionary measures few of the electorate actually asked for, and probably even fewer actively desire.

The result of all these changes, in so many different areas of our national life, is plain. Britain is less British today than it was half a century ago.

During World War II, and in the times of economic austerity immediately after, we were – yes, it made sense to use the first person plural – we were an entity.

Young men, of whatever social class, did National Service together. Rich and poor received identical rations and, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain had a fair distribution of food.

The middle classes howled about powdered eggs, but the working classes had the new experience of protein and vitamins in their diet.

With the coming of prosperity – which almost everyone must surely have welcomed – the problems began.

The inhabitants of the British archipelago became a collection of classes and races and individuals, living side by side and for the most part trying to ignore one another.

For a while, we had the optimistic idea of multi-culturalism. In the wake of massive immigration, governments woke up to the realisation that behind the statistics were human beings with religious beliefs and political attitudes that might not sit easily with modern British secularism.

Multi-culturalism, it was argued, would enable everyone to feel at home in their own language, religion, dress codes and eating habits.

This idea is in the process of being abandoned because it is now seen to ‘encourage separateness between communities’, as Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has put it.

On a day when British Muslims were burning the Union flag outside Regent’s Park mosque in London, Phillips said: ‘What we should be talking about is how we reach an integrated society in which people are equal under the law and where there are some common values.’

Against the ‘extremist’ ideas of radical Islamists, he proposed an urgent need to ‘assert a core of Britishness’ by which everyone, including Muslims, ‘work by the rules of British people – and that excludes terrorism’.

But how do you impose ‘a core of Britishness’ upon people who are only British in the sense of possessing a passport, and who perhaps do not want someone else’s so-called values thrust upon them?

Britishness, anyway, is apparently not so desirable a quality that all Britons want to share in it, as the numbers of Scots pressing to leave the Union are witness to.

What are these values, in any case? ‘Democracy and the rule of law’, is the answer some would give.

Yes, but the history of the past 200 years shows Britain was only ever a partial democracy.

A general election is an opportunity for the electorate to express preferences, and to change the make-up of Parliament, but only established or ‘acceptable’ political viewpoints are offered at the ballot box.

Those who wish to be governed by greens, by communists, by fascists, by Islamic fundamentalists or others – and this represents a substantial part of the electorate if added together – have no chance whatsoever of seeing a candidate with their viewpoint elected to Parliament.

And anyway an election leaves the civil service, the police and the judiciary untouched.Britain has remained a country governed by those who think they knew best.

In the 19th century this was a coalition of aristocrats and the professional classes. In our times, the aristocracy was slowly replaced by a different Establishment, of university graduates and career politicians, who were no less adamant that they did not need advice from the headstrong populace.

The populace might think it wanted capital punishment, for example, or an escape from the bureaucracy of Europe, but the governing classes always knew better.

This New Establishment, confronted with the spectre of Irish terrorism, contorted itself into any number of positions until Tony Blair played the brilliant trick of giving the ‘extremists’ in Northern Ireland what they actually claimed to want: namely, power. He made them share it, a Dantean joke that worked.

It would be less easy to do the same with Islamic terrorists, since it is not in the power of the New Establishment to reinvent the Caliphate, even if it wanted to.

Which is why it has resorted to this rather lame belief that it must assert Britishness – at the very period in history when it is harder than ever to define what so vague a concept might mean.

Gordon Brown has spoken with eloquent lack of meaning or substance about ‘Britishness’ and ‘core vahlews’, but what he actually thinks about Britain was revealed in a symbolic action he performed before he became prime minister.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he approved a new set of British coins. For the first time since the reign of Charles II, the figure of Britannia had been removed from them.

As our common culture disappears, the only thing, in fact, that the indigenous population still has in common with all their fellow aliens on this strange little archipelago in the North Sea is the Queen herself.

And one suspects, as she continues to go about the land meeting her subjects and shaking their hands, that she has come to feel a stranger here, too.

Who killed Britain? A new book reveals that the land Queen Elizabeth II once ruled no longer exists

indlagt:  • Abridged extract from OUR TIMES: THE AGE OF ELIZABETH II by A.N. Wilson, published by Hutchinson on September 18 at £25. &deg; A.N. Wilson 2008. To order a copy at £22.50 (p&p free),please call 0845 155 0720.

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

  • Johansen

    Storbrittaniens nyere historie er en tragedie.
    Lad os håbe at Europas fremtid ikke bliver en historie om Eurabia ala Bat Ye´ors beskrivelse. Eller er Eurabia allerede en kendsgerning?

    Det forekommer mig, at vores forsvarsværker mod islamiseringsbølgen er alt for svage og vigende.

  • Der er jo rigtig mange medvirkede. Nu nævner artiklen anekdoten med Churchill. Hvad angår tabet af imperiet, medvirkede han jo. De , der var modstandere af krigserklæringen mod Hitler, vidste godt at en storkrig ville koste England imperiet. Og det var de imod. Men det er bare en lille detalje i det store billede. Churchill kan undskyldes. Værre f.eks. er Heath og Blair.

    Mht den svenske professor i det stakkels Oslo: Indlæget er med fordi det viser en infatiliserring af svensk debat. Man tror man kan ændre virkeligheden, ved at beskrive den anderledes end den er.

  • Kristoffer Mogensen

    “I en tid hvor kunsten er holdt op med at betyder noget,” Hvad fanden er det for en bøjning? Det hedder: At betyde; det betyder; sværere er det ikke. Hvorfor er det endelses-r blevet et uoverstigeligt og umagteligt problem for alle under fyrre? Død over dansklærerne!

  • Janne

    “We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or any religious authority first,” the group said in the statement. “The ‘compendium’ is now incomplete. There are verses in many religious texts (be it the Torah or the New Testament) that when taken out of context can be taken as offensive.”

    Tænk at være fornærmet over at en tekst med opfordring til drab på jøder bliver fjernet. At sådanne personer vil kalde sig selv for troende og religiøse personer. Det er ufatteligt.

    Enten er de fornærmede simpelthen onde eller også er de hjernevaskede til det ekstreme. Uanset hvad så skal tekster der opfordrer til mord naturligvis fjernes fra universiteters og andres hjemmesider.

    Gad vide hvad der sker med personerne i den moske i England hvor kvinder er taget i at opfordre til mord på homoseksuelle, utro og ikke-troende? Om det får nogen konsekvens at mennesker i en moske opfordrer til drab på dem der tænker og tror anderledes end dem selv?

  • Janne

    “There are verses in many religious texts (be it the Torah or the New Testament) that when taken out of context can be taken as offensive.”

    Hvem er det nu der her i Danmark altid taler om kontekst?

    At man skal se tingene i kontekst? At ord og opfordringer ikke kan tages ud af kontekst? Og altså heller ikke opfordringer på anderledes troende eller ikke-troende.

  • så, lugn – tastefejl. Jalving skrev:

    Bricoulage

    I en tid hvor kunsten er holdt op med at betyde noget, er det da altid noget, at kunstteoretikere tager over. I et interview til den venstreorienterede portal modkraft.dk kalder lektor i moderne kunst og kultur ved Københavns Universitet, Mikkel Bolt, den tidligere indenrigsminister Thorkild Simonsen (S) for den første af flere racistiske ministre, Danmark har haft, og giver gode råd til, hvordan unge venstreradikale bedst afvikler nationalstaten og hurtigst muligt får indført en kosmopolitisk verdensregering. Lektoren indrømmer dog, at det godt kan trække lidt ud, for som han tilføjer: »Det er jo svært at forestille sig en bredere militant kamp i den nuværende situation i Danmark. Selvom statsracisme og kulturkamp burde være alt nok som mobiliseringsårsager«.
    Den slukørede lektor mangler ellers ikke fantasi. At bygge barrikader på Nørrebrogade og sætte ild til hele molevitten er ikke hærværk, men kunst: »Barrikadebyggeriet er jo netop en form for bricoulage, som situationisterne kalder det, hvor man bruger de forhåndenværende midler og bebor rummet på en anden måde og er i stand til at skabe mellemmenneskelige relationer«. Ja tak, det må man sige; lige lovlig mellemmenneskeligt og lige lovlig relationelt. Mikael Jalving, Groft Sagt

  • JensH

    Det er virkelig trist at læse om Storbrittaniens historie efter WWII, og at høre Gordon Browns ulækkere og leflende Ramadan-hilsen illusterer desværre på bedste vis The Mails glimrende lørdags-essay. Storbrittanien er gået fra -sammen med USA- at være den frie vestlige verdens bolværk mod totalitære trusler, til at være en af de mest eftergivende og ‘tilpasnings-villige’ nationer i den vestlige verden, og denne triste udvikling har efter min mening specielt taget fart under de seneste 11 års New Laubor-styre. Det er vel kun Sverige der overgår Briterne hvad angår appeasement overfor islamismen, og at være i ’selskab’ med Svenskerne hvad det angår er absolut ikke noget Briterne bør være stolte af.

  • Ørjan

    Mht den svenske professor i det stakkels Oslo: Er dessverre stygt redd for at denne såkalte eksperten på høyre-ekstremisme er norsk. “Stakkels Oslo” er det likevel full dekning for…
    Thor Bjørklund, derimot, var møbelsnekker og oppfant ostehøvelen.

  • Janne

    “Politiet rykkede først ud til Heimdalsgade og kort efter til Hothers Plads ved Mjølnerparken.”

    Hvis det bare var drengestreger, hvorfor er der så beboere der har ringet efter politiet?

    På hvis side er politiet? Beboernes eller dem der har skudt med gaspistoler?

  • Ørjan, du kan ha ret. Jeg sluttede for hurtigt af at det var Expressen:

    Tor Bjørklund är professor i statsvetenskap vid universitet i Oslo och expert
    på högerradikala partier i Norden.

  • Johansen

    Det er et skridt i den rigtige retning, at den amerikanske rektor har fjernet versene med opfordring til at dræbe jøder fra muslimske studenters hjemmeside.
    At disse opfordringer overhovedet forekommer i en religiøs tekst er forkasteligt og særdeles frastødende. Det er lige før man kan sige, at islam er en hadreligion. og voldsforherligende.

    Ideologien islam er noget bras, som skaber splid hvorend den trænger frem.

  • Janne

    Hvad sker der hvis man hænger en stor plastik hummer op i et forgyldt rum i Versailles?

    Jeg kommer til at tænke på den kunstner der provokerede ved at give os mulighed for at blende guldfisk.

    Når der hænges en hummer op i Versailles så ser jeg det sådan at kunstneren blender den franske historie. Ja, giver os mulighed for at blende den franske eller hele den vestlige historie. Eller blot at blende Versailles fantastiske historie. Versailles fremstilles som en slags dukkehus. Noget kunstigt, en kulisse.

    Kunstneren ser på vestlig historie ikke som en realitet, som noget konkret og med rod i almindelige menneskers liv (og landes historie) på godt og ondt, men som en legeplads. Historien som legeplads. Historien som et dukkehus. Så behøver kunstneren slet ikke at tage stilling til noget som helst. Intet er bedre end andet og intet er forbundet med betydning og politik. Det er en horisontal måde at anskue verden på, modsat en vertikal og kritisk.

    Når der hænges en plastikhummer op i Versailles, så ser vi også hvilken kontrast der er mellem datid og nutid hvad kunst og kultur angår. Hvor fantastisk dygtige håndværkere og kunstnere der fandtes engang og hvor ubehjælpsomme mange kunstnere er i dag. Hvor lidt håndværk, flid og hvor få evner mange kunstnere er i besiddelse af i dag. Det er trist at skue. Det er en voksen der tager et stykke legetøj og hænger op i stedet for at sætte sig ind i hvilken betydning og medbetydning de forskellige genstande har i rummet i Versailles. Historien bliver blot et stykke tapet som man kan klippe og klistre i efter for godt befindende. Vor tids kunstners ulidelige lethed.

    Versailles rummet kan også ses som et akvarium som hummeren er sænket ned i. Igen fremstår historien – historiske bygninger og interiør – som kun tapeter og kulisser uden betydning og uden indhold andet end det glimmer man kan få øje på. Set fra den kunstners vinkel så kan alt det Versailles indeholder og den historie slottet rummer ses som bare en anden slags hummer – bare en anden tids pynt og ligegyldighed. En anden slags plastik.

    Ved at hænge en hummer op i Versailles viser kunstneren humor og distance, men også foragt for fransk historie, for kunsthistorie og for vestlig historie?

    Eller viser kunstneren med hummeren i Versailles det store gab der er mellem datidens håndværkeres og kunstneres formåen og nutiden uformåen hvad kunst, arkitektur og møbelkunst angår?

    Kunstneren formår i hvert fald i første omgang at lave Versailles om til Bennys badekar. Og så er det vel udtryk for endnu en omgang halshugning i Paris? Denne gang af den franske kultur eller måske af nutidige kunstneres uformåen. Der er ligesom ikke flere Antoinette at gøre det af med.

    Måske er nutidige kunstnere allerede halshugget i overført betydning, da de ikke rigtig har noget at byde på – altså ud over at udstille egen uformåen, som rigtig ses når eksempler sættes sammen med billedkunst, møbler og arkitektur fra 1700-tallets Frankrig.