Month: March 2015

Venstreorienterede begår igen terrorangreb

I følge BT holder en venstreorienteret gruppe, som man i overskriften, bemærkelsesværdigt omtaler som blot venstreorienteret, og først i brødteksten som ultra-venstreorienteret, et højtstående medlem af det Tyrkiske juradici som gidsel. Gruppen kalder sig Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front. I følge wiki opslaget skulle gruppen have nær kontakt til tyrkere, der ind til videre bor i europa. Dermed har gruppen formentlig også kontakt til venstreorienterede partier i Danmark såsom Enhedslisten og SF.

Hyldest foto fra det venstreorienterede parti:

tykisk gidsel venstreorienteret#2

Fra gidseltagningen

tykisk gidsel venstreorienteret

At det er venstreorienterede der står bag den meste ideologiske vold mente EUROPOL i undersøgelse af spørgsmålet for 2012:

terro europol 2012

I BTs artikel hedder det bl.a.:

Anklageren leder efterforskningen af en sag om en 15-årig dreng Berkin Elvan som blev alvorligt såret efter at være blevet ramt af en tåregaspistol affyret af en politimand under demonstrationer mod regeringen i istanbul i 2013.

I de omtalte demonstrationer deltog også danskere, hvilket blev flittigt omtalt i venstreekstreme medier.

 

Etnicitet?

JP.dk viderebringer et telegram fra løgnefabrikanten al-Ritzau om, at et fly fra selskabet Norwegian måtte nød-mellemlande i København for, at sætte en ustrylig passager af, Flyet var på vej mod Dubai. Der foreligger ikke oplysninger om alkohol-indtag eller etnicitet for passageren. Fra telegrammet:

– Jeg har ingen konkrete detaljer, men opførslen var så grel, at han måtte sættes af.

– Manden er blevet overleveret til politiet, anden information har jeg ikke. Vi skulle bare have flyet ned, så vi kunne komme videre med de resterende passagerer, siger Daniel Kirchhoff.

Skolepsykolog i Nykøbing F.

Jeg har tidligere i et par poster omtalt en skolepsykolog jeg har kendskab til, her og her. Pågældende er hvad vi kan kalde et inkarneret medlem af den pludrende og folkemords anstiftende klasse. Inkarnationen af modbydelighed og ondskab med andre ord.

For omkring 25+ år siden udtalte hun på en bemærkning om, at det jo godt kunne være indvandringskritikerne havde ret og at dem i de almene boliger havde en pointe når ikke de ønskede “flygtninge” ind i deres bebygelser, at

det var et udslag af racisme og vi vil så opnå, at de ophøre med deres racisme

mao en stærk tro af religiøs karakter på racisme som begreb og anti-racisme som ideologi/religion.

Vi har nu tons vis af beretninger om hvad der foregår i de muhammedaner ramte almene boliger og de udnævnes, korrekt, men lidt begrebs mæssigt misvisende, jævnt hen til ghettoer. Man kunne også kalde det muhammedansk okkuperede territorier.

Et par sager fra almene bebyggelser stikker ud.

1.

Et kniv overfald i Stengade på Nørrebro, hvilket vil sige midt i bebyggelsen “Blågården”. Bestyrelsen for den boligforening, tæller eller talte, i øvrigt adskillige jødehadende islamofile, der samtidig var venner/supportere for Blekingegadebanden. Selve knivoverfaldet har været beskrevet af offerets mor i en lokal avis og i en længere udsendelse på kommunist radioen DDR. Linket til udsendelsen er dødt, men er her og indlægget i lokal avisen kan ikke findes umiddelbart. Sagen gengives her fra kommetar sporet på Uriasposten:

 

  • @ Jacob Andersen

    En dreng blev for få år siden næsten stukket til døde, da han stod i Stengade på Nørrebro og snakkede med en kammerat. En ukendt gruppe hujende muslimske drenge løb forbi og stak deres knive i ham.

    Hans mor fortalte siden i et radioprogram (jeg har aldrig set det i nyhederne – dertil er det for trivielt): “Jeg har prøvet at forklare ham, at disse her drenge jo oplever, at deres fædre fortæller om ved middagsbordet, hvordan de ikke kan få job, fordi de er farvede, og hvordan de bliver spyttet på af danskerne på gaden. – Men det vil han ikke høre på!”

    – – –

    Kommentar by Morten – – – — 14. maj 2012 @ 08:38

  • 8 Morten,

    Hun skrev vist også et indlæg, der blev offentliggjort i Nørrebro avisen.

    Kommentar by Hans Und — 14. maj 2012 @ 10:03

  • @ Hans Und

    OK. Dér kan programmets researchere have fundet hende. Hun gav i P1 udtryk for, at det var vigtigt at forstå disse unge. Det kunne synes som om, hun bekymrede sig mere for, at hendes pode nu skulle få “en forkert opfattelse” af muslimer, end for, at han kunne være død af sine mange, livsfarlige sår.

    Jeg forstår godt – men så meget forstår et forfængeligt menneske som denne mor ikke – at det vil hendes dreng “ikke høre på”. Det er en sund reaktion på en ualmindeligt ond og sårende holdning fra en mor.

    Det var ikke engang meningen, at programmet ville fremstille et ekstremt synspunkt, men snarere hensigten at vise et “nuanceret” sådant.

    Altså: Et stort menneske, denne mor, i visses optik. – Og en ungdom, der er i fare for at falde i “den racistiske grøft”, måske fordi den mangler den almene dannelse, der kan få den til at “forstå”. Så den er til fals for Dansk Folkepartis “populistiske” forklaringsmodeller.

    Som 70ernes studentikose venstrefløjsmennesker af og til udtrykte det med nasal “arbejder-sociolekt”: Det er jo ikke nok at se på volden. Man må også se på årsagerne til den.

    For den boglærde k a n offeret godt selv være den skyldige! Så de, der mener at vejen frem for de rigtige meninger er mere boglig uddannelse, har ret.

    Eller som Tøger Seidenfaden så præcist sagde det: Jo længerevarende en uddannelse man har – desto større sandsynlighed er der, for at man mener som jeg!”

    Ja.

    – – –

    Kommentar by Morten – – – — 14. maj 2012 @ 11:02

  • 8, 14, 16

    Link til DDRs omtale og videre til programmet.

    http://www.dr.dk/P1/Dokumentarzonen/Udsendelser/2006/02/20060210105427.htm

    Jeg savner bestemt ikke ord til, at levere en karakteristik af den mor, men afstår.

    Kommentar by Hans Und — 14. maj 2012 @ 12:30

  • @ Hans Und

    Der var den jo! Tak for linket.

    – – –

    Kommentar by Morten – – – — 14. maj 2012 @ 16:05

I øvrigt kan det tilføjes, at Weekend Avisens chefredaktør Anne Knudsen, flyttede fra Blågårds Plads pga et eller andet med hendes teenagedrenge og områdets karakter.

2.

Den 10 årige pige fra, et alment byggeri i Herning bydelen Gullestrup, der blev analt voldtaget af en somalisk jihad kriger, omtalt bl.a. her.

3.

Seneste sag er så om politiets kronvidne fra rockersagen mod bl.a. Brian Sandberg, Martin Fryd Petersen, og hans opvækst i et muhammedaner ramt almen boligbebyggelse. Via Uriasposten fra Fyens Stiftstidende:

“Historien om rocker/indvandrerkrigen fra 2008 til 2011, fortalt af en af rockerbødlerne. Den historie er slut. Men det er også historien om radikalisering af unge, vrede mænd. Den historie lever videre. … Guldfuglens navn er Martin Fryd Petersen. Han blev til rockeren Fryd med et ildevarslende kors tatoveret under øjet, men startede som drengen Martin. …

Det endelige manuskript til bogen afleverede hun på forlaget i februar. 16. februar skyder 22-årige Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein to mænd i København og sårer seks politikfolk. Og i dagene og ugerne efter bliver den unge radikaliserede muslims liv rullet op i medierne.

– Jeg kunne ikke lade være med at tænke rigtig meget på Martin. Når Omar El-Husseins liv bliver skitseret, minder det utrolig meget om Martins. En vred, aggressiv og frustreret ung mand, som meget let griber det, når nogen fortæller ham, hvem fjenden er – hvem man skal hade, siger Marie Louise Toksvig. …

Den nu aflagte identitet Martin Fryd Petersen hader indvandrere. Eller rettere ‘perkere’. Dem med en anden hudfarve eller religion, som fører sig frem. Dem, som er en spejling af ham selv. Dem i banderne og i kanten af banderne. Voldelige typer i streetwear og skarpe frisurer. De er målet for hans had. De første syv år af sit liv bor han i en boligblok i Roskilde, hvor hans familie hurtigt bliver den eneste med dansk efternavn. Han får tæsk på legepladsen, hvor han ikke forstår de andre børns sprog.

Teenageårene hvirvler af sted i vold og stoffer, og pludselig sidder han og er med til at starte Hells Angels-undergruppen AK81 op. Formål: At banke indvandrere – helst ‘perkere’.

Fængslerne lærer han at kende indefra. Her bliver han skolet i rockerlivet. Radikaliseret. Han er på et tidspunkt såkaldt ‘fællesskabsmakker’ med Jønke i arresten på Politigården i København, mens den gamle rocker skriver sit såkaldte Sjakal-manifest – en krigserklæring mod ‘perkerne’. Det udtrykker Fryds følelser og giver nærmest Jønke en imam-status for ham.

– Rockermiljøet leverer et mål for vreden. Det er ret banalt. Selv om Martin føler, at han er en del af en frihedsbevægelse, er det ideologiske fundament papirtyndt. Det handler bare om at få et mål for vreden. … Martin udtrykker det ret enkelt: Han vil have nogle loyale kammerater, og så vil han tæve nogle indvandrere, siger Marie Louise Toksvig.

[…]

… han ender med at være alene med en jævnaldrende araber, der ligesom ham selv har fået 12 års fængsel. For terror. Araberen sværger troskab ved koranen…

Han har været ligesom mig, bare på en anden facon, tænkte Martin. Vi har begge to været unge, dumme og naive og ladet os føre med af noget, som vi troede var det rigtige, men som bare førte ind i en blindgyde,’ skriver Marie Louise Toksvig i ‘Guldfuglen’.

– Martin har ikke tænkt over meget i sit liv. Vi skal respektere, at når en mand som ham kan se den parallel og når til den refleksion, så kan vi andre måske også stoppe med at dele folk op i, hvad de slås for, og i stedet se på, hvad det er, der gør, at de overhovedet slås. Hvad gør dem så vrede og ensomme, at de søger en fane, de kan melde sig under og bliver parate til at slå ihjel for det fællesskab og den overbevisning? Ordet radikalisering giver et billede af islam. Før hed det forråelse, rekruttering eller uddannelse til kriminel løbebane, siger Marie Louise Toksvig.”

Det er jo klart nok, hvad det er Toksvig er ude i her: Ved at fordreje sit materiale skal vennerne i den pludrende og folkemords anstiftende klasse beskyttes mod ubehagelig påstande, om at de har fucked totalt op og reelt støtter islam og islamisme. At hr. Fryd Petersen så har taget fejl og rettet sit velbegrundede had mod de forkerte og brugt “drivet” på en aldeles ukonstruktiv måde er en anden sag.

I kommentarsporet gøres der i øvrigt opmærksom på Toksvigs manglende etik i sit arbejde, ganske vidst i en anden sag:

 

  • Marie Louise Toksvig er gift med Poul Madsen, chefredaktør på Ekstra Bladet.

    Man forstår godt, at Ekstra Bladet ikke længere “tør, hvor andre tier”, når chefredaktøren selv såvel som hans kone er islam-apologeter.

    I øvrigt har Toksvig tidligere udstillet, hvor defekt hendes moralske kompas er. Således dækkede hun skattekommissionen for Ekstra Bladet, selvom både hendes mand, Poul Madsen, og hendes “bekendte” igennem 20 år, Jan Kjærgaard, var særdeles aktive aktører i den sag. Det var Jan Kjærgaard, som pegede på Peter Arnfeldt og Troels Lund Poulsen og dermed fik sagen til at rulle (de to sidstnævnte blev som bekendt frikendt af kommissionen).

    Men som Toksvig afslutter med: “Jeg tror faktisk, at folk generelt er i stand til at forvalte deres arbejde ansvarsfuldt, ligesom jeg selv er,” siger Marie Louise Toksvig.

    Ved du hvad Marie Louise Toksvig? Det tror vi faktisk ikke du er.

    Kilde: http://journalisten.dk/poul-madsens-kone-derfor-kan-jeg-godt-d-kke-skattesagen

    Kommentar by Tipper — 29. marts 2015 @ 12:3

 

Vi kan så gøre opmærksom på, at omtalte redaktør Madsen er kommunist, dvs tilhænger af en folkemordsideologi. Madsen har aldrig sagt, skrevet eller gjort noget, der indikere han skulle have forladt “troen”. At han fortsætter som islamofil, er i den forbindelse kun naturligt. Jarl Cordua bloggede i 2010 om Madsens kommunistiske baggrund:

Medierne har nogenlunde været enige om, at Ole Sohn manglede at tage et selvopgør med sin egen fortid som stålsat forsvarer af proletariatets diktatur, Sovjet, DDR, invasionen i Tjekkoslovakiet, invasionen af Afghanistan i 1979, nedkæmpelsen af Solidaritet i Polen 1982 osv. Undtaget et blad: Ekstra Bladet.

I dag skriver lederen, som måske, måske ikke er skrevet af avisens chefredaktør Poul Madsen (f. 1962) at der i sagen om Ole Sohn, er tale om en ren ”hetz” fra borgerlig side. (En påstand Ekstra Bladet ikke kan dokumentere og en opfattelse, som ikke engang Politiken deler) Og i øvrigt så gentager man den forkerte præmis, at ”I ÅRENE siden har Sohn – i bøger, film, foredrag og på anden vis –  taget afstand fra sin fortid, betegnet sig selv som naiv og beklaget, at han ikke dengang kunne gennemskue de kommunistiske rædselsregimer.”

Det er nu kun på det allersidste, at Sohn selv har brugt ordene ”naiv” og ”beklaget”, når han har skullet lægge ”afstand” til sin ”fortid”. Foredragene og bøgerne handler nemlig udelukkende om danske kommunister, der er kommet i klemme i Stalins Sovjet tilbage i 1930′erne. Men det ser Ekstra Bladet stort på. Hvorfor mon?

Udover til sine medarbejderes store frustration at skrive dårligt (og ikke kan stave), så er Madsen i spidsen for en avis, der taber læsere hurtigere end en hest kan rende. Ved hjælp af porno, pjat og pjank, spil og lotto på nettet, så overlever avisen trods alt. Men det er ikke Madsens interessefelt. Han vil så gerne anerkendes som politisk orakel, så derfor sidder han helst ude på News og kloger sig om ting, som han tydeligt for de fleste ikke ved en disse om, nemlig politik. Måske fordi han er tidligere chef for TV2 og derfor forbarmer de sig over den stakkels mands behov for at komme lidt i TV engang imellem.

Poul Madsen har markeret sig som politisk reporter. Fx med det berømte/berygtede kælne ”solointerview” for nylig med Helle Thorning-Schmidts mand Stephen Kinnock, hvor der blev slået ny banerekord i mikrofonholderi. Det er netop den slags journalistik, som gør, at ”ofrene” i 2010 med bævende stemmer frygter at komme på forsiden af……BT! Ekstra Bladet er der ingen, der regner for noget længere. At komme på forsiden af EB er – sat lidt på spidsen – en skæbne, der er nogenlunde ligeså ”slem” som at komme på forsiden af Femina eller Euroman. Tænk at det er kommet så vidt!

Men hov! Det er i øvrigt ikke helt rigtigt. For Poul Madsen har faktisk beskæftiget sig med seriøs politik. Som helt ung omkring 1980 var ”lille Poul” – efter mine oplysninger – medlem af DKU- Danmarks Kommunistiske Ungdoms afdeling i Esbjerg. Det var dog hans ældre bror, der kørte den lille lokalafdeling af ”det unge sejrende proletariats” spydspids, mens lille Poul gik til hånde i kampen for socialismens endelige sejr.

Derfor giver det god mening, når Ekstra Bladets lederskribent i dag onsdag giver udtryk for, at der ikke er noget at komme efter Ole Sohn. Han skal slet ikke sone noget som helst, forstår man på lederen.

Naturligvis ikke. For havde Ekstra Bladet skrevet noget andet, så havde Lille Poul jo været en hykler. Ikke sandt?

Men bevares, måske nåede ”Lille Poul” at komme med på DKP-pamperturene til DDR og det kan vel ikke udelukkes, at han også selv har kindkysset med Erich Honecker

Poul Madsens bror er Jens Otto Madsen der sidder eller har siddet i hovedbestyrelsen for Einheilslizten, der på de islamofile og jødehadende akser er sammenfaldende med Hitlers nazi-parti.

 

Trash Barr for fascism

JP.dk konstruere den velkendte belyver David Trads Morten Uhrskov som fascist. Melodien går sådan her:

Uhrskovs ubehagelige fascistiske træk

Først det danske:

»Dansk Samlings grundlag er bundet af kristendom og danskhed,« fastslås det. »Det danske folk er mageløst …et påfaldende uopblandet folk.« Danmark er »fædreland for det danske folk, idet det er landet, folket arvede efter dets forfædre.« Her har vi »fuld ret til at leve på egne vilkår efter egne ønsker.«

Så det kristne:

»Danmark er et kristent land, og det danske folk er et kristent folk,« står der, og »Dansk Samling opfatter mennesket som en skabning skabt i Guds billede,« og »en kristen er underlagt Guds lov og Kristi bud.«

Dernæst indvandrerne:

»Flygtningestrømmen skal standses. Danmark skal stoppe adgang for asylsøgere, som skal afvises ved grænsen.« Den førte danske politik er udtryk for, at »vores eget vanvid er fuldkomment.« Et påstået fald i intelligenskvotient skyldes »den ikkevestlige indvandring«, idet »der eksisterer en overvældende evidens for, at langt de fleste ikkevestlige grupper i gennemsnit har en lavere målt intelligens.«

Uhrskov rabler i det hele taget løs i sine skriverier om, hvilke ulykker der vil regne ned over de lande, der modtager indvandrere fra ikkevestlige lande (læs: muslimer): »Historien er fuld af små folks undergang: Små folk, der ikke i tide formåede at bevare deres land for sig selv, og hvor udkommet blev det oprindelige folks undergang som følge af legemlig, sproglig, åndelig eller kulturel udslettelse.«

QED (Uhrskov er fascist)

Vi kan så minde om, at fascisme blev udviklet af socialisten Benito Mussolini oven på den marxistiske ideologi, ganske som leninisme og nazisme.

David Trash benytter så lige lejligheden til, at forklarer hvorfor google m.v. har success:

Se på USA: I løbet af en generation har enorm indvandring ført til massiv vækst og virksomheder som Google, Apple og Youtube.

Vi minder om vor tidligere postering, hvor vi så på, hvordan den islamofile australske historiker og belyver Michael D. Barr fik konstrueret LKY som racist, her.

 

De andres ansvar

I en tidligere post var UH i anledning af DFs Aia Fogs påpegning af ansvar for resultaterne af udlændingeloven af 1983 inde på ansvar. Interessant nok mente islomfile politikere over en bank ikke, at der er noget ansvar for de resultater. I hvert fald ikke et ansvar der kan hæftes på dem. Nu er så asocialdemokraten og katastrofen som justitsminister, Morten Bødskov ude i en ny omgang “ansvar”. Han mener nemlig, at den kæmpe flok af moderate muhammedanere må påtage sig opgaven med, at stritte ikke-moderate muhammedanere ud af landet. Det skal ske ved at de moderate mobber de ikke-moderate. Fra BT:

Den tidligere justitsminister Morten Bødskov (S) mener, at moderate muslimer har et ansvar for at lægge pres på ekstreme islamister i Danmark

De har en særlig forpligtelse til at gå op imod de her ekstremister og i bedste fald nærmest mobbe dem ud af landet. De skal sige, at de ikke har noget at gøre her, fordi det de siger, det ødelægger også det, som vi står for. Det er den stemme, jeg mangler.«Imam og formand for Dansk Islamisk Center, Fatih Alev, vil ikke svare på den konkrete kritik fra den tidligere justitsminister.

»Jeg vil slet ikke indgå i sådan en debat i medierne. Morten Bødskov kan invitere mig til et møde, og så kan vi drøfte de her ting sammen,« siger han.

Morten Bødskov, du var selv justitsminister i over to år. Hvorfor gjorde du ikke noget ved det dengang, du havde magten?

»Jeg tror ikke, at folk er overrasket over, at jeg har de her synspunkter. Det her handler om en holdningsdebat, og når man nu ser ham imamen fra Grimhøj-moskeen sige, at han håber IS vinder og ser Hizb ut-Tahrir sige, at det er uislamisk at tage afstand fra terrorangreb i København, så er det så langt ude og kæmpe gakgak, at de, der er i miljøet, har et problem ved ikke at tage afstand,« siger han.

Ovre hos Kim på Uriasposten er videnskabsfuskeren Peter Hervig citeret for følgende svada:

Peter Hervik giver også sit bud på en islamofobi-definition: ‘Det er en form for racisme. Jeg siger ikke, at for eksempel Lars Vilks er racist. Men jeg bliver nødt til at se på, om det, han siger, er neo-racistisk. Os-dem-relationen er altid et spørgsmål om dehumanisering og marginalisering…’ forklarer han.

En tilhører vil gerne vide, om der ikke er for meget, der bliver anset for islamofobi, som i stedet burde anses for islamkritik. Peter Hervik virker ikke bekymret: ‘Jeg har hørt argumentet for nylig, at man ikke skal bruge ordet ‘islamofobi’, da det gør det umuligt at kritisere islam. Islam skal åbenbart udvælges, fordi der tilsyneladende er behov for at sige noget om det. Men det fjerner jo opmærksomhed fra andre kulturer, der også kunne kritiseres, for eksempel rygning, narkomisbrug og druk. Der er, som om der er en sandhed om islam, der skal ud. Men hvis du kigger nærmere, ved I, hvad jeg ender med? Jeg ender med Anders Behring Breiviks logik.‘.”

Selvfølgelig skal ansvaret for repatrieringen af de muhammedanske kolonisatorer ikke placeres hos muhammedanerne. Det ville være langt mere rimeligt, om Bødskov & Co vedtog en passende hjemsendelselovgivning.

Racist i Waffen-SF

Via Uriasposten

Waffen-SFeren Karina Loretzen Dhenhardt udtalte tilbage i 2009 i et debat program på den kommunistiske støjsender DDR P1 om muhammedanere:

“Du må også huske på at mange af dem er mindre begavede!”

http://www.uriasposten.net/archives/33314 kommentar #44

Her er hvad Karina Lorenzen Dehnhardt retsordfører for SF sagde til allersidst(hvilket jo var yderst heldigt, så der ikke kunne blive boret deri) i P1 Debat 23/9 2009, hvor hun så vidt jeg husker dis-kuterede kriminalitet, måske også uddannelse blandt unge med anden etnisk baggrund, med Martin Henriksen DF.
Her er det ordret hvad hun sagde: “Du må også huske på at mange af dem er mindre begavede!”
Og da hun jo var i studiet som repræsentant for SF og deres politik, må det jo være hendes egne holdninger hun der giver udtryk for, da SF (og alle andre partier for den sags skyld) ikke vil/må vide,tænke, mene og aldrig nogensinde sige noget så afskyvækkende racistisk.

Senest har Karina så klædt sig ud som tyker for, at undersøge “danskernes” racisme. Fra Uriasposten:

karina racist sf

Construction of a racist

Cardinal Richelieu has been quoted for this:

Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him.

As quoted in Champlain’s Dream‎ (2008) by David Hackett Fischer

Back in the mid 1990’s a australian historian, Michael D. Barr, wrote an article where he constucted Lee Kuan Yew as a racist. The article is a smart piece of work and it’s worth noteing because it’s the typical way left wing academics and politicians has kept there opponents at check: smearing with lies that opponents are racists.

First, from the conclusion in Barr’s paper:

Not a Social Darwinist
This article has described in detail the character of Lee Kuan Yew’s racial views
substantially using his own words as evidence. After a lifetime of being circumspect
on the question of race, Lee has finally spoken openly, revealing himself as
doctrinaire racist. Yet it would be a mistake to condemn Lee as a hard line racist in
every sense of the word. Such a characterisation of his views would be a distortion of
both his logic and his natural disposition. There can be no doubt that Lee is a racist in
the sense that he believes that some races and some ethnically-based cultures are
inherently superior to others. His own words leave no doubt about this assertion,
though it should be recognised that this in itself hardly makes him remarkable in Asia.
He is also a racist in the sense that he has integrated his racial views into his political
agenda and he has created a regime which accentuates racial categorisation. This
assertion, too, is beyond dispute, yet it should be acknowledged that affirmative
action programmes in the United States and Australia are based upon racial
classifications and are widely accepted as part of modem liberal orthodoxy. Of equal
significance to our study of his political thought are the aspects of political and
personal racism that Lee has avoided by his eclectic approach. Lee’s idiosyncratic
rationalisation of his racial views, for instance, has undermined the tendency to
dismiss any race as being irredeemably inferior, or unchangeably superior. He has not
conceived of any race as being supreme, even though some are more intelligent and
hardier than others. Unlike Social Darwinian racists, he does not base his views on the
assumption that any race is a lower or higher evolutionary form of humanity. He sees
no unbridgeable divide between races. Although his environmental determinism,
Lamarckian view of evolution and cultural eugenicism may explain the higher
intelligence and better glands of those who hail from a “hard” society, they also create
a firm line of continuity between the different races, and give each race the capacity to
change for the better or the worse: hence Lee’s efforts to “improve” racial
communities by “tinkering” with their cultures. (89) The result has been that despite
instances of overt racial discrimination by Lee’s government, and more common
occasions of discrimination in Singaporean society, Lee has created a society which
has a relatively low level of racial tension, despite having a high level of racial
consciousness. Considering his own racial views and the nature of the society he
inherited, this is a remarkable achievement which, despite its shortcomings, should be
acknowledged.
How Barr arrive on the crap:
Racism is rarely far from the surface of Asian societies, and this is especially true
of those multiracial societies that feel the need to promote racial tolerance as part of
official ideology. Yet even in these cases, promoting racial tolerance does not
necessarily imply the promotion of racial indifference. Singapore’s multiracialism, for
instance, encourages a high consciousness of one’s race even as it insists on tolerance.
Further, it has been considered by many as a covert form of discrimination in favour
of the majority Chinese and against the minorities, especially the Malays. This article
is an attempt to advance our understanding of Singapore’s idiosyncratic version of
multiracialism by casting new light on the thinking of its primary architect, Senior
Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Note that in this context, “malay” are equivelent to “muhammedanian”.
Understanding any aspect of Lee Kuan Yew’s career requires a syncretic
approach. but fully understanding his racial views stretches holistic analysis to new
limits. Lee’s views on race have been a matter of much private, but little published
comment. This now changes with the publication of his authorised biography,
LeeKuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, (7) in which Lee speaks about race with
unprecedented candour. Upon close inspection, Lee’s racial beliefs prove not to be an
aberration or idiosyncrasy in his thinking, but the consummation of his world view
and his political thought.
Without a hint of irony, Lee also took the opportunity to
assure Malays that they need not fear Hong Kong immigrants taking their jobs
because the immigrants will all be high income earners. In 1977 Lee treated
Parliament to a four hour post-election victory speech which could best be described
as “uninhibited.” In this speech, Lee told the multi-racial chamber, “I understand the
Englishman. He knows deep in his heart that he is superior to the Welshman and the
Scotsman…. Deep here, I am a Chinaman.” (12) In recent times, Lee has not only
been more forthright about his racial views but he has also confirmed that he held
them at least as early as the beginning of the 1970s. In October 1989, in an interview
with Malaysia’s New Straits Times Lee revealed that after he read Mahathir Mohamad’s
The Malay, Dilemma (13) in 1971 in 1971 or 1972, he found himself “in
agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem” of the economic and
educational under-performance of the Malays. (14) According to Lee and Mahathir,
the problem was both cultural and genetic. (15) Lee noted with approval that
Mahathir’s views were the “result of his medical training, and… he was not likely to
change them.” (16)
At this stage it is important to consider the origins of Lee’s racial views. It is

natural to assume that Lee’s beliefs stem directly from prejudices he learnt as a child.
While there is a certain likelihood in this line of approach, Lee’s own accounts suggest
that he arrived at his racial views as a result of observation, empirical enquiry and
study as an adult: “I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the
most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over
evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each
other, developed independently had different intermixtures between races, peoples,
climates, soils. …I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading,
watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I’ve come to.” (38)
Lee maintains that at some stage before the late 1960s he had acted under the

assumption that all races were equal, but bitter disappointment convinced him that the

reality was otherwise: “When we were faced with the reality that, in fact, equal
opportunities did not bring about more equal results, we were faced with [an]
ideological dilemma. … In other words, this Bell curve, which Murray and Herrnstein
wrote about, became obvious to us by the late ’60s.” (39)
The evolution of Lee’s racism was a long process. According to Lee himself he
began to form his views on race while he was a student in London. (40) He has
described how his ideas firmed in 1956 on a visit to Europe and London, (41) and
then reached their full force in the Malaysia period. (42) The details and implications
of Lee’s account of the development of his racial views are considered later in this
article, but one must be sceptical that his adult mind was ever a tabula rasa on the
question of race. Lee likes to consider himself a pure empiricist who can rise above
preconceptions and prejudices, but it seems reasonable to assume that the very
questions he asked as an adult, and his early fascination with questions of race sprang
from an existing, possibly unconscious world view in which race was an all-pervasive
feature.
Lee may have brought the kernel of his racial prejudices intact from childhood,
but as an adult he has woven an intricate argument to rationalise and develop his view.
His argument rests on four pillars: an environmental determinism based upon a
distortion of Arnold Toynbee’s “Challenge and Response” thesis; a medieval scientism
which gives an important role to ductless glands in determining a person’s and a

people’s drive to achieve; a Lamarckian view of evolution; and a belief in

culturally-based eugenics and dysgenics. The influence of Arnold Toynbee on Lee
since the mid-1960s is well documented in speeches and inter-views. From 1967
onwards Lee acknowledged Toynbee as a source of his ideas. (44) It is less
well-known that Lee began quoting Toynbee’s “Challenge and Response” thesis in
Cabinet meetings as soon as the PAP came to power in 1959, (45) and that Toynbee
was widely read and vigorously discussed in Lee’s circle of friends at Cambridge
University. (46) The connection between Toynbee’s thesis and Lee Kuan Yew’s racial
beliefs is convoluted, but it is the lynch pin of Lee’s rationalisation of his Chinese
racial suprematism.
Lee found an unwitting ally for his views on cultural suprematism in the

Scandinavian social scientist, Gunnar Myrdal. The connection was made by Lee
himself in his 1971 commemorative lecture at his old college at Cambridge University,
in which he argued this case at length: “It is in part the difference between the more
intense and exacting Sinic cultures of East Asia and the less demanding values of
Hindu culture of South and South-east Asia, that accounts for the difference in
industrial progress between Eastern and Southern Asia. The softer and more benign
Hindu civilisation spread through Burma, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia, meeting the
Sinic civilisation on the borders of Vietnam….
Gunnar Myrdal, in his “Asian Drama” (52) voluminously sets out the reasons for
lower achievements amongst these peoples [of South and South-cast Asia]. He terms
them “soft societies.” Their expectations and desire for achievement are lower. Had he
studied the Sinic civilisations of East Asia – Korea, Japan, China and Vietnam – he
would have come to the opposite conclusions, that these were hard societies. (53)
While references to Gunnar Myrdal began only after the publication of Myrdal’s
Asian Drama in 1968, Lee had expressed similar views long before this. In 1965, at
the height of both Indonesia’s Confrontation with Malaysia, and Singapore’s
difficulties with Kuala Lumpur, Lee made a revealing speech in which he dismissed
the threat from Indonesia because of the soft and indulgent nature of its culture,
though at this stage the term “soft culture” was not part of Lee’s vocabulary: “…these
were not cultures which created societies capable of intense discipline, concentrated
effort over sustained periods. Climate, the effects of relatively abundant society and
the tropical conditions produced a people largely extrovert, easy-going and leisurely.
They’ve got their wars, they have their periods of greatness when the Hindus came in
the 7th and again in the l2th centuries in the Majapahit and the Srivijaya empires. But
in between the ruins of Borobudur and what you have of Indonesia today, you see a
people primarily self-indulgent.” (54) These are merely two examples of Lee’s many
Myrdalian statements which express a condescending attitude towards the indigenous
cultures of South and Southeast Asia.
There are three noteworthy points in this excerpt, apart from the confirmation of
Lee’s environmental determinism. First, the reference to the Mayan Civilisation is
almost certainly derived directly from Arnold Toynbee’s Study. (56) Second, Lee has
either overlooked or dismissed the former greatness of the Javanese Culture, since
acknowledging it would have qualified his theory of environmental determinism.
Third, this quotation introduces Lee’s idiosyncratic ideas about the role of glands, and
allows Lee to take a deft step from justification by culture to justification by
physiology and thus genetics.
According to Lee, ductless glands, especially the adrenal gland, play a crucial
role in determining the drive of people, both as individuals and as races. In 1966, Lee
told the Socialist International: “There are believed to be two influences on the
efficacy of human resources. First, biological, and second cultural factors.
Anthropologists all emphasize the cultural influence as the factor which causes
variations in capacity between men, tribes and nations but they do not discount
altogether the possibility of biological differences between man and man because of
differences in their ductless glands. I would have certain reservations about attributing
all differences completely to cultural factors for I remember the Australian aborigines,
who, in spite of considerable exposure to a new, society they were suddenly
confronted with, have yet been unable to adjust and to emerge as an equal in his new
environment. As against that. we have the negroes in Africa transported into slavery in
America who have emerged as scientists, doctors, lawyers, boxers, high jumpers,
runners and so on.” (57)
Lee developed, or at least rationalised, his Lamarckian theories during his two
month tour of Australia and New Zealand in 1965, though his thoughts had been
turned in this direction for some time. Soon after his return from the tour, Lee gave a
lecture to public servants at the Political Study Centre. There he told his audience that
he began his tour grappling with the problems of large scale migration. He was
fascinated by the similarities between Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, in so far
as they are all new communities built by migrants from nothing. (61) Throughout the
tour, Lee’s preconceived but unclear ideas were confirmed and he became
increasingly convinced that the similarities between Australia, New Zealand and
Singapore were of major significance in that each of them were migrant communities
which were evolving further away from their original stock.” (62) Lee opined that the
tough migrant cultures of Australia, New Zealand and Singapore had produced
societies with “a tremendous amount of enterprise” which he characterised as a
“frontier spirit.” (63) The problem in Lee’s mind, however, was that as prosperity
comes to a migrant people, life becomes easier, the culture becomes softer, and the
genes “go down”:
“We are not unlike the other migrant groups in the South Pacific. We share a lot
of their characteristics. We share a lot of their problems. And one of these problems is
to secure what we have created for prosperity. Which means, you and me, the genes
going down. …You have come with certain equipment. Your cultural values, your
habit patterns, your techniques, the drive, the push, the thrust, to conquer nature and
make a life. But in the process you become a different people.” (64)
Dilemma, which argued in part: “Malays abhor the state of celibacy. To remain
unmarried was and is considered shameful. Everyone must be married at some time or
other. The result is that whether a person is fit or unfit for marriage, he or she still
marries and reproduces. An idiot or a simpleton is often married off to an old widower,
ostensibly to take care of him in his old age. If this is not possible, backward relatives
are paired off in marriage. These people survive, reproduce and propagate their
species. The cumulative effect of this can be left to the imagination.” (79)
Of these and other arguments which purportedly account for the supposed
backwardness of Malays, Lee said: “From that book I realised that [Dr Mahathir]
believed in it as a medical man – that these were problems of the development of the
Malay race, Anthropological problems, and these were strongly-held views. Indeed, I
found myself in agreement with three-quarters of his analysis of the problem – that the
Malays had always withdrawn from competition and never really entered into the
mainstream of economic activity; that the Malays would always get their children or
relatives married off regardless of whether it was good or bad.” (80)
The Ashkenazi Jews, on the other hand, are among an elite of races which have a
thoroughly eugenic culture: “From the 10th to 11th century inEurope, in Ashkenazim,
the practice developed of the rabbi becoming the most desirable son-in-law because
he is usually the brightest of the flock. … So he becomes the richest and wealthiest.
He marries young, is successful, probably bright. He has large numbers of children
and the brightest of the children will become the rabbi and so it goes on.” (81)
“On my first visit to Germany in 1956,we had to stop in Frankfurt on our way to
London. We had [earlier] stopped in Rome. This languid Italian voice over the
loudspeaker said something … And there were Italian workers trundling trolleys at the
airport. It was so relaxed, the atmosphere and the pace of work. Then the next stop
was Frankfurt. And immediately, the climate was a bit cooler and chillier. And a voice
came across the loudspeaker: “Achtung! Achtung! ” The chaps were the same, porters,
but bigger-sized and trundling away. These were people who were defeated and
completely destroyed and they were rebuilding. I could sense the goal, the
dynamism. … I also visited Switzerland when I was a student in ’47, ’48, on holiday. I
came down by train from Paris to Geneva. Paris was black bread, dirty, after the war. I
arrived at Geneva that morning, sleeping overnight. It was marvellous. Clean,
beautiful, swept streets, nice buildings, marvellous white pillowcases and sheets,
white bread after dark dirty bread and abundant food and so on. But hardworking,
punctilious, the way they did your bed and cleaned up your rooms. It told me
something about why some people succeed and some people don’t. Switzerland has a
small population. If they didn’t have those qualities, they would have been
overrun …(86)
Lee did not spell out explicitly the logic of environmental determinism, but this
passage reveals an emerging pattern in Lee’s thinking. First, he is apparently blessed
with the ability to determine a culture’s character from an airport stopover or froma
short holiday. Second, cultures which evolved in cooler, harsher climates were more
worthy of his admiration than those which developed in warmer and more sultry
climes. Although he did not highlight the climatic difference between Geneva and
Paris, as he did between Frankfurt and Rome, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that in
both instances Lee perceived the harsher, cooler climate as having produced the
“people who succeed.”
Lee’s perception of the migrant’s good glands is actually critical to his racial
hierarchy as it applies in Singapore, since most Singaporean Chinese are descended
from illiterate peasants who, in China’s culturally eugenic society, would normally be
“neutered.” Lee’s emphasis on the migrant’s good glands flatly contradicts his elitism,
the logic of cultural eugenicism, and his usual practice of blindly equaling economic
status with talent and intelligence. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a
rationalisation developed specifically for the “benefit” of Southeast Asia’s Chinese
population who, on the basis of his usual logic, should be dumb and slow. The fact
that Lee resorts to such a deft piece of sophistry supports the argument that his racial
world view, as explained and defended in adulthood, is an attempt to justify his
preconceived notions of the racial hierarchy, rather than the result of dispassionate
logic applied to empirical evidence. While his adult experiences probably did
influence the development of his world view and his political thought, the essence of
his conclusions regarding the hierarchy of Asian races owes more to the prejudices he
learnt as a child than it does to his observations of the porters at Rome and Frankfurt
airports, or to his reading or Arnold Toynbee and Gunnar Myrdal. (88)
And so Mr. Barr arrive:
This article has described in detail the character of Lee Kuan Yew’s racial views
substantially using his own words as evidence. After a lifetime of being circumspect
on the question of race, Lee has finally spoken openly, revealing himself as
doctrinaire racist
Maybe some one could look into Mr. Barr childhood?
Related:

The debate about immigrants has often divided the population and, the claim goes, the past 20 years has taken a right-wing and xenophobic turn, led by anti-immigrant crusader Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party.

But according to the two authors – Henning Bech of the University of Copenhagen and Mehmet Ümit Necef of the University of Southern Denmark – much of the research conducted on immigrants over the past 20 years that has claimed growing racism in Denmark, does not uphold scientific ideals.

»Unfortunately, Necef and I have found many cases where researchers’ interpretation of this or that as ‘racism’ is not OK« says Henning Bech to the University Post.

It is this type of un-documented research that has led to the perception of Denmark as a xenophobic nation.

http://universitypost.dk/article/new-book-danes-are-not-racists

Mr. Barr in a pamflet from NIAS, NIAS – Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, The many faces of Islam,

http://nias.ku.dk/sites/default/files/files/C93DEd01.pdf

Afradikalisert i Netto og hos SF

Baren hænger lavt når Waffen-SF kan betragtes som værende i det normale politiske spektrum. Fra en beretning i Des-Information af Leif Donbæk, der har bevæget sig fra rabiat venstreekstremist i Einheilslizten, til venstreekstremist i Waffen-SF. Vi minder om, at Waffen-SF også har plads til en Anne Grethe Holmsgaard, der har nazistiske synspunkter.

Hele aftenen havde vi hidset hinanden op til kamp mod kapitalen, og til sidst var vi klar. Det endte med at vi smadrede en rude i en 7-Eleven. I årene efter ovenstående episode blev jeg stadig mere radikaliseret – hvis man vel at mærke dengang havde defineret radikalisering på samme måde som Københavns Kommune gør i dag:

»En proces hvori en person i stigende grad accepterer anvendelsen af udemokratiske eller voldelige midler i et forsøg på at opnå et bestemt politisk eller ideologisk mål.«

Men Blågårds Plads i 1990’erne var en heksekedel. Fordømt af højrefløjen og ignoreret af venstrefløjen. Som én af få fra klassen ville jeg læse videre. Min skole var ikke enig – med afskedssalutten: »Drenge fra pladsen hører ikke hjemme på et gymnasium«, erklærede de mig måske egnet. Men jeg ville videre. Tiden på gymnasiet gik dog i store træk med arbejde, elevpolitik og hash, for det meste bare til eget forbrug.

Debatten og miljøet på datidens unge Nørrebro-venstrefløj var betændt. Jeg husker blandt andet at sidde i skolegården til Det Fri Gymnasium lidt efter 9/11 og høre en af mine venner forklare, at han havde »tændt en sejrs-fed, da tårnene styrtede sammen«. Retorikken var vild, USA var fjenden og Danmark skødehunden. Modstandere var kapitalen, og heltene var IRA, PFLP og for nogle enkelte RAF. Retorikken var betændt, Pia Kjærsgaard var fascist, og enhver form for sabotage af højrefløjens landsmøder blev hyldet.

Radikaliseringen var begyndt, og jeg var ikke alene. De næste par år gik det stærkt, og i 2003 gik Danmark i krig. Debatten i mit miljø blev handlingsorienteret. Handlinger, der sidenhen skulle få langt alvorligere følger end smadrede ruder.

Men 2003 blev også et vendepunkt for mig personligt. Jeg havde året forinden fået job i Netto, og da skolen sluttede, fik jeg fuldtid. Imens jeg debatterede og brød holdninger med kollegaerne i frokoststuerne, debatterede kammeraterne med hinanden på universiteterne. Debatterne i frokoststuen og de venskaber, jeg i de år opbyggede på tværs af holdninger, rykkede mig skridt for skridt væk fra volden.

Demokratiets styrke er, at det også kan rumme dem, der er imod. Både dem, der ønsker sig en shariastat, og dem, der mener, at de fattige ikke bør have stemmeret. Den nødvendige demokratiske kontradiktion skaber et bedre samfund, og tanker kan ikke forbydes – kun debatteres! Derfor er det vigtigste middel mod radikalisering, at mennesker med ekstreme holdninger kommer i snak med folk, der mener noget andet end dem selv.

 

 

Mr. Lee dies, 91

Lee Kuan Yew:

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (Hakka for李光耀 – Lî Guang Yào in Mandarin) born “Harry Lee Kuan Yew” and known simply as “Harry” to close friends, family, and his late wife, was born in Singapore on September 16, 1923,  a third-generation descendant of immigrants from the Hakka dialect-group hailing from China’s Guangdong Province. He finished law at Cambridge University, England. In 1954, he formed the People’s Action Party, which won the first Singapore general election five years later. Though dominantly English-speaking and fluent in Malay, but originally unable to competently converse in Mandarin or other Chinese dialects, he decided at an advanced age to exert intense effort to learn Mandarin and later Hokkien, because he needed both for political campaigns at the grassroots level. He also changed his public persona from being a British-educated British-accented upper-class Anglophile named “Harry Lee” to being known in public and in the papers as “Lee Kuan Yew.”

Lee Kuan Yew  became Singapore’s first prime minister in 1959, at the age of thirty-five and quickly developed Singapore’s economy through the aggressive invitation of foreign Multinational Corporations by avoiding economic protectionism and creating a business-friendly environment in order to concentrate on the immediate task of job creation for the ordinary citizens. In November 1990, he resigned the office to assume the advisory post of Senior Minister in the Singapore Cabinet and in 2004, took on the title of the “emeritus” role of  Minister Mentor when his successor as Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong (吳作棟)became Senior Minister after Goh resigned the premiership.

From here.

Quotes:

On Muslims in Singapore (1): “No, I’m not saying that. I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.The generation that worked with me – Othman Wok, Rahim Ishak – that was before the wave came sweeping back, sweeping them; that generation integrated well. We drank beer, we went canvassing, we went electioneering, we ate together. Now they say, “Are the plates clean?” I said, “You know, same washing machine.” Halal, non-halal and so on, I mean, they are all divisive. They are distinguishing me from you: “I’m a believer, you are not.” That’s that. Nobody doubts the hygiene. It’s got nothing to do with hygiene, it’s got to do with the religious conviction that this is not something you do.”
“In those days, you didn’t have a school tuckshop, so you bought two cents of nasi lemak and you ate it. And there was a kway teow man and so on. But now, you go to schools with Malay and Chinese, there’s a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately, not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide. Now I’m not saying right or wrong, I’m saying that’s the demands of the religion but the consequences are a veil across and I think it was designed to be so. Islam is exclusive.” Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going

LKY later concedes that this view of his was outdated, see quote #91.

On Muslims in Singapore (2): “We could not have held the society together if we had not made adjustments to the system that gives the Malays, although they are not as hardworking and capable as the other races, a fair share of the cake”. Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On the late JB Jeyaretnam: “Put it this way. As long as Jeyaretnam [Workers’ Party leader] stands for what he stands for — a thoroughly destructive force for me — we will knock him. There are two ways of playing this. One, a you attack the policies; two, you attack the system. Jeyaretnam was attacking the system, he brought the Chief Justice into it. If I want to fix you, do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That’s the way I had to survive in the past. That’s the way the communists tackled me. He brought the Chief Justice into the political arena. He brought my only friend in university into our quarrel. How dare he!” (The Man and His Ideas)

On Workers’ Party’s Chen Show Mao: “Chen, however, has not turned out to be so brilliant. In Parliament, he makes good prepared speeches, with a written script, but in the follow-up, he is all over the place.” One Man’s View of the World.

On the worst American President he saw up close: “Carter (Jimmy Carter). He’s a good God-fearing man…”Your job as a leader is to inspire and to galvanize, not to share your distract thoughts. You make your people dispirited.” Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On Jimmy Carter: “my name is Jimmy Carter, I’m a peanut farmer, I’m running for president. The next thing you know, he was the president!” Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On Bill Clinton: “Very clever man, very political, likeable fellow because he’s got that outgoing personality… When he talks to you, you are the most important person in the world. But I think, it’s generally true, he breaks the rules… Well, in his case, it’s partly his character. I don’t know. I mean, he had a difficult childhood and so on, so forth”. Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On British politicians: “In Britain, if you look at the First Class Honours list of Oxford or Cambridge and trace their careers, you will find that these people end up not in politics, but in banking, finance and the professions.”

“The frontbenchers in Parliament are often not from the top tier. They are not drawn from the best lawyers or surgeons.”

On saying no: “You lose nothing by being polite. The answer is ‘No’, but please say it politely and give the reasons… Explain to me why ‘No’. Don’t change ‘No’ to ‘Yes’. Don’t be a fool. If there was a good reason why it is ‘No’, it must remain ‘No’, but the man must be told politely.” to Civil Servants at the Victoria Theatre, 30 Sep 1965, Lee Kuan Yew in his own words, 1959-1970

On why Heaven does not need a Population White Paper: “I wish I can meet my wife in the hereafter, but I don’t think I will. I just cease to exist just as she has ceased to exist – otherwise the other world would be overpopulated.” One Man’s View of the World.

He prefers Frederick Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom: “I believe Hayek was a very clear thinker and that he hit upon the eternal truth, explaning that the free market is necessary to get the economy right”. Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On corporal punishment: “I have never understood why Western educationists are so much against corporal punishment. It did my fellow students and me no harm.” 1998, The Wit & Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew

On Israelis: “The Israelis are very smart… the rabbi in any Jewish society was often the most intelligent and well-read, most learned of all…the rabbi’s children are much sought-after by successful Jews to bring good genes into the family. That’s how they multiply, the bright ones multiply. That sums it up.” Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On the media: “Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government”, Address To The General Assembly Of The International Press Institute At Helsinki, 9th June, 1971

On why he chose Tanjong Pagar: “Tanjong Pagar is a working class area. No other division has such a high proportion of workers, wage-earners, small traders and such a low proportion of wealthy merchants and landlords living in it. I wanted to represent workers, wage earners and small traders, not wealthy merchants or landlords. So I chose Tanjong Pagar not Tanglin,” Election Speech – Why I Chose Tanjong Pagar, 17th March, 1955

On democracy: “But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.” – as an opposition leader, April 27, 1955

On political opposition: “If we had considered them serious political figures, we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have bankrupt them earlier.” – Straits Times, Sept 14 2003

On waking up late: “Today, I was a bit late because I took some time in getting up; slept late last night; some work to be done; two functions in the evening. But that is important. I like to tell you this because I think this is what we all must do: ‘sleep well of nights’. You know Shakespeare, ‘Give me men that sleep well of nights’. That is what he said. I think it right. Men who worry, you know, read all this, and they start shouting all this they get worried themselves, night time comes, they can’t sleep. Next morning they wake up, mind befuddled, wrong decisions, more trouble!” Tanjong Katong School, during tour of Mountbatten Constituency, 13th June, 1965 Lee Kuan Yew in his own words, 1959-1970

On anyone who made the most interesting case that he felt he had to listen to: “A few Harvard professors, I can’t remember”.  Tom Plate’s Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew 

On being PM today again, hypothetically speaking…“If I were in charge of Singapore today, I would introduce a baby bonus equal to two years’ worth of the average Singaporean’s salary.” One Man’s View of the World.

On leadership: “I do not yet know of a man who became a leader as a result of having undergone a leadership course.” 1957, The Wit & Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew

“I always tried to be correct, not politically correct.” 2000 The Wit & Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew

On Machiavelli’s The Prince: “I have never been over concerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls. I think a leader who is, is a weak leader. Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless. (The Singapore story: memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew)

“What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend.”
– 1986 National Day Rally

“One-man-one-vote is a most difficult form of government.. Results can be erratic.” –  Dec 19 1984

Quotes thefted from here.

Among the useless things the UN occupie themselfs with, are branding others as racists. Mr. Lee got the honnour of being one. In this undated paper (18 p) Mr. Michael D. Barr (Department of History, University of Queensland) pen Mr. Lee as such. From the paper:

Understanding any aspect of Lee Kuan Yew’s career requires a syncretic approach. but fully understanding his racial views stretches holistic analysis to new limits. Lee’s views on race have been a matter of much private, but little published comment. This now changes with the publication of his authorised biography, Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, (7) in which Lee speaks about race with unprecedented candour. Upon close inspection, Lee’s racial beliefs prove not to be an aberration or idiosyncrasy in his thinking, but the consummation of his world view and his political thought.
At this stage it is important to consider the origins of Lee’s racial views. It isnatural to assume that Lee’s beliefs stem directly from prejudices he learnt as a child.
While there is a certain likelihood in this line of approach, Lee’s own accounts suggest that he arrived at his racial views as a result of observation, empirical enquiry and study as an adult: “I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils. …I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I’ve come to.” (38)
Lee maintains that at some stage before the late 1960s he had acted under the assumption that all races were equal, but bitter disappointment convinced him that the reality was otherwise: “When we were faced with the reality that, in fact, equal opportunities did not bring about more equal results, we were faced with [an] ideological dilemma. … In other words, this Bell curve, which Murray and Herrnstein wrote about, became obvious to us by the late ’60s.” (39)
The evolution of Lee’s racism was a long process. According to Lee himself he began to form his views on race while he was a student in London. (40) He has described how his ideas firmed in 1956 on a visit to Europe and London, (41) and then reached their full force in the Malaysia period. (42) The details and implications of Lee’s account of the development of his racial views are considered later in this article, but one must be sceptical that his adult mind was ever a tabula rasa on the question of race. Lee likes to consider himself a pure empiricist who can rise above preconceptions and prejudices, but it seems reasonable to assume that the very questions he asked as an adult, and his early fascination with questions of race sprang from an existing, possibly unconscious world view in which race was an all-pervasive feature.
Mr. Lee on the Filipinos:
His foreign minister, Carlos P. Romulo, was a small man of about five feet some 20 years my senior, with a ready wit and a self-deprecating manner about his size and other limitations. Romulo had a good sense of humor, an eloquent tongue, and a sharp pen, and was an excellent dinner companion because he was a wonderful raconteur, with a vast repertoire of anecdotes and witticisms. He did not hide his great admiration for the Americans. One of his favourite stories was about his return to the Philippines with General MacArthur. As MacArthur waded ashore at Leyte, the water reached his knees but came up to Romulo’s chest and he had to swim ashore. His good standing with ASEAN leaders and with Americans increased the prestige of the Marcos administration. Marcos had in Romulo a man of honor and integrity who helped give a gloss of respectability to his regime as it fell into disrepute in the 1980s.
International outrage over the killing resulted in foreign banks stopping all loans to the Philippines, which owed over US$25 billion and could not pay the interest due. This brought Marcos to the crunch. He sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300-500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, “We will never see that money back.” Moreover, I added, everyone knew that Marcos was seriously ill and under constant medication for a wasting disease. What was needed was a strong, healthy leader, not more loans.
Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who wanted to do her best for her country by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, “We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution.” Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems for the presidents before Marcos? Apparently none.
Mrs. Aquino’s successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.” In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.
The difference lies in the culture of the Filipino people. It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over 20 years, still be considered for a national burial. Insignificant amounts of the loot have been recovered, yet his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics. They supported the winning presidential and congressional candidates with their considerable resources and reappeared in the political and social limelight after the 1998 election that returned President Joseph Estrada. General Fabian Ver, Marcos’s commander-in-chief who had been in charge of security when Aquino was assassinated, had fled the Philippines together with Marcos in 1986. When he died in Bangkok, the Estrada government gave the general military honors at his burial. One Filipino newspaper, Today, wrote on 22 November 1998, “Ver, Marcos and the rest of the official family plunged the country into two decades of lies, torture, and plunder. Over the next decade, Marcos’s cronies and immediate family would tiptoe back into the country, one by one – always to the public’s revulsion and disgust, though they showed that there was nothing that hidden money and thick hides could not withstand.” Some Filipinos write and speak with passion. If they could get their elite to share their sentiments and act, what could they not have achieved?

Menneskerettighedsordfører har ordet

Einheilsliztens Nikolai Villumsen, bl.a. menneskerettighedsordfører for det kommunistiske parti, en post han overtog fra partei führe Frank Aaen, der selv deltog i tortur i Afghanistan ved at afhøre en ægyptisk jihad-soldat, som sovjetiske eksperter havde gjort “klar”, udtaler til BT om den russiske ambassadørs bemærkninger om våben typer, at:

»Jeg synes ærlig talt, det virker som om, han har drukket for meget vodka, og jeg vil på det kraftigste opfordre regeringen til at kontakte den russiske regering i Moskva for at høre, om det virkelig er den russiske regerings linje,« siger forsvarsordfører for Enhedslisten, Nikolaj Villumsen (Ø).

For en måneds tid siden var samme Villumsen inde på tonen i debatten. I en møde indkaldelse offentliggjort i “Skræppebladet“, udtaler Villumsen:

”Beboerne i et boligområde som Gellerup bliver ofte negativt stemplet og stigmatiseret. Der bruges nedsættende betegnelser som ‘ghetto’, og minoritetsgrupper bliver mistænkeliggjort alene på grund af deres etniske baggrund eller religion. Den slags bryder vi os bestemt ikke om i Enhedslisten,” siger Nikolaj Villumsen.

Om mødet i Gellerup er det i øvrigt værd, at bemærke sig et par andre navne der optræder i indkaldelsen, til hvad der mest ser ud til, at være det kommunistiske partis valgkampfremstød overfor muhammedanske vælgere, der uvist af hvilken årsag har fået stemmeret i et land hvor de opholder sig midlertidigt.

Einheilslizte medlemmet Peter Hegner Bonfils, fik for nogle år siden en røvfuld af, hvad der formentlig var venner fra partiet. Om den sag her.

Keld Albrechtsen, præsenteres som medlem af bestyrelsen i Brabrand Boligforening, men er tillige et kernemedlem i det kommunistiske parti.

Men vi kan konstatere, at når det drejer sig om russere er det ikke noget problem, at stemple og stigmatisere, hvis man altså er medlem af Einheilslizten. Hvilket sikkert er udemærket for selvforståelsen, hvis man er med i en alliance der har folkemord på negere, hvide og andre ikke muhammedanere på programmet.