August 8th, 2010 by Erik

De laatste week ofzo heeft iedereen de mond vol over de “onthullingen” van Wikileaks.

Ook hier weer: dieper denken is nodig, in plaats van zo per sé  “geschokt” (het meest overgebruikte woord in de media vandaag) te willen zijn.

De analyse van Stratfor is dichter bij de relevantie:

“At first glance, it is difficult to imagine a single database in which such a diverse range of intelligence was stored, or the existence of a single individual cleared to see such diverse intelligence stored across multiple databases and able to collect, collate and transmit the intelligence without detection. Intriguingly, all of what has been released so far has been not-so-sensitive material rated secret or below. The Times reports that Gul’s name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hyped by the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet made public. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what most thought was happening in Afghanistan.”

“[I]n the WikiLeaks case, someone managed to access a lot of information that would seem to have been contained in many different places. If this was an unauthorized leak, then it had to have involved a massive failure in security. Certainly, the culprit should be known by now and his arrest should have been announced. And certainly, the gathering of such diverse material in one place accessible to one or even a few people who could move it without detection is odd.”

“The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we have known it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth that has been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. The Afghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on its home ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeaks contain all the details.

We are left with the mystery of who compiled all of these documents and who had access to them with enough time and facilities to transmit them to the outside world in a blatant and sustained breach of protocol. The image we have is of an unidentified individual or small group working to get a “shocking truth” out to the public, only the truth is not shocking — it is what was known all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it proves to have been has just made the most powerful case yet for withdrawal from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.“

May 28th, 2010 by Erik

Het is mijn stemmingswoord van de dag, met dank aan Johan Sanctorum: “Woestijnvisverkiezingen”.

Sanctorum’s reactie op de open brief aan Humo van Patrick De Witte mocht er zijn. Ik erger me al jaren aan de triade Humo-De Morgen-Studio Brussel, waar zogenaamd rebelse (doch brave en voorzichtige) tieners, twintigers en dertigers mee dwepen. Woestijnvis weet er wel raad mee, en ook de enige Vlaamse krant die ik af en toe lees (online, want kranten in dit land zijn zelden een stuiver waard) ontsnapt niet aan de dans.

Ik bekijk de Humo-De Morgen-Studio Brussel-Woestijnvis-identiteit van zovele jonge en zich jong wanende Vlamingen vanop afstand, net zoals ik dat met de verkiezingen doe. Ergens is het grappig, hoe de emoties en bekeringsdrang oplaaien wanneer het om verkiezingen gaat, en ergens is het triestig. Zelfs wanneer men erop gewezen wordt dat zijn/haar individuele stem totaal geen invloed heeft op het eindresultaat, en iemands individuele voorkeur voor welke politieke partij dan ook dus niet echt een discussie of zelfs ruzie waard is (hoeveel families breken met elkaar vanwege een niet-compatibel politiek signatuur?)  blijft men vaak tóch emotioneel vasthouden aan het sprankje hoop dat zijn of haar stem invloed heeft op de finale van het circus. Niet dus. Bij verkiezingen spelen de grote getallen, niet de individuele voorkeuren.

Anyway. Johan Sanctorum geeft een mooie analyse van hoe entertainment het kiezerslandschap schildert, en van de invloed die de entertainmentindustrie kan hebben, en recent in Vlaanderen wellicht hàd, op politieke voorkeuren. En over de eigenlijk ongezonde overlapping en verweving van media en politiek in ons landje. Gelezen op mediakritiek.be, maar ook te vinden op Sanctorum’s blog. Sterk aangeraden! Wat geen onderzoeksjournalistiek is, is geen journalisitiek!

Politiek is en blijft showbusiness, de kiezer entertainen en intussen niet zo subtiel het eigen inkomen en dat van familie en vrienden (uit de zakken van die kiezer, natuurlijk) veilig te stellen. Het is de enige job met verzekerd inkomen: landsonderdanen zullen er altijd zijn, en wie niet betaalt krijgt een bezoek van mannen met geweren. Wie voelt zich daar nu niet toe aangetrokken?

January 21st, 2010 by Erik

Een man met kennis en invloed die luidop durft te spreken. Uit zijn nieuwsbrief, gepuliceerd op National Review en zijn eigen website.

Why I Stand with Geert Wilders

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
January 19, 2010

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’ long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari’a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari’a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.

But he faces daunting challenges.

The Netherlands’ fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a “right-wing extremist“) or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).

Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after 2½ years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to US$14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’ behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably enhance his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak has implications for us all.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

January 8th, 2010 by Erik

Een zeer goede documentaire over de Crips en de Bloods, zowat de meest berucht bendes in de VS, die ontstonden in South Central LA, wat nu in essentie een oorlogszone is.

Ik vond het vooral tekenend om te horen dat er jongeren zijn in die buurten die nog nooit de zee gezien hebben, omdat het te gevaarlijk is die paar blokken door het territorium van een andere bende af te leggen. Zelfs benzine gaan tanken is er levensgevaarlijk, men mag geen moment de verdediging laten zakken.De kinderen daar vertonen meer tekenen van PTSD dan kinderen van dezelfde leeftijd in hedendaads Baghdad…

De documentaire is beschikbaar op DVD, maar ik vond ze enkel in regio 1. Doch ze kan ook online bekeken worden. Aanrader!

Crips & Bloods: Made in America.

October 14th, 2009 by Erik

… dat in deze tijd, een man die voorgesteld wordt als toekomstige president van de EU, waarschuwt voor de gevaren van… atheïsme. Een zeer alarmerende evolutie, meen ik, en er komt veel te weinig boe-geroep in de media.

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/09/the-blair-witch-project-former-prime-minister-warns-of-atheists-among-us/

Former Prime Minister Warns of Atheists Among Us

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair used a speech at Georgetown University to warn of the threat against the West that is growing at alarming rate. No, he wasn’t talking about terrorism, the recession, or even Swine Flu. He was talking about atheists and the menace they present to the world. Not since leaders tackled the dangers of witches in our midst has a politician sounded such an alarm. This politician happens to be the leading contender for the first “president of Europe.”

Blair sounded the alarm for all God-fearing citizens to be on the look out for atheists who he seems to portray as an equal threat as terrorists. He warned that “[w]e face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.” He called on religious people to unite against atheists who offer “no hope” and threaten the demise of the West. How dangerous? Just read this incredible line: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

“[A]n aggressive secular attack from without”? I do not recall many atheists or agnostics driving car bombs into markets or invading nations to fight for the “one and true [lack of] faith.”

Could you imagine if Blair singled out a faith for such analogies to terrorism? There are millions of atheists around the world who simply do not believe in God. Yet you have one of the world’s leaders calling for a united campaign against them and calling their beliefs a danger to mankind.

Voor de speech zelf, klik hier.

October 11th, 2009 by Erik

Time maakt een rake observatie omtrent Obama’s nobelprijs:

Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Nobel

By David Von Drehle

President Barack Obama’s Nobel peace surprise was given “primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament,” according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to “support” Obama’s goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, “of a world without nuclear weapons.”

It’s tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one — in his second term, Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to “zero.” (See pictures of President Obama’s first eight months of diplomacy.)

As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we’ll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you’ll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.

During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. The world wars were the hideous expression of what happens when the human tendency toward conflict hooks up with the violent possibilities of the industrial age. The version of this story we are most familiar with today is the Nazi death machinery, and so we are often tempted to think that if Hitler had not happened, we would never have encountered assembly line murder. (See TIME’s photo-essay “Fun with Photoshop: Obama’s Other Awards”)

The truth is that industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser’s army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million, or 78 million — somewhere in there.

So, when last we saw a world without nuclear weapons, human beings were killing each other with such feverish efficiency that they couldn’t keep track of the victims to the nearest 15 million. Over three decades of industrialized war, the planet had averaged around three million dead per year. Why did that stop happening? (See the top 10 Obama-backlash moments.)

Is it because people no longer found reasons to fight? Hundreds if not thousands of wars, small and large, have been fought since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it because nations and tribes found a conscience regarding mass death? Clearly not — the slaughter in China during the Cultural Revolution, in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi offer bloody proof. Is it the United Nations? Um, no. Is it globalism, and the web of commerce that increasingly connects the interests of the major powers? Yes, that certainly has an impact. But the global economy is a creation of the nuclear age. Major powers find ways to get along because the cost of armed conflict between them has become unthinkably high.

A world with nuclear weapons in it is a scary, scary place to think about. The industrialized world without nuclear weapons was a scary, scary place for real. But there is no way to un-ring the nuclear bell. The science and technology of nuclear weapons is widespread, and if nukes are outlawed someday, only outlaws will have nukes. (See TIME’s Person of the Year: Barack Obama)

Instead of fantasies about a nuke-free planet where formerly bloodthirsty humans live together in peace, what the world needs is a safer, more stable nuclear umbrella. That probably means fewer nukes in fewer hands — when President Obama talks about strengthening the non-proliferation regime and stepping up efforts to secure loose nukes, he is on the right track. Nuclear weapons are only helpful if they are never used.

But zero weapons is a terrible idea. As bad as they are, nukes have been instrumental in reversing the long, seemingly inexorable trend in modernity toward deadlier and deadlier conflicts. If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb.