Hej Andreas Lidt efterkritik på jeres kommentering ovenpå FRA-SEN. 1) Straffe. Ja, der var kontakt, men ikke benspænd. Hvordan kunne I overse det? 2) 1. halvleg var ikke så ringe, som I brugte irriterende meget taletid på at gøre den til. Der var chancer til både 1-1 og 2-2.

#dkpol Velkommen til anarkotyranniet disq.us/t/55fxzmr

I et debatindlæg af Mads Teil Hørbye Christiansen fra Rød-Grøn Ungdom, hvor han argumenterer for at danskhed er lig med "smålighed", pga. mange danskere syntes det er et problem at islamister ikke vil give hånd, vælger @politiken at afbillede en etnisk dansker som en tilsyneladende mentalt retarderet person med en fjollet klaphat, hvor der står "Make Danmark Great Again". I overført betydning kommunikerer Politiken således at etniske danskere er en flok smålige klaphatte. Så vi står her i en situation, hvor Politikkens Debatredaktør Lotte Folke Kaarsholm, åbenbart har valgt at publicere en racistisk karikatur af en etnisk dansker. En tegning, som sandsynligt er strafbar efter Straffelovens §§ 266b, da tegningen efter loven er dybt forhånende og nedværdigende overfor danskere som etniske gruppe, imens en socialistisk aktivist vil fortælle os at danskhed er lig med smålighed, fordi etniske danskere ikke vil indordne sig under islam. Mængden af dobbeltmoral og etnisk selvhad hos venstrefløjen er uendelig. #dkpol #dkmedier #selvhad #racisme

Here is an important thing to understand about rape and women feeling safe: There are different types of rape. For many rape victims, the perpetrator is their partner. If we are looking at what especially makes it unsafe for women to be outside in public, the most important rape type is assault rape. This is important with regards to Muslim and African immigration. If we look at total rapes, there is a significant overrepresentation of perpetrators with immigrant background, often in the range 2.5x to 5x. This is already very bad. But nonetheless, if we look only at assault rapes, the overrepresentation would likely be far, far higher. Unfortunately, no country in Europe systematically tracks this statistic by immigrant / native status. Even though it is among the most important things for the safety of women. It has been tracked officially one time that I know of, in Oslo. And here they found that *100 percent* of the assault rapes were by perpetrators with immigrant background. Mass immigration is the most anti-women policy.

Global greening - thanks to CO2

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

Den Korte Avis | De mange demonstranter, der ønsker fortsat at kunne føle sig hjemme i deres eget land, er blevet socialt og kulturelt hjemløse: denkorteavis.dk/2026/den-hje…

"Eva, hvem er ham der Omar?" Det spørgsmål har jeg fået en del gange, efter Politiken i weekenden bragte et interessant indlæg af Omar Alkhatib om danskhed. @AlkhatibDK er en af de praktiserende muslimske meningsdannere, jeg har haft allermest fokus på i mit debatvirke, så lad mig dele mit svar med offentligheden. Jeg regner Alkhatib for at være det tætteste, Islamisk Trossamfund har på en talsmand. Jeg skal understrege, at hverken Alkhatib selv eller Islamisk Trossamfund omtaler ham som sådan, og at der alene er tale om min vurdering. Her skal man vide, at Islamisk Trossamfund ikke har haft en officiel talsmand siden 2016, hvor det blev for svært at repræsentere en tvetunget teokratisk modborgerskabsorganisation i den offentlige debat. Siden dengang har trossamfundets talenter foretrukket at operere som uafhængige stemmer. Det er indiskutabelt, at Omar Alkhatib - der i to år var ansat på dansk public service-radio som programredaktør for 'Det, Muslimer Taler Om' - har tæt tilknytning til Islamisk Trossamfund. I 2022 fik jeg bragt en klumme i Berlingske med overskriften "Islamisk Trossamfund har fået sit eget statsstøttede radioprogram på 24syv", hvor jeg dokumenterede Alkhatibs tilknytning på følgende måde: "Omar Alkhatib har flere gange i år holdt fredagsprædikenen i moskeen. I en podcast har han oplyst, at han sad til fredagsbøn inde i moskeen tre fredage i træk, mens Rasmus Paludan demonstrerede ude foran." I min efterfølgende debat med programmets vært Elias Ramadan (@eliRamadanCph) medgav han, at Alkhatib er kommet "meget" i Islamisk Trossamfund. Jeg vil også nævne et par observationer, jeg har gjort mig ved to forskellige arrangementer i regi af Muslim Student Association på Københavns Universitet. I 2022 konstaterede jeg ved selvsyn, at Omar Alkhatib har et fortroligt forhold til den åbne antidemokrat Taimullah Abu-Laban (@Taimullah_AL) fra Hizb ut-Tahrir, der er søn af Islamisk Trossamfunds stifter Abu Laban. Deres intimitet kan man læse mere om i et opslag, som jeg linker til i kommentarsporet. Og i 2024 deltog Alkhatib i en næsten tre timer lang debat med Frederik Vad. Her sad den primære imam fra Islamisk Trossamfund, Sheikh Dr. Ewainat Mohyedin, på en af de forreste rækker klædt i civil. Trossamfundets åndelige og ideologiske leder er ikke selv en offentlig stemme, og han dukker normalt ikke op i sådanne sammenhænge, men han har altså prioriteret at bevæge sig væk fra Dortheavej for personligt at overvære debatten mellem sin stjernedebattør og Socialdemokratiets udlændingeordfører. Det, jeg gerne vil have offentligheden til at forstå om Alkhatib, er, at han er strategisk tavs om sit idealsamfund. Går han ind for det liberale demokrati? Eller abonnerer han på idealet om en islamisk stat, ligesom en række af gæsterne i 'Det, Muslimer Taler Om' gør det? Det konfronterede jeg ham med i en klumme i 2024, som Berlingske forelagde for ham, men som han ikke ønskede at svare på. Kort efter kårede jeg Alkhatib som vinder af min satirepris "Månedens Udenomssnak" på baggrund af hans undvigende svar på mit spørgsmål om hans idealsamfund under Q&A ved et arrangement i Århus (hvor Politikens debatredaktør Lotte Folke Kaarsholm i øvrigt var moderator og altså hørte ham tale udenom til den store guldmedalje, uden at hun påtalte det). Det ville indlysende have offentlighedens interesse, hvis Alkhatib og jeg tog en offentlig samtale om konflikten mellem islam og det liberale demokrati. Det kommer dog næppe nogensinde til at ske, og det skyldes, at han ikke ønsker det. I 2023 udfordrede jeg ham til debat, hvilket han ignorerede. Jeg har opgivet at få en samtale med ham for åben mikrofon. Det skal imidlertid ikke forhindre mig i at råbe op om hans strategiske tavshed. Så her kommer en grafik fra Islamisk Trossamfunds officielle guide til islam. Grafikken viser indretningen af det topstyrede sunniislamiske idealsamfund med en kalif, der skal implementere sharialovgivning som "en altomfattende samfundsorden". Det er nok ikke noget, vi kommer til at læse om i Politiken.

Jeg har flere gange været efter @skov_chr , [1] fordi jeg mener, at han er med til at afspore en konservativ genkomst, som ellers vinder frem i hele Vesten. Derfor er det vigtigt, at Egander Skovs konservatisme ikke får afgørende indflydelse. Problemet med hans “pæne konservatisme”, som nogle har kaldt den, er, at den ganske vist er letfordøjelig, konfliktsky og kan vinde priser – men den tør ikke at tage fat, hvor det gør ondt og løser ikke de grundlæggende problemer, Danmark står overfor. Det fremgår tydeligt både i hans bøger og i omtalen af hans nyeste udgivelse herunder i artiklen fra Weekendavisen. Han er en dygtig, myreflittig historiker, men han undgår konsekvent at forholde sig til, at et folk ikke blot er en “fortalt folkelighed”, men også har en etnisk dimension. I “Borgerlig krise” (2022) tager han fx markant afstand fra identitære strømninger. Men er det virkelig ligegyldigt, om den “fortalte folkelighed” fortælles af 90–99 % etniske danskere eller af 49 %? 5 %? Selvfølgelig ikke. Etnicitet er ikke alting, men det er heller ikke ingenting – selvom Skov omhyggeligt undgår eller underminerer det aspekt. Mere generelt repræsenterer han en socialkonservatisme, som er behagelig og ufarlig. Den fokuserer på vage løsninger såsom at styrke civilsamfundet eller taler i brede vendinger om behovet for “et jævnt og muntert virksomt liv på jord”, som han citerer Grundtvig for et sted (2022, s. 265). I “Konservatisme i mellemkrigstiden” (2016) skelner Skov mellem tre konservative strømninger: socialkonservatisme, liberal højrekonservatisme og en mere reaktionær nykonservatisme – og hans sympati ligger klart hos førstnævnte karakteriseret af personer som Arnold Fraenkel og John Christmas Møller. Men for stadig flere må det stå klart, at en sådan moderat midterposition ikke går. Der er behov for et opgør med forestillingen om, at et folk eksisterer uafhængig af, hvilken etnicitet eller religion, de måtte have. Der er behov for et opgør med wokeness og radikale transideologiske strømninger – men også en erkendelse af, at også liberalismen gav os problemer: overdreven individualisme, menneskerettigheder og rationalisme. Derfor kan tiden kræve en mere reaktionær konservatisme. Det betyder ikke, at man kan skrue tiden tilbage. Danmark bliver aldrig det samme igen, og derfor må man være moderne og tilbyde en positiv eller progressiv konservativ løsning. Hvorfor er det vigtigt? Det kan ved første øjekast ligne små nuancer, men hvis Danmark reelt skal løse sine udfordringer og udnytte det konservative momentum efter årtiers politisk svigt, er det afgørende, at konservatismen ikke bliver udvandet eller “kuppet” af socialliberale strømninger og “Bent Bendtsen”-typer. Vi ser allerede, hvordan det kan gå galt. I USA fik vi med Trump-Vance gammel vin på nye flasker: den rigtige konservative, nationalistiske retorik, men i sidste ende mere af det samme, aflyste massedeportationer og nye krige i Mellemøsten. [2] Netop derfor er det ikke ligegyldigt, om man får nuancerne med.

Crazy wannabe greenlandic socialist member of parliament in Denmark and stupid lies about US attacking Greenland with military. Greenlanders and danes are the most brainwashed people in the world and tuesday march 24th, 2026 we have an election. sermersooq.gl/da/2026/03/16/…

Det her er jo en decideret bombe under dansk udlændingepolitik: 31.500 syrere kan stå til at få permanent opholdstilladelse i Danmark. 7 ud af 10 syrere har således fået tildelt permanent opholdstilladelse i en række prøvesager ved Flygtningenævnet. Og da sådanne sager ofte danner præcedens, så står vi nu potentielt i den situation, at 7 ud af 10 af de i alt 45.000 syrere i Danmark kan stå til at få tildelt permanent opholdstilladelse. Det er 31.500 syrere vi blev fortalt kun skulle være her midlertidigt, som vi nu står til at skulle have boende for evigt. Kæmpe skandale.

Hvorfor har du en islamisk trosbekendelse tatoveret på din arm? "La ilaha illa Allah" (arabisk: لا إله إلا الله) Betydning: Det betyder, at intet og ingen har ret til at blive tilbedt undtagen Allah. Det er en benægtelse af andre guder og en bekræftelse af Allahs enhed.

Trine Pertou Mach stiller fortsat ikke op til interview, så vi kan ikke blive klogere på, hvad hun gør sig af tanker om at være den eneste kvinde sammen med Kasem Said Ahmad og 14 andre mænd på et billede inde i en arabisk moské, der samarbejder med Islamisk Trossamfund. Vi er dog nu nået så langt, at hun har sendt et kort skriftligt svar til @berlingske og @radio4dk: "Man er som kandidat og politiker til utroligt mange vælgerarrangementer med hundredvis af mennesker, som beder om at få taget billeder. Det er jo fuldstændig umuligt at vide, hvad alle folk, der deltager i de vælgerarrangementer, har af holdninger. Men det giver for fanden sig selv, at jeg ikke har nogen som helst sympati for de ekstreme holdninger til kvinder, som jeg ikke anede, at Kasem Said Ahmad havde. Hans eksklusion fra @Enhedslisten skete desuden flere år inden, jeg selv blev medlem af Enhedslisten." Over for Radio IIII har Kasem Said Ahmad oplyst, at Trine Pertou Machs udlægning er korrekt. Berlingske har spurgt Kasem Said Ahmad, om @trinemach kender ham, og hvordan de kender hinanden, og det udløser en anden reaktion fra ham: "Kasem Said Ahmad nægter dog at svare på spørgsmålene. »Jeg ønsker ikke at udtale mig,« siger han. Adspurgt om, hvorfor han ikke ønsker at svare, siger han: »Du er dum, ligesom alle de andre journalister. Jeg har ikke noget ønske om at udtale mig. Til helvede med dig. Til helvede med Berlingske.«"

Den bedste måde at "slå tilbage mod Trump" er ved at anti-myndighedsekstremister begår voldeligt oprør imod regeringen. Tak til @politiken for at bekende kulør.