Excusing evil

Quite some time ago, I was unfortunate enough to come into contact with the American left-liberal press – it was a clip of Rachel Maddow on some network over there and apparently she’s a sort of celebrity, touted as an intellectual, meaning academia gave her a piece of paper, she cut her hair short in approved feminist fashion and there she was – the bona fide icon of the left on the idiot box.

The interesting thing to me was that she was acting not unlike a Glenn Beck would or a Bill Whittle would but with added mockery and theatrics. She’d take some RINO or other who’d been making stupid statements and she was raising her hands to the air in mockery at this man’s stupidity, her voice becoming shriller, then dropping into a sort of crow cawing as counterpoint.

It was almost as if she’d studied the way those on the celebrity right acted and the way some on the blogger right write and she wanted to do the same exasperated “when will they ever learn”, “what sort of inanity left to say” act but the problem was – that’s all she had – the inanities of RINOs whose thought processes were knuckle-dragging. It was as if I branded the whole of the left with what Harman or Beaker do, when in fact it’s far more insidious than that and I’ll give two examples.

Christiane Amanpouris is a French leftwing journo who was tweeted on last evening. She insisted, to the French public, in calling the terrorists “activists”. This is the key strategy of both the government PTB and the left respectively – they redefine someone to be what they wish that person to appear to be.

It’s not exclusive to them of course. Many remember Kissinger calling the bombs in Vietnam “peaceful purposes”.

So, in one word, Christiane Amanpouris excused these killers as “activists” who were so frustrated with unfairness towards them in their lives that they finally took the law into their own hands. This is what many of us call Narrative, something constructed either to excuse or to vilify.

And how ostensibly close it is to some of the things those in the centre-right have been saying. Two of my own friends were saying that the Brit is a patient creature but when he is frustrated beyond a certain limit, he explodes. Conan-Doyle had Holmes say just that in His Last Bow – at that time the bete noire was the German.

This is a worrying thing when the left models its rhetoric on the more extreme members of the rest of us but in so doing, gets it utterly wrong. And yes, there’s another specific case here.

A French commenter on the massacres in Le Monde, the French left’s national newspaper, last evening wrote the following and let me take it line for line:

I find this an absolute sadness and I am scared for my country …

Well yes, the whole world’s been feeling that. These officially oppressed now see murder as an acceptable way of pressing a narrative or of protesting. From placards in the streets, it’s become murdering people and in so doing, life has been rendered cheap, in line with non-western nations. We all want to be exactly the same, don’t we?

… and all its inhabitants irrespective of nationality.

First weasel words. On the surface, it looks egalitarian, fair to all. Who could argue? Well actually, 20 victims and their families could argue that certain sections of the population, namely the indigenous, are the ones in danger. The terrorists were never going to kill the Muslims or blacks. They generally get killed in their own internecine strife.

… The social misery …

Yes, that’s certainly what has been inflicted by these victimhood malcontents who murder to make their point upon the ordinary people of the land.

… led the young man [to] total impasse that caused the death of about twenty people.

Whoa! The “young man” had such social misery that he could think of nothing else but murder and that is entirely understandable to the commenter? Wow. What a reasoning mind.

He casually mentions, at the end of the sentence, the murder of about twenty people. Just like that, nothing special, played down. Unfortunate but nothing when set against the deep social misery “the young man” felt.

[En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/reactions/2015/01/09/amedy-coulibaly-de-l-espoir-de-la-reinsertion-au-terrorisme-sectaire_4552778_3224.html#vyiEyVbhkkRcw51O.99]

There in a nutshell, ladies and gentleman, is all one needs to know about the thinking of the left.

This commenter is so deeply suffused in compassion for the common man [as we all are] that he channels that compassion only towards the officially designated four groups in society who are oppressed [women, blacks/Muslims, gays and the disabled] and on their behalf, murdering people outside those designations is perfectly understandable and defensible. [As most of us do not agree]

He of course would say that he never said those words, that I am putting words into his mouth. No sorry – she was the one saying “activist” instead of killer. He was the one saying “total impasse” so yes – they were excusing these killers and both were from the left.

The truly worrying thing is that this is not one of the terrorists saying it – it’s the ordinary, garden variety left leaning voter, the social democrat, a citizen of the land. Remember Nigel Farage’s recent comments about 5th Column? Just who is the 5th Column in the land then [aside from Them]?

I suggest it is Ms Amanpouris, this commenter and all of a similar mindset, those on the Narrative Kool Aid.

It’s the inability to see things in perspective which is the crux of the matter, in the wrong prioritizing of issues and victims. The victims in these atrocities, to us who call ourselves normal [jury’s out] are those who died and the loved ones they left behind.

Let’s see if I have this right, perhaps I don’t, perhaps these two quoted above are correct and I’m out of order here.

My thought is that if a man [plus one girl on the run] takes hostages, snuffs the life out of ordinary people, then they are the victims, the ordinary people, not the bloody killers. Their mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, peers, are the victims also.

To excuse the killer, the evil muvver, is precisely the justification given by Clyde Barrow – remember Bonny and Clyde? He’d had a rough time, he had grievances, he hated cops.

In Australia, there’s a whole mythology surrounding this motif. Ned Kelly had been hounded, yes, he was a local hero but what wasn’t emphasized was that he and his brothers had been cattle rustling – stealing. The hated police were unfeeling in folklore, this was true but the Kelly rustling and subsequent murders of those they hated were not entirely innocent in themselves either, were they?

There were grievances in France but the solution to the grievances – le Directoire – was no solution, unless you feel that the solution to a scratch on your hand is to chop off your hand, as the Muslims do.

And remember, whilst we’re there – that blogger just received the first 50 lashes of 1000 for blogging.

2 comments for “Excusing evil

  1. Viscount Rectum
    January 11, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Ms Ammanpour a fifth columnist, you left out Cameron, Milliband and super arsehole Clegg.

    • January 11, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      Yep, left out a few there. Corrected in current post.

Comments are closed.