The left were quite subdued initially after the Paris attacks- after all, there seemed little they could say in Islam’s defence on this one.
One woman tried at my place – she said, at 11 p.m. that there was nothing tying this to Muslims, that it was all “speculation”.
Speculation maybe or educated guess? Two experts were asked:
Brian Michael Jenkins, a terrorism expert and senior adviser to the president of RAND Corp., said the extremist group is clearly the name at the top of everyone’s list.” He said this was because the tactic used — “multiple attackers in coordinated attacks at multiple locations” — echoed recommendations published in extremist group’s online magazine
James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA in 1993-195 and now chancellor at the Institute of World Politics, also told the BBC he suspected the Islamic State because the coordinated nature of the attacks required government-style planning.
To any normal person, it was pretty clear and subsequent events confirmed that.
But lo, what’s this on Sunday morn? Turning to the Beeb Online, this is top of their headlines:
The typeface might not be clear transferred to a blogpost but it says the attacker has been identified as a “Frenchman”. You’ve got the significance of that, haven’t you? Nowt to do with Islam. He’s a Frenchman.
That could have been passed over, were it not for the inclusion in that top headlines section: “Muslim saves two women”. Not Frenchman or Frenchwoman, but “Muslim”. That is, they will call out the name Muslim in that context but not in the context of the killing.
OK, I went next to Google News UK and it had the Guardian headline up top – they rely on the Guardian for news, Google. But what’s this?
That is top left at the Guardian at this time this morning. So I went there, then back to Google News UK and guess what? I kid you not but the Guardian headline had been pulled and an innocuous one put up instead.
That is, some subby has either on her own authority [or his] or has been told to yank a headline giving the wrong impression.
It’s a small matter compared to 129 dead but it is telling.
Yesterday I had an email from a man who was not happy about something at OoL. Of all the things which could have been said in reaction to our Mike’s rant, one commenter went on about typeface in bold. I responded and made it into normal. As my correspondent wrote – could that commenter have said nothing at all about what we were all feeling at this time?
That commenter also had a go at me for not being libertarian, which I responded to. Mind you, in no way was there anything wrong with his right to speak and say what he wished, to call me as he saw fit – that is enshrined in the libertarian principle. And his view was his view, all of our views are all of our views.
What the man who emailed me pointed out though, privately, was that the commenter had chosen those things to write on, almost completely ignoring the real issue – the dire threat we now face and the 129 dead, let alone the injured.
Now, contrast all that to the supposedly rightwing Spectator but after some time now, it’s clear that the PTB at that publication are at odds with its journalists. Shoved over into one corner, admittedly as the Most Popular article at that publication, was:
I’ve taken a screenshot from the headline of the single page inside, as the typeface on the front was too small. And of course, to complete the set, further down was this:
Note the name of the author. He cleverly takes Hollande’s utterance, turning the whole focus against one group and away from Islam itself, as Murray pointed out was the real issue, and Mr. Ahmed adds that it was an attack on Islam, not the French.
You do see the slides going on all around here – they simply cannot accept the bleedin’ obvious truth staring them in the face. Inside the article, at the top, it’s obvious that he’s read Murray as he quotes him that yes, it is Islamic but it’s also against Islam.
And of course, the left mantra that Muslims are generally benign and peaceful, despite those women running off to Syria and despite this sort of thing we see so often:
Despite this too:
Despite the whole damned thing over these fifteen or so years now. And the whole left is in collusion about the mantra:
You’re well aware, are you not, what that pic is a reference to?
So you see, there is very much a divide. Those of our way of thinking see, let’s pick a random example, the Hamas Israel thing and immediately point to constant daily rockets into sovereign territory, an act of war Israel has every right, despite its enemy, the UN, to turn into war against any Arab state in the region if it wants. Yet it doesn’t, it holds back.
Left doesn’t see it that way, oh no. It ignores all of that and speaks only of Israel preventing a homeland for a non-existent people they now call The Palestinians, co-opting a generic name for the region from ancient times, when in fact Israel many times agreed to their homeland along lines internationally proposed but the Arabs responded with a war. A few wars in fact.
Do you ever read anything from leftwingers about those Arab wars, except that they were justified?
The left also ignores the Iranian and Hamas leadership declaring they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth – that counts for nothing with the left, except in some mealy-mouthed reference they then quickly gloss over.
And the whole Islamic issue is but one small part of the whole gamut which divides left and right.
And guess how the left responds to me writing this? Yes, they call me extreme, far right, a hater, someone trying to “create” a divide, a divide which Blind Freddy can see was generated by the left through its politically correct mantras we utterly reject and what’s more, which we’ll bluntly oppose – I hesitate to say “stonewall” because that’s one of their hijacked words.
Why such vehemence from Mike, from me, even from Julia at times, from a dozen I could name straight away? Why so hot under the collar? Yes it’s directed at the main enemy, Islam, of course it is. But in a way, that’s a stated enemy, a known-known.
The other real enemy is far more subtle and to identify this enemy, go to the top of this post to the Beeb screenshot – there it is. It’s also in Russell Brand, Charlotte Church, every other do-gooder who feels he or she is doing it all for our own good:
They’re now known as SJWs.
There is a proportion of this land – maybe 3.8 million, maybe far more, maybe even a small majority of the land – for whom nothing I write in this post now is either a surprise nor is it vehemently disagreed with. I’d venture to say we’d also agree on many other issues.
And this view has scant representation in the MSM, particularly not on the Beeb. And we are not happy with this skewing, this blatant bias.
But there is also a similar proportion, championed by the Brands, the Penny Reds, the Charlotte Churches, the Bunny Roches, the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, the Camerons, Cleggs and Corbyns, by the bacon-butty-averse Milibands, the Kerrys, Gores, Soroses, by every feminist journo, the Toynbees – and that lot seem to have some bizarre grasp or non-grasp of reality, of what is actually happening.
There are three major and immediate threats to us as people in western society:
1. The banksters, crony capitalists, the PTB who cause the wars, the ruling elite. Blair is one of these.
3. The do-gooding left who either actively [e.g. Demos] or unwittingly [common or garden variety left liberal or the apolitical] aid and abet Nos 1 and 2 above.
Any one of these alone, or in combination, can bring down this society when it was absolutely unnecessary for it to be brought down, except through their Alinsky desire to.