Posted on | July 26, 2011 | 31 Comments
Donald Douglas at American Power has “a little round-up of those exploiting the dead to destroy their political enemies.” POH Diaries describes this as the functioning of an “anti-anti-jihad movement.” As for the MSM Demon of the Day, Pamela Geller’s basic rule of combat is, “Mess With the Bull, You Get the Horns“:
Needless to say, I have been fielding calls from an agenda-driven media hellbent on destroying the freedom-loving voices on the right with the acts of a lone psychopath. NBC Nightly News is calling (that’s a first). And Robert Spencer is besieged with media requests. . . .
Instead of mourning the 91 victims of this horrible tragedy, the media is wielding it like a club to bludgeon the voices of freedom.
Are celebrities responsible for their stalkers? Were the Beatles responsible for Charles Manson? Or Jodie Foster responsible for the shooting of Ronald Reagan? Of course not.
But the sharia-compliant media is naked in their blood libel to tie this murderer to everyone of us who fight for human rights, the rule of law, the dignity of the human person, free speech, the free conscience, and equality of rights for all. Why doesn’t the media ever call out Islamic imams who really do incite to violence for their real calls to kill?
It’s amazing, really. No matter how many times some guy named Mohammed screams “Allahu akbar!” before committing a bloody atrocity, the media insist we must not stigmatize or stereotype Muslims as responsible for terrorism committed in the name of Islam. But let one Norwegian nutjob go berserk, and suddenly Pamela Geller’s getting calls from major news organizations wanting to get her on-the-record response to a crime she never endorsed, advocated or condoned.
What is lost in moments like this a sense of proportion about the dangers we face. What is the real threat on a daily basis? The awful carnage in Norway — a terrible crime, universally condemned by all — is being used by the mainstream media to distract us from an important point that Rusty Shackleford explains in two simple sentences:
If radical right-wing Norwegians were killing daily — constantly, deliberately, routinely — in the same way that Islamic extremists are killing, then it might deserve an in-depth media inquiry into the influences and “connections” of the Deadly Scandinavian Menace.
But that’s not what’s really happening, is it?
Anders Behring Breivik was a one-off, sui generis. You might compare Breivik to other “lone wolf” terrorists of a similar ilk — Ted Kaczynski or Eric Rudolph — but neither of those guys was really part of any larger movement or trend. And despite all the media alarums about “right-wing militias” after the Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh was never shown to be the tip of any particular iceberg-sized movement.
Kaczynski, Rudolph, McVeigh, Breivik — they did their evil deeds and then . . . nothing.
No uprising, no “movement,” no copycats.
Whereas, as Dr. Shackleford says, every day the jihadists are killing people around the world in the name of Islam.
Perhaps you see the point, in which case you might try to explain it to the editors of the New York Times and the producers at major network news operations, who can’t seem to put these distinct phenomena — occasional outburts of lone-nut violence vs. a constant aggression by the organized militants of radical Islam — into proper perspective.
None of this is to deny the presence of violent actors or neo-Nazis on the European right who bear watching. But, awful as this atrocity was, native-born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.
That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.
Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.
What got Somanader into a tizzy is Buchanan’s (purposefully) provocative walk-off line:
As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.
That we naturally recoil from such a thought, Buchanan well knows. That’s why he saved those shocking words for his conclusion of a column entitled “Fire Bell in the Night.” Indeed, there is something to be alarmed about, but it’s not — contrary to what Somanader would have you think — that Buchanan is endorsing the deeds of a mass-murderer. Rather what we should be alarmed about is the ongoing conflict between an ascendant militant Islam and the modern West, eaten hollow by liberal decadence.
And notice something ironic: In this odd moment, there is a convergence between Buchanan (so often denounced as an anti-Semite) and Pamela Geller, so often denounced as an arch-Zionist. It calls to mind the spooky feeling I’ve had before:
A few years ago, Phyllis Chesler sent me her book The Death of Feminism, and when I got home with it and started reading, I was shocked to see her citing Jean Raspail’s notorious novel, The Camp of the Saints. (That passage is substantially excerpted in an online essay at her Web site.)
For years, Raspail’s 1973 French novel enjoyed a sort of samizdat cult following among critics of multiculturalism and opponents of open-borders immigration policy (which would be more properly termed a non-policy, but let us not digress.) Raspail himself has said that Le Camp Des Saints could not be published in France today because of the “human rights” nonsense that is slowly strangling free speech in Europe (and Canada). And the book’s reputation as a hateful expression of xenophobic nativism makes it one of those Books You’re Not Supposed to Read.
Thus, I was startled to see Chesler, a liberal feminist all her life, citing Raspail’s book as prophetic. Yet Chesler had been able to see past the superficial text of the novel to comprehend its deeper significance as a metaphor for the demoralization of the West. In this sense, Raspail was describing the same larger phenomenon that Shelby Steele describes in White Guilt, that Pat Buchanan describes in The Death of the West, that Michelle Malkin describes in Invasion, that Thomas Sowell describes in The Vision of the Anointed, and that Peter Brimelow describes in Alien Nation.
These are all very different writers, with different interests, different aims, and different philosophies. However, they all share the fundamental understanding that liberalism is a soul-destroying disease, a sort of intellectual anti-virus that exposes its host to destruction by weakening the individual cells of the national immune system. To the extent that your mind is cluttered with the glittering generalities of modern liberalism — “social justice,” etc. — you will be unable to resist and will inevitably succumb to the agonizing spiritual death that beckons at the end of that road.
In the end, you see, the world is divided into those who accede to the demands of liberalism and those who are willing to resist the siren-song of suicidal surrender. Or to put it another way . . .
And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city . . .
— Revelation 20:9 (KJV)