I watched the first two minutes or so of the interview to see if there was any chance that the bearded chap in the cap might issue anything even vaguely resembling an apology on behalf of his religion. (Yer 'avin' a laugh, incha?) You'll be astonished to hear that the murder of 50 revellers had absolutely nothing whatsoever in any way, shape or form whatsoever to do with Islam. Second, his organisation had started a collection for survivors and relatives of the Muslim gunman's victims, and his flock (followers?) were being encouraged to give blood. Third, he had warned his followers that they might be subject to an anti-Muslim backlash. Fourth, Donald Trump (I'm not sure what his point about Donald Trump was, because I switched over at that point).
I returned to Fox, which, for a change, was laying into the terrorist's friend, Barack Obama. I wondered how that BBC interview was going. Was beardy capman being asked why so many adherents of Islam seem incapable of expressing shame for the sins of their co-religionists? Was he being asked whether American Muslims understand why non-Beltway, non-Muslim Americans might be getting ever so slightly irritated by the adherents of the religion of peace, and might be wondering whether continuing to let them flood into their country is really such a spiffing idea? Was he being asked whether Islam's ingrained abhorrence of homosexuals, its utter contempt for women and its obsessive hatred of Jews made for a good fit with liberty-lovin', modern-day America? Or was he being smothered in lashings of sympathy and given a really easy ride? I think I can guess.
I think someone on Fox was advocating the use of nuclear weapons on terror-supporting Arab states, and suggesting that every domestic terrorist attack should result in an extra billion dollars being given to Israel to build up its armed forces, but that could have been last night.
Speaking of last night, more denial was in evidence, on Sky News this time, when Owen Jones (the little gay leftie who looks like a 15-year old and acts as if he's about seven - he's the one who last year wrote an article headlined "Russell Brand has endorsed Labour - and the Tories should be worried") flounced off the set because the Press Review host, Mark Longhurst, refused to fall in line with little Owie's preferred narrative that what happened in Orlando was purely a homophobic hate crime and had nothing whatsoever to do with lovely, cuddly, misunderstood Islam:
The problem for Jones - and for the whole of the moral relativist, cultural Marxist left - is that Muslims currently top their hierarchy of victimhood, and have done so for at least fifteen years. That means that when Muslims deride, mistreat or kill former chart-toppers like women, gays or blacks, modern urban lefties suffer episodes of severe cognitive dysfunction, and become even more hysterical and incoherent and bonkers than usual, to the point where they're reduced to blurting out the names of perceived "enemies" - "Farage! UKIP supporters! The Daily Mail! Bullingdon Club! Tories! Zionists! Bush! Trump! Boris! Gove! Royals! EDL! Racists! Homophobes! Little Englanders! Male Chauvinists! Christians! Clarkson! Arms dealers! Murdoch! Israel! Zionists!" - whether or not those enemies of Progressivism bear any relevance to the maddening, insoluble Hierarchy of Victimhood conundrum with which they are faced at that moment.
To argue that the Orlando massacre was nothing but a homophobic hate crime (Owen Jones) or that the real problem is gun control (Obama) - just in order to avoid the need to name and shame Islam and to hold it to account for the horrors committed in its name - represent acts of grotesque, wicked intellectual dishonesty. People are dying, you bloody fools! When we know, somewhere deep within ourselves, that we're being dishonest, and that our beliefs have proved to be utterly false, we get angry and we lash out.
I hope our main news channels ban Owen Jones from the airwaves, not just because he's always wrong about everything, but because, from now on, watching the sad little twat would make one feel like an 18th Century aristocrat visiting Bedlam to snigger at the antics of tortured inmates who dimly realise that their distorted picture of reality is false - but don't know how to put it right. Nobody's a fan of that.
I suspect this petulant little boy lives at home with his parents and spends much time up in his bedroom playing with himself vigorously. He probably has a signed photograph of Alan Rubbisher by his bedside.
ReplyDeleteThe first I knew about him was a couple of weeks ago when he appeared on "Question Time" [this programme has introduced me to a legion of truly pathetic people like Mark Oaten and Peter Tatchell] where he was allowed to lecture Nigel Lawson by the smirking Dimbleby. The question is who thinks anybody is remotely interested in his adolescent flatulence? I take it the slightest evidence of any form of track record or achievement is now entirely irrelevant when asked to give an opinion on a current affairs programme. Russell Brand springs to mind or all these young, rubber-faced female MPs that are brought in as makeweights. Back to the rugby in the Southern Hemisphere and proper people....
It does you credit to try and prevent further suffering but the more he appears on TV, the more it exposes how lefties find it impossible to cope with any event in which two or more of their fundamental beliefs clash and prove to be irreconcilable. That provides a valuable public service.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wikipedia, "His father was a local authority worker and trade-union shop steward... his grandfather was involved with the Communist Party and his parents met as members of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency." Maybe he should have been taken into care and deprogrammed.
ReplyDeleteI suspect his silliness and wrongheaded were severely compounded by studying history at University College, Oxford. Can you imagine having to conduct tutorials with this annoyingly bumptious little tit? Or having rooms next to him?
The reason he is on TV so often, SDG, is that posh leftist BBC producers - whose knowledge of young working class folk is somewhat sketchy - seriously imagine that, despite being a 32-year old Oxford graduate and a prominent member of the metropolitan left-liberal politico-media elite, Jones's Northern accent and adolescent bearing (and intellect) mean that he is the genuine voice of provincial proletarian youth - whereas I suspect that provincial proletarian youth would consider him a CAUC.
Oh, all right, ex-KCS, you've convinced me that, as he is a walking argument for conservatism, Jones should be on our screens as often as possible - but perhaps broadcasters could be persuaded to put up an onscreen trigger-warning five minutes before the little twerp is due to appear so that those of a sensitive disposition can avoid ever having to see or hear him?