Killing For Muhammad Feeds The Far Right
The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. -Oswald Spengler
The New York Times is concerned about the terror attack that Islamic Fundamentalists launched against an anti-Islamic political magazine Charlie Hebdo. They are not concerned that 12 people were killed. They are not concerned that the group carrying out the attack had vastly greater organization and fire power than the police assigned the task of protecting the people of Paris. They are not concerned that a journalistic operation got told to STFU in the most jack-booted and thuggish fashion imaginable.*
What really has the NYT concerned here is the narrative? What sort of meme could result from this? You see, this is a dangerous moment for European societies.
“This is a dangerous moment for European societies,” said Peter Neumann, director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London. “With increasing radicalization among supporters of jihadist organizations and the white working class increasingly feeling disenfranchised and uncoupled from elites, things are coming to a head.”
So our cognitive elites on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean react to this dangerous moment in a manner reminiscent of the British Nobility upon hearing the plaints of Watt Tyler and his band of peasants. America, Home of the Gawdallmiddy First Amendment; questions the judgment of Charlie Hebdo Magazine. French intellectuals claim that publishing satirical cartoons against Islam is tantamount to an act of war. In other words, as far as the Parlor Pinks are concerned; Charlie Hebdo had it coming.
Why the Islamic terrorist attack must be politically sanitized before it is dealt with. It’s because of what the people in France, and in other European Nations, might conclude from this series of events. According to Camille Grand, it could have consequences the official French Left would rather not confront.
“This attack is double honey for the National Front,” said Camille Grand, director of the French Foundation for …read more
Where is the President?
Yesterday, in Paris, the people took to the streets to stand against Islamic extremism. The Israeli Prime Minister, Palestinian leader, the Jordanian King who is a direct descendant of Mohammed, the German Chancellor, and various other heads of state joined together with thousands upon thousands of French citizens and others to rally in the face of Islamic extremism.
President Obama did not go. Not only did he not go, he did not send his Vice President or his Secretary of State, who was in India. His outgoing Attorney General went, but Eric Holder was not present at the rally.
Some might say that this does not matter. But we are talking about a continent invested in symbolism and solidarity. It matters that Europe rallied for us after 9/11 and we cannot show up for them after the Charlie Hebdo attack. It matters than France is our first ally.
The world noticed that President Obama was not there. This is a man who ran for the Presidency claiming he would rebuild relationships abroad, restore our image with the world, and act as a citizen of the world instead of as an “ugly American.”
Yesterday, that campaign promise officially expired. The President, again, behaved as if he wanted the title and perks, but not the actual job.
The post Où Est Le Président? appeared first on RedState.
There is a very simple explanation for this: “President Barack Obama will not join other world leaders at Sunday’s Paris march in tribute to the victims of this week’s Islamist attacks in France, a US official told AFP.” Basically, President Obama legitimately and genuinely does not understand why it is necessary for him – or a sufficiently dignified surrogate* – to represent our country at an activity such as this. From Obama’s point of view, since no American was attacked, no American was killed, and no American was involved he clearly thinks that our involvement in this matter is thus unnecessary. And since the formal solace and condolences from foreign dignitaries would offer no comfort to him in similar circumstances, Barack Obama apparently feels that offering his own detached sympathies would be essentially equally pointless.
I know that this explanation does not actually make you feel any better – and, to be honest about it, it’s not really supposed to. I am fully aware that this is an absolutely appalling description of the President’s likely motivations and impulses, and that it indeed suggests a fundamental detachment from the President, and our country’s collective impulses. I’m sorry if that bugs you, truly, but I gotta call them as I see them.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: We did have our ambassador there. Jane Hartley – and you’ll probably be relieved to find out that she does indeed speak French, at least. You never know with Obama’s bundler-ambassadors, alas (to be fair, Ambassador Hartley is a bit better than most of that type).
*I can understand why Secretary Kerry isn’t there; the Secretary of State is in India. But Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris today anyway. He apparently skipped the unity march. …Look, if the Left can’t understand why this looks bad, can they at least black-box the whole thing and accept that it looks bad? I think that the last few years have demonstrated pretty clearly why the American people default to looking to the Republican party for their foreign policy cues.
The post So, President Barack Obama skipped the French anti-terror unity march. appeared first on RedState.