HATRED, HEADLINES, HORROR AND HYPROCRISYby Growltiger*
After Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people and wounded 11 others The Economist headline on January 10, 2015 read: "Terror in Paris. The Attack on Charlie Hebdo". Keeping with the political correctness that is going to get us all killed if we're not careful, the Lefty magazine went on to warn that while "Islamists are assailing freedom of speech, vilifying all Islam is the wrong way to counter bloody medievalism." (1) In short, don't blame Muslims because Muslims shot up a magazine in the name of Islam and killed a bunch of people. Right.
But The Economist, had no problem vilifying right wing, fundamentalist Christians following the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. The magazine's headline on November 11, 2004, read: "The Triumph of the Religious Right". The article then went on to point out that "the anti-gay, anti-abortion Christian right that had decided the election dismayed left-wing Americans." Garry Willis in the New York Times (that famously non-partisan paper of record) suggested that "a fundamentalist Christian revival was in revolt against the traditions of the Enlightenment, on which the country is based." Playright and AIDS activist, Larry Kramer, hoped "we all realise (sic) that, as of November 2nd, gay rights are officially dead. And that from here on we are going to be led even closer to the guillotine." (2)
So let me get this straight. The world should not to vilify an entire religion because a bunch of misguided lunatics shot 12 people to death and wounded 11 others in an attack on "freedom of speech", but Christians electing a Republican to the presidency of the United States means the end of the Enlightenment and is the "first step" to gays being sent to the guillotine. In other words, "Don't worry about the hooded Muslim pointing the Kalashnikov at you, but run for your life if a Christian walks into a voting booth." One has to wonder how any being with a single functioning neuron can read this drivel and not crack up laughing. Unfortunately, the public educational systems of the West have removed critical thinking from the curriculum in the interests of propaganda and indoctrination.
Almost before the victims' blood clotted at Charlie Hebdo, Leftists on both sides of the Atlantic were lining up to lament the possibility that the attack might so enrage European voters as to cause them to overreact and elect right wingers to office which obviously they think is worse than being gunned down by fanatics shouting Allahu Akbar.
When North Korea hackers allegedly hacked the Sony Corporation computers in retaliation for a movie that demeaned North Korea's nutty leader and threatened to attack any theatre that showed the film, Sony Corporation pulled the film. Left and Right immediately demanded Sony release the film in order to send a message to the Koreans that an assault on artistic freedom will not be tolerated. Sony relented and released the film on DVD and to theatres. Art had triumphed. Dissent and satire would not be silenced.
Unless, of course, art, dissent and satire is directed at Islam or its Prophet. The same brave defenders of artistic freedom who bullied Sony into releasing "The Interview", lauded a photograph by Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine, applauded a painting of the Virgin Mary surrounded by pornographic images and elephant dung and saw nothing wrong with HBO showing President George W. Bush's head on a pike in "Game of Thrones" suddenly wondered if Charlie Hebdo hadn't gone too far.
Were the same logic supporters of artistic freedom applied to "The Interview" applied to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, every newspaper, news magazine and television news outlet would publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to show that barbarism will not prevail. But consistency is not the way of the Left. The Economist warns not to judge Muslims the way The Economist judges Christians and the NY Times, BBC and Washington Post judge Israel. Meanwhile U. S. News solemnly advises newspapers they "shouldn't feel pressure to reprint Charlie Hebdo's Muhammed cartoons just to prove a point." (3)
Why not? Isn't the point that massacring people whose speech you don't agree with a point worth making? Apparently not. Apparently Orwell was right. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." (4)
You might have to cut and paste to view the following sources:
(1) http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21638118-islamists-are-assailing-freedom-speech-vilifying-all-islam-wrong-way-counter
(2) http://www.economist.com/node/3375543
(3) http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-attack-should-not-force-media-to-reprint-muhammad-cartoons
(4) "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
