Why Assange, Snowden and their little henchmen aren’t heroes

The left-wing lauds Julian Assange, ignoring his alleged criminal behaviour.

They celebrate Edward Snowden despite the fact he is a traitor and currently enjoys the protection of a despotic virtual dictator.

They falsely claim that their enabler, Glenn Greenwald has won a Pulitzer Prize, when he has not.

They hold these three up as heroes, when the reality is starkly different.

Max Hastings calls them out and explains why the “liberals who defend traitors like Snowden and Assange should look at this photo and admit: We were deluded fools”.

248CD84100000578-0-image-a-58_1420854703652

Just imagine the Queen’s Birthday Parade, June 13, 2015: the monarch, her family and escorting officers are arrayed on Horse Guards’ in Whitehall, watching the serried red companies wheel and march past in slow time.

Suddenly, men burst from the crowd and begin spraying bullets among the soldiers and spectators.

It is a scenario from hell, yet no more fanciful than that of Wednesday’s massacre in a Paris magazine office, or last month’s slaughter of 132 schoolchildren in Peshawar, or the carnage of the London bus and Tube bombs of July 2005.

It is the sort of image with which security chiefs live every day of their working lives, because for them that would be the cost of a failure.

Yesterday’s dramatic events in France ended with three terrorists and four hostages dead after a formidable French security and intelligence operation.

The intelligence services have never doubted that new terrorist attacks will come to the West, including Britain. An event such as the Charlie Hebdo killings merely gives the ongoing threat a shocking new sense of immediacy.

On Thursday, the director general of MI5, Andrew Parker, made a rare speech, warning it was almost inevitable that an attack in this country would get through sooner or later. ‘Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know that we cannot hope to stop everything,’ he said.

The price of living in an open society, with the precious freedoms we take for granted, is that all of us, great and small, are vulnerable to attackers consumed by hatred for our culture, its values, and manifest superiority to those from which they come.

Globalisation places a disturbing number of such people in our midst, rather than far away in Somalia or Iran.

The good news is that although Islamic fanatics can cause us pain and grief, they pose no existential threat as did Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

They cannot be compromised or parleyed with, because they have no rational political demands: they claim affiliation to a feudal order in which women are denied rights, technology is banished and mullahs arbitrate over daily life.

This is the astonishing thing that I find difficult to believe. The very same liberals who support women’s rights, abortion on demand, demolishing of a so-called rape culture, gay rights, are supposedly anti-racist…and so on, yet they all support through their silence a feudal ideology that subjugates or kills those things, beliefs and people they hold dear.

Those who argue in favour of according ‘traditional British tolerance’ towards ‘young Muslim hotheads’ ignore the seriousness of what is going on around us. At least 300 British-born Muslims are currently thought to be fighting as jihadis in Iraq and Syria, alongside thousands more from other European nations.

These people cannot be compared — as liberal columnists sometimes foolishly suggest — with the young romantics who left Britain in the Thirties to fight General Franco’s fascism in the Spanish Civil War.

The jihadis embrace a nihilistic faith of which the consummation is no political victory, but instead death — for themselves and hapless innocents.

My old friend the military historian Professor Sir Michael Howard makes an important point: we in the West like to delude ourselves that most of the world wants to share the cultural freedom we cherish.

In reality, he says, freedom is a relatively modern idea, and huge numbers of people, many of them hardline Muslims, bitterly resist it.

It was demented hostility to freedom that caused the Paris killers to murder 12 people on Wednesday for mocking the Prophet, just as Monty Python and countless other Western comedians have for decades mocked Jesus Christ.

Michael Howard notes that fundamentalist Muslims feel a much stronger attachment to their tribe or sect than to any nation state. Jihadism, he says, represents a response to ‘the challenge of a secular, urban civilisation that threatens to destroy their traditional values and beliefs’.

It took us, in the West, about three centuries after the Enlightenment — when reason and individualism began to assert themselves in the 17th and 18th centuries — to become comfortable with what we now call cultural freedom.

We cannot expect doctrinaire Muslim societies from the East, which have fomented radicalism throughout the world, to do so in a few years.

‘It is not surprising that a fanatical minority, inspired by a romantic longing to return to the doctrines and practices of a pure Islam, aim at destroying the Western civilisation that they see as debauching the purity of their own culture and beliefs,’ says Howard.

If they won’t change then we must resist…with force.

Many who take up violence are losers, incapable of achieving social or professional success in their adopted societies. We should never underrate the role of boredom, a search for purpose, in persuading unstable young men to embrace terrorism.

But understanding the fanatics’ motivation does not in the least diminish the need vigorously to defend ourselves against them. In some ways, it is harder to counter people who acknowledge allegiance to no national flag than to confront Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or even Iran.

Our principal weapons against terrorists are not tanks, Typhoon fighter jets or warships, but instead intelligence officers using electronic surveillance.

Much cant has been peddled recently about the supposed threat to liberty posed by government eavesdropping on our lives.

Such people as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor turned treacherous fugitive), who have broadcast American and British secrets wholesale, are celebrated as heroes by some people who should know better, many of them writing for the Guardian or broadcasting for the BBC.

In truth, Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping.

A senior intelligence officer told me recently how dismayed he and his colleagues were by the risk that their listening operations would be curtailed by civil liberties campaigners. ‘GCHQ gives us the only edge we have got over these people’, he said.

I am convinced he is right, that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 must maintain their licence — within a legal framework — to trawl the ether, in the strongest public interest.

There may be a few mavericks within intelligence services who abuse such power, but unless we view the very existence of government as inherently wicked and threatening, I cannot for the life of me imagine what harm can result from MI5 accessing the phone calls, bank accounts, emails of you, me or any other law-abiding citizen. How much Amazon and Google know about our private lives seems much more alarming than what MI5 discovers.

Public safety demands a perpetual balancing act between collective security and the rights of the individual.

Snowden, Assange and their enablers have helped terrorists and criminals with their constant wailing about “deep state surveillance”. Every person who dies as a result of terrorism is on their heads.

History teaches that few societies are completely safe for long. All that changes is the nature of the threats.

Our forefathers lived with Jacobite rebels, machine-wrecking Luddites, mobs that smashed every window in the Duke of Wellington’s Apsley House in London, German bombers, trades union militants, Trotskyite revolutionaries, and Irish terrorists.

We would have more cause to be fearful of the Islamic fanatics if they were peddling a coherent doctrine such as communism or fascism, with a spurious plausibility.

Instead, the jihadists’ murderous outrages represent merely howls of fury against the 21st century, in which they are so ill-fitted to compete.

As MI5 warned on Thursday, there will be more acts of terrorism, some in Britain, and they will cause us distress.

Our intelligence services — and now the French security service — have been criticised because on several occasions terrorist attacks have been carried out by men whose names are discovered to have been on terrorist watch lists.

But logistically it is an impossible task for any intelligence agency to monitor the thousands, and even tens of thousands, of young Muslims known to have expressed an interest in violence.

What we must remember is that our society is much stronger than they are. Our values are those of civilisation, whereas they fly the black flag of barbarism.

There are plenty of people who worry about surveillance, some rage against it, other tweet inanities about it. Politicians whinge about it…but what other defences do we have against people who wish us death and harm?

Sit here and accept it? Wring our hands at the humanity of it all?

I prefer to live and stand on my feet, not crawl to the demands and wishes of a medieval death cult.

– Daily Mail


Do you want ad-free access to our Daily Crossword?

Do you want access to daily Incite Politics Magazine articles?

Silver Subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story.  And when he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet.   Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet, and as a result he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist that takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him.  But you can’t ignore him.

39%