Same situation but different conclusions from left-wing media

There has been a brutal killing of a British politician. The way it is being reported is very different to how other brutal killings have been reported.

When the murderer is a Muslim and aligned to an Islamic terrorist organisation the left-wing media go out of their way to deny that the killing is linked in any way to Islam. They find scapegoats to blame. Their mantra is Islam is a religion of peace and you are racist to draw a negative conclusion about Islam just because a Muslim who yelled Allahu Akbar said he was doing it for ISIS and ISIS claimed responsibility.

In this case they are very happy to draw conclusions because of what the killer allegedly yelled as he was killing the politician. (This claim has since been disproved.) They are not impressed that the organisation they want to blame for the killing denies any involvement. They are blaming it anyway. In fact, their stance is: of course they would deny it, that’s what guilty people say. So far they haven’t blamed the killing on poor gun control laws like they do with Islamic terror attacks but that may be because the United Kingdom has some of the most highly restrictive gun laws in the world. Clearly no law will ever stop someone intent on causing harm. If a politician can be easily gunned down in Britain then it shows that the argument about gun laws being the problem has more holes than a colander.

The slide from civilisation to barbarism is shorter than we might like to imagine. Every violent crime taints the ideal of an orderly society, but when that crime is committed against the people who are peacefully selected to write the rules, then the affront is that much more profound.

Contrast this report with any report about an Islamic terror attack. The word barbarism is never used because no one wants to offend Muslims by implying that Islam is a barbaric religion. This rule obviously does not apply if a white man is to blame.

…Here was the MP whom the citizens of Batley and Spen had entrusted to represent them, fresh from conducting her duty to solve the practical problems of those same citizens in a constituency surgery. To single her out, at this time and in this place, is to turn a gun on every value of which decent Britons are justifiably proud.

This attack against a single person has been called an attack on all Britons but when have you seen this rhetoric used in a description of an Islamic terrorist attack? How often do the left-wing media call a terrorist attack an attack against a country as a whole? They don’t, because their idealism prevents them from recognising it as an attack on Western values. They call it a lone wolf attack and nothing to do with Islam. The person was mentally ill they say, time after time after time.

Jo Cox, however, was not just any MP doing her duty. She was also an MP who was driven by an ideal. The former charity worker explained what that ideal was as eloquently as anyone could in her maiden speech last year. “Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration,” she insisted, “be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir. While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”

What nobler vision can there be than that of a society where people can be comfortable in their difference? And what more fundamental tenet of decency is there than to put first and to cherish all that makes us human, as opposed to what divides one group from another? These are ideals that are often maligned when they are described as multiculturalism, but they are precious nonetheless. They are the ideals which led Ms Cox to campaign tirelessly for the brutalised and displaced people of Syria, and – the most painful thought – ideals for which she may now have died.

Look at how often the word ideals has been used here. Only yesterday I had a post explaining how the left are idealists and see the world how they want it to be, not how it actually is. If Jo Cox had been gunned down by a Muslim they would be using the same rhetoric to explain why she would not want him punished because it was Britain’s fault for not making him feel welcome and accepted.

This was no random event, and the police are investigating reports that the assailant yelled “Britain First” during the attack. This is not merely a chauvinist taunt, but the name of a far-right political party, whose candidate for City Hall turned his back in disgust on Sadiq Khan at the count, in sectarian rage at a great cosmopolitan city’s decision to make a Muslim mayor. The thuggish outfit denounced Ms Cox’s murder, as it was bound to do. But their brand of angry blame-mongering could very well serve to convince particular individuals – especially those who are already close to the edge, as it is reported Ms Cox’s murderer was – that some people are less than human, and thus fair game for attack. The rhetoric of western racism and Islamophobia is the mirror of the ideology with which Isis and al-Qaida secure their recruits and that persuades them to strap explosives to themselves, and die in order to kill. It might be especially powerful in Britain, at a time when divisive hate-mongering is seeping into the mainstream.

The article says that killing of politicians is very rare but still claims that it was not a random event.

…in Britain violence against MPs in Britain is mercifully rare. Only three have been killed in recent history: Airey Neave, Tony Berry and Ian Gow, all of them at the hands of the Irish republicans.

Terrorist attacks are now common yet media persist in referring to them as isolated events that have nothing to do with Islam. They will not use negative language to describe  Muslim terrorists (lone wolves with mental health problems)  yet are quick to describe an organisation that has denied any involvement at all in the murder as thuggish, blame-mongering and divisive hate-mongers. In contrast when ISIS happily takes responsibility for terrorist attacks the media still refuse to accept that Islam is in any way responsible.

…The idealism of Ms Cox was the very antithesis of such brutal cynicism. Honour her memory. Because the values and the commitment that she embodied are all that we have to keep barbarism at bay.

This, dear readers, is exactly why we need right-wing people as much as we need left-wing people. Values and commitment do not keep the barbarians at bay. Tough law and order and our military do. Tough immigration laws policed by cynical and realistic individuals do. Idealistic people are the downfall of our civilisation if left unchecked. They see the world how they want it to be not as it actually is. If they are the gatekeepers, God help us all.

-the guardian.com

mental6-6e

After the tragic murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, Vote Remain and the mainstream media wasted no time in crafting an unfunded political narrative in an attempt to influence the European Union Referendum vote. Paul Joseph Watson joins Stefan Molyneux to break down the latest Brexit media manipulations and correct the false narrative around the unfortunate death of Mrs. Jo Cox.

-Youtube


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

If you agree with me that’s nice, but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo, look between the lines and do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.

You can follow me on Gab.ai 

To read my previous articles click on my name in blue.

64%