The enemedia only follows their corporazi sales-master owner’s wishes to keep on trading for the cheap middle eastern oil and not rock the boat or disturb the rabid camel, because if they had to acknowledge that islam itself is the problem, that would expose the fact that there is a problem, and a solution – and they desperately don’t want to cut into their own profits by having to pay for perpetrating the problem they themselves foment and perpetuate by continuing to enable it.
“This is the surreal world of the American media, which wields its weapons of mass distraction with clinical precision, so that the news hour and the local paper are virtually indistinguishable in content from an old episode of The Jerry Springer Show. But it can’t possibly spare the time for a coherent discussion of the real world motives of two men who carried out a major terrorist attack in Boston.
Soviet citizens listened to the Voice of America to find out what their own government wouldn’t tell them. American citizens have to read The Sun and the Daily Mail, publications whose standards are slightly above that of The Huffington Post and yet, like the National Inquirer, have become one of the few outlets that will chase after the stories that the media has embargoed as effectively as Pravda.
Instead of wasting time on a dead end like Islam, the media has spent its time chasing down every other possible angle.
Did Tamerlan turn terrorist because he took too many blows to the head while boxing? Could the Boston Marathon bombing have been prevented if only we had let him win?
The New York Times assembled a touching story of an aspiring immigrant boxer radicalized by the petty restrictions of a government that wouldn’t let him apply for citizenship because of his history of domestic violence and appearance on a terrorist watch list. But how does that jibe with the Tamerlan from five earlier who beat up a boy that his sister was dating because he wasn’t Muslim?
When the media must deal with Tamerlan’s theology, it keeps him in the category of the troubled man who turned to some wacky extremist version of Islam propounded by a YouTube convert. The man who beat his sister’s boyfriend because he wasn’t a Muslim and beat his ex-girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab wasn’t some brainwashed drone who had his mind stolen by YouTube videos. He was a Muslim.
The Tamerlan of 2007 might not have watched as many Jihadist videos, but it would be a mistake to assume that he would have disagreed with their content. That Tamerlan might not have been looking at bombing targets, but neither would he have been upset and angry if some other Muslim had done what he would go on to do. Like Dzhokhar’s two Muslim friends, his first reaction would have been to cover it up.
When it comes to serial killers and mass shooters, the media is conditioned to look for a break that follows some life crisis. But with Muslim terrorists there is no discontinuity, only continuity. A few setbacks might have made terrorism more appealing to Tamerlan, but that would not have happened if it had not already been on his menu of life choices. Or that of his brother.
That angle is the most terrifying one that the media can think of. It’s the one that they can’t touch. It’s the one that they won’t let anyone else touch either. If they have to mention the “I” word, they will sandwich it between “extremist” and “radicalization”. But it’s not Tamerlan who was the radical extremist. Among Muslims, his views were mainstream. The Wahhabis are in ascendance in most parts of the world, including the United States. Islamist parties roundly won the Arab Spring.
What was the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the Syrian Jihadists held up by the media as the epitome of courage and bravery? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Hamas and Fatah terrorists that the media peevishly contends Israel must make peace with? What is the difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and any of the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists fighting in conflicts around the world?
While the European media, for all its faults, occasionally grapples with the incompatibility of liberal values and Muslim values; on this side of the ocean the topic is all but untouchable. There is no national censorship body that does this. Instead stories are held down by the weight of a consensus that insists the media exists to promote liberal values. All else follows from there.
The stories that promote liberal values are reported. The stories about a future Muslim terrorist beating his girlfriend because she wouldn’t wear a Hijab are not because those stories create a sneaking suspicion that Muslim multiculturalism is incompatible with liberal values. And the incompatible Muslims, like Mohammed’s face, have been pixelated out of existence in reports on the terrorist attacks by disgruntled boxers, doctors and perfume salesmen who just happen to be Muslim.
These are the Muslims that the media doesn’t see. And it is doing everything possible to make sure that we don’t see them either.”
A few days ago, Statistics Canada released a long-awaited Survey (the National Household Survey) which reveals Canadian’s attitudes and opinions about islam. This disturbed the media, because it reflected the reality that there is a growing self-educated awareness amongst the hoi-paloi about islam’s true, official and “god”-sanctioned intentions towards them – not a pretty sight, Martha!
“Canada’s rapidly increasing Muslim population is expected to be a huge focus of this week’s National Household Survey, whose first results will be released May 8 by Statistics Canada. The voluntary survey, which took the place of the long-form census in 2011, will provide the first comprehensive look at religion in this country in 10 years.
During that decade, the number of Muslims in Canada has soared by more than 62 per cent, and is projected to triple – to at least 2.87 million – in the next 18 years. It’s no wonder insiders say the updated faith figures will be of great interest to many Canadians, although, says one expert, “probably, in most cases, not for the right reasons.”
“There seems to be growing concern about the growth of Islam, arising from high-profile incidents in the news,” said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies. “That may lend itself to more debate about immigration and multiculturalism – which would be the wrong conclusion to draw, to my point of view.”
Those high profile events include a horrific bombing attack on the Boston marathon, and an alleged plot to derail a passenger train in Canada. In both cases, the authorities have pointed to suspects who are Muslim.
In March, Leger Marketing conducted a 1,500-person survey for the ACS in which fewer than half of respondents – 46 per cent – held a positive opinion of Muslims (by contrast, 70 per cent held favourable views of Catholics, 74 per cent for Protestants, 69 per cent for Jews and 61 per cent for atheists). Nearly four in 10 (38 per cent) said they trusted Muslims “very little” or “not at all.””
Then, as if that weren’t bad enought for those multicultural racists fourth estate fifth columnists, today saw the release of the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) study which revealed (“shockingly!” I’m sure) that contrary to their popular, backwards and fact-free credo that “poverty causes terrorism!” – it really DOESN’T!
“The work involved a two-year analysis of existing literature on terrorism and radicalization and explored two elements of routes to terrorism: the psychological processes and the impact of economic factors.
Cultural alienation and disenfranchisement as possible root causes are mentioned only once in the 33,000-word document.
And contrary to the populist view that economic hardship leads to radicalization, the report says researchers in the area seem unequivocal in their conclusion that there is no link between economic factors and radicalization, and that many radicals are, in fact, economically advantaged compared to others in their communities.”
Poverty and Liberal Crime:
So, is poverty the result of crime, or vice-versa? Criminals refuse to work and prefer to steal from others. They often form into might-makes-right gangs to do so. And they blame their victims. It’s a pattern.
“Leftists” fit the pattern perfectly.
And it’s a vicious cycle:
Many poor people have had their lives degraded by the leftist victimology salesmanship which discourages the maintenance of their families, relieves people of their fear of want (which is what creates ambition and self-reliance,) and by teaching them that they are hated and helpless victims of larger social groups, undermines their hope in their own ability to shape their futures.
Many places in the world inhabited by those in relatively extreme poverty also seem to enjoy the lowest crime rates.
But when a global impoverishment (like islam) happens, people are quick to blame the victims – in this case, themselves!
“Multi-Culturalism” IS “Racism!”
Liberals say: “WE (i.e: you) have to help Blacks because they are inferior!” And of course they always insist it’s the White Man’s Fault (burden) because we are just so much smarter than they are, that of course it’s all our fault for picking on the poor dumb animals. Liberals ARE racists!
Because, even with all their oil money, the moslem countries are at the exact bottom of all the world developmental indexes – why? Well, if it ISN’T the software (“cultural” indoctrination, which libs pretend has the exact same – negligible – effect on everyone everywhere) then it must be the hardware (‘race,’ or breed of human) – they can’t have it both ways! And, even if it’s “because white people have always exploited them!” – that simply means we COULD only exploit them – because we’re so much smarter than they are – right?!
Something like the Arab Spring happens every time feel-good liberal victimologists get in charge: “Gee we’ll just send them a pile of money and tell them how sorry we are for their tough life”… which leads to money gone and a lot of hate-American protests … good plan. Repeat endlessly.
When liberals assert that “poverty causes crime!” they’re really only confessing that:
“If I didn’t have something I wanted or needed, I’d be first in line to steal it from someone else, too! Whee!”
Liberals want an EMOCRACY – because, like their moslem brethren, these crybaby extortionists assert that, if only everyone else will Submit to giving them all their stuff, they will finally be happy and at “Peace!”
Which brings us to the UN’s recent involvement in the ‘Arab Spring.’ The UN has become a victim-blaming extortion racket; a global stockholm syndrome crime-syndicate working for it’s big moslem brother, islam itself. If and when any sovereign governments are faced with criminal rebellions, the world powers will quickly act on behalf of the criminals, to help topple that government for islam.
This is everyone’s ultimate fate under the tender mercies of the nannystate instinct, which is ALWAYS that they don’t care about who-started-it justice, they only ever always want it all to be stopped. They thus also always blame the victims by codlding the predatory criminals – the bullying aggressors! Islam itself is the most brutal dictatorship ever seen in the world.
And so, as Andrew Klavan recently noted, it seems it’s the nannystate’s propaganda voice, the enemedia, which has taken upon itself the right and responsibility to “instruct” all us hater racist bigots to not retaliate against islamic extortion; in order to maintain their preferred masochistic moral high ground, we must, like them, all learn to become better victims:
“Now, I hold no brief against anyone’s religion. The standard disclaimer that there are millions of peaceful, decent Islamic people should go without saying — but it’s important enough to say anyway. Still, the fact is that Islam plays a primary role in violence, not just here, but around the world. In the words of the late Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.” A few quotes from his book The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order, written before 9-11:
The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts… have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims…. Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples…. Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of late-twentieth-century conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming.
Now this overwhelming evidence — which the book proceeds to supply — raises any number of questions: Is this violence inherent in Muslim beliefs? Is it part of a larger cultural phenomenon? Is it (like the unimaginable violence in Christendom during the 17th century) a prelude to reform? And how are we to deal with this violence without unduly penalizing the millions of non-violent Muslims? And so on.
But a news organization’s attempt to hide the evidence raises really only one question: Who the hell do these knuckleheads think they’re talking to? Who exactly do they think you are?
Do they think they’re fooling you? Do they think you haven’t noticed this cancer of violence spreading through the Islamic world? Or maybe they think you’re so full of rage and bigotry that you can’t handle the truth without — what? — turning on your decent, patriotic Islamic-American neighbor in a murderous Bad-Day-at-Black-Rock rage?
If that’s what they think of you, why do they even bother trying to push mis-information into your thick, troglodytic skull? If that’s what they think of you, why would they ever believe you could be smart enough to buy the wonderful products they try to sell you between bouts of lying?
And most importantly, if that’s what they think of you, why would you ever watch them at all?”
Finally, I’d like to re-post the considered thoughts of ex- (or “recovered”) Muslim Bosch Fawstin (the creator of the infamous Infidel and PigMan comics) regarding “moderate” versus “radical” moslems:
“For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, here are some of my thoughts on that:
First, my name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim, so I have some insight into this, coupled with the fact that I studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11.
There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his choice somehow shines a good light on Islam. It doesn’t. A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam.”