The white supremacist Twitter account BlackLiesMatter has been tweeting this today as a tribute, both to its and certain other people's inability to understand dates, and to the charming company kept by Oliver Kamm, or Damian Thompson, or whoever is keeping a dossier of my past work for circulation to and through proxies of that species. Although who is whose proxy here, really?
Let me say that, within the context of the events of November 2011, I stand by every word of it. It has nothing to do with the events of today. I look forward to Peter Hitchens, to Peter Oborne and to The American Conservative on those. Not because they will necessarily be correct. But because they will certainly be worth thinking about.
(Thompson is having a nervous breakdown on Facebook and Twitter today. I mean that absolutely literally. Someone in London needs to intervene. Meanwhile, Kamm is presumably waiting for The Times to replace him with the better qualified and less discredited Johann "The Second Coming" Hari.)
I have never seen such hypocrisy in all my life. Considering that I spent much of my youth around local politics, that is saying no small thing indeed.
Neoconservatives love the French in general, and the French Left in particular? Do they hell! 10 years ago, they would have bombed Charlie Hebdo themselves.
Or, rather, they would have sent some poor boy to do it for them, even if he had died in the act. They broadly wanted to wipe Paris as a whole off the map.
But just as they mysteriously acquired an affection for the previously reviled Salman Rushdie, on whom see here, after "9/11", so they would have us believe that they had suddenly become admirers of the work of Charlie Hebdo.
Liars.
But then, we knew that, anyway.
I have never seen such hypocrisy in all my life. Considering that I spent much of my youth around local politics, that is saying no small thing indeed.
Neoconservatives love the French in general, and the French Left in particular? Do they hell! 10 years ago, they would have bombed Charlie Hebdo themselves.
Or, rather, they would have sent some poor boy to do it for them, even if he had died in the act. They broadly wanted to wipe Paris as a whole off the map.
But just as they mysteriously acquired an affection for the previously reviled Salman Rushdie, on whom see here, after "9/11", so they would have us believe that they had suddenly become admirers of the work of Charlie Hebdo.
Liars.
But then, we knew that, anyway.
I am not sure what you think the difference between the 2011 attacks and those of today is, other than the extent of the harm caused. The 2011 attacks were just less effective (at killing people). I personally don't believe that using firearms or explosives against satirical journalists is ever justified, however gratuitously and intentionally offensive those journalists might be. Apparently you do. Nor do I believe that capitulating to lunatics whose political philosophy hasn't progressed beyond the 17th century is a sound move in a liberal democracy. But, again, apparently you do.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen such hypocrisy in all my life. Considering that I spent much of my youth around local politics, that is saying no small thing indeed.
DeleteYou neoconservatives love the French in general, and the French Left in particular? Do you hell! 10 years ago, you would have bombed Charlie Hebdo yourselves.
Or, rather, you would have sent some poor boy to do it for you, even if he had died in the act. You broadly wanted to wipe Paris as a whole off the map.
But just as you mysteriously acquired an affection for the previously reviled Salman Rushdie after "9/11", so you would have us believe that you had suddenly become admirers of the work of Charlie Hebdo.
Liars.
But then, we knew that, anyway.
You've repeated a section of your post almost verbatim, apparently on the (entirely false) assumption that I'm a neoconservative. I'm not. I don't favour aggressive military adventurism. Nor do I favour needlessly antagonising religious minorities. However, when those minorities are clearly unable to accept that mockery of their deeply held beliefs is part and parcel of a free society, defiance and provocation are necessary to give them a lesson in the foundations of the freedom and tolerance of which they are the major beneficiaries.
DeleteOh, we just to have a Josh on these matters. I had thought that you were he. My apologies.
DeleteSomeone has certainly been given "a lesson" by all of this. But it was not those who might most obviously have benefited from one.
That said, the whole of France is looking at these cartoons in what is otherwise a fairly small-circulation magazine. And the FN will make hay.
Truly, in these cases, there are no winners.
Apology gratefully accepted. I too am concerned about the increase in support that the FN will inevitably enjoy as a result of this. However, I hold out some hope that journalistic defiance will - eventually, if not immediately - overwhelm the ability of these people to retaliate to perceived slurs. Force of numbers, I suspect, is one reason why they terrorise homosexuals in Tower Hamlets, and not fornicators or adulterers.
ReplyDelete"They terrorise homosexuals in Tower Hamlets"? I suspect that that is a bit strong.
DeleteSo Mr Linday, yes or no; Do you think Charlie Hebdo deserved it?
ReplyDeleteHow very odd. A month ago, we were told that Damian Thompson had blocked David from even reading, let alone commenting on, his Twitter posts. Now, mysteriously, we find that David is still following Damian on Twitter. How can this be?
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm blocked, all right, But when he tweets things with @davidaslindsay in them, then I still see them. Besides, I have people watching him.
Delete