FINALLY. Some COMMON SENSE About The Paris Slaughter

We have heard the wailing. We have seen the hand wringing. We’ve had to put up with the leftist media version of what happened in Paris.

Here, like a breath of fresh air in a pig barn, comes some truth. See if you agree. Story from James Delingpole at Breitbart



Seven Shoddy Excuses Lefties Use to Justify the Massacres in Paris.

The “offending” cartoon leading to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo’s offices. Is Islam THIS thin-skinned ? Apparently so. Leftists CRINGE, but the BELOW photo, they applaud.

Robert Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ”, a crucifix placed in a jar of piss. CELEBRATED by leftists as “art”, paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer. How many Christians burned down buildings, killed journalists, took hostages then murdered them, or flew planes into buildings over THIS outrage ? The leftist media sure has a weird way of viewing the world.

1. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

This hackneyed faux-truism is the Expecto Patronum of squishy liberal apologists. That is, when the going gets tough and they’re forced to do that difficult thing – defending free speech – they reach desperately for this magical formula, rather as Harry Potter does when faced with the Dementors. Once the phrase has been uttered, they seem to think, the argument has been made for them and the nasty, scary problem will go away – as no doubt the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable did when he used it in the most recent edition of BBC Question Time.

But the analogy just doesn’t work for at least three good reasons.

First, if the theatre wasn’t on fire, as seems to be implicit, why would anyone want to say it was? You just wouldn’t. Not unless you were mentally ill. So really, to observe that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” is a bit like saying “you can’t put your willy in a pit-bull’s mouth”. Trivially true. But so what?

Second, any legal restrictions there may be on shouting fire in crowded theatres which aren’t on fire have to do with protection of life and property rights. You might cause a stampede which could lead to fatalities; at best you would damage the theatre’s box office. These laws, therefore, are an expression of common consent. Not so the prescriptions on blasphemy which terrorists like the Charlie Hebdo murderers would like to impose on us. In order for them to become so, we would have all to agree that the precepts of Sharia law are something we should all obey, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Currently we don’t, though it seems to be the case that people who wheel out the “crowded theatre” aphorism think that we should.

Third, as Mark Steyn argues here and here, the theatre is on fire.

2. “Offensive”

I see that in a Daily Guardiangraph leader today the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are described as “offensive.” Was this adjective really necessary? It seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming. But last time I checked “offensiveness” in the West was not a capital crime. Indeed, freedom to cause offense is surely one of the defining qualities of a mature, socially liberal culture. It’s how we explore the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, by testing ideas – good and bad ones alike – in the crucible of debate. If people are wrong, we are free to tell them so – and explain why they are wrong. If we simply decide that some things cannot be said simply because they are “offensive” this enables aggrieved minorities to close down any argument they dislike without its ever being aired in public. This is not freedom of speech, but the opposite.

3. “Provocative.”

The first time I heard this justification was – bizarrely – from an old university friend of mine in the aftermath of the brutal 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh. Sure it was jolly sad and upsetting, she argued, but frankly the guy was an outrageous provocateur who deliberately courted controversy so we should hardly be surprised that he came to a sticky end.

Wow! I never met Theo Van Gogh but I’m pretty sure that, had I asked him, he would have said that being shot in the street was not part of his life plan. Nor was it for the Charlie Hebdo team. They did what they did not, I suspect, because they wanted to but because they felt they had to. Why? Because of precisely the kind of cultural surrender they would have recognised in my university friend’s response to Theo Van Gogh’s death.

4. “Islamophobia”

It’s a nonsense term, of course, because phobias are traditionally a fear of something irrational. But it’s also a classic example of something the progressives are forever enjoining us not to do: victim-blaming. Those millions who gathered in Paris and elsewhere yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo vigils: do we imagine that any one of them wants anything other than to live in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours? It’s really about time that lefty apologists like Owen Jones stopped responding to every new Islamist atrocity as if it were otherwise.

5. “Anders Breivik”

If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….” (Note incidentally how Owen Jones goes for the double here: Islamophobia and Breivik)

6. “The spectre of the Far Right.”

Another favourite cliche of progressive apologists, as witness most BBC reports on the killings in Paris. Yes, all right, so it seems that most of the evidence – well, all the evidence, actually – points to the murders being the work of fanatical Islamist cells. But it never does any harm, if you’re a liberal, to spread the blame a bit by suggesting that Marine Le Pen and her resurgent Front National (aka “the spectre of the Far Right”) may have played their part in “stoking tensions…”

Oh and one more thing to be noted about “spectres”: being insubstantial, they lack the ability to kill people.

Actually, two more things: Owen Jones again. He’s gone for the treble! (“The favourite target of the Far Right in Europe is…Muslims”). Go on, my son! Back of the net!)

7. “Editorial foolishness”

This is quite similar to point 3, but let’s give a special paragraph of shame to the senior Financial Times editor Tony Barber for that disgraceful apologia for terrorist violence he published the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.

What Barber (and his craven ilk) don’t seem to realise is that are many, many of us out here who could produce any number of such niggling criticisms of Charlie Hebdo and who, too, secretly rather wish they’d never gone and published those bloody cartoons. But that’s really not the point. They did it to establish a principle. We may not agree with how they did it and few, if any, of us would have done it ourselves. But the principle for which they were fighting ought to be sacrosanct. Either you have free speech or you don’t. Any one trying to argue otherwise has no business being a journalist.


As leftists try to “blame” the muslim-inspired massacre at Charlie Hebdo on right-wing “religious intolerance”, it is good to see some TRUTH come out.

Anyone trying to “blame” ANYTHING but the hatred-filled stuck in the 7th century barbarians proves THEY have their heads firmly shoved up their asses. Does anyone with a firing brain cell believe ANY western “journalist” would WANT to live under Sharia Law ? Do THEY have a CLUE about it? Unlikely.

As the world finds out more about WHO, and WHY this massacre took place, it SHOULD become clear to even the most stuck in the mud moronic media members that militant Islam, and their 7th century mindset IS the problem.

After all, those who MAKE THEIR LIVING off the RIGHT to free speech should “get it”, and understand it better than most people.


CLYDE. Wondering WHY media morons would side with those who would just as soon SHUT THEM UP. If not separate their heads from their shoulders.

Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to FINALLY. Some COMMON SENSE About The Paris Slaughter

  1. Rich B says:

    Great post Clyde. As I’ve said at least a thousand times, political correctness IS destroying America. It already has seriously crippled Europe. The only thing left is the world itself. I think the Old Testament has a chapter named Revelations that covers what’s going on quite well. I’m not a particularly religious person but I can read the writing on the wall.

    This battle of religions can only end one way if the muslims have their choice – either they go or the world goes. It’s their so-called religion that’s being forced down the throat of the free world but I’m betting on the West to prevail in the end. It may not look that way now but our hand is being forced and sooner or later the people of Europe will come crying to the USA once more to bail them out of their own screw ups.

    As of now, with the coward-in-chief we have in the White House we couldn’t have the worst possible scenario or “leader” in charge, both at the worse possible time. But things will change and the worm will turn. This IS a cause worth fighting and if need be dying for. And as usual, Americans will do the fighting and we can let the muslims do the dying.

    “So let it be written…. So let it be done.” Ramses The Third – AKA Yul Brynner.

    Tee hee… I had to sneak that one in there. I love classic Biblical movies.

    • Clyde says:

      P.C. is all part of the Grand Plan. Too bad it is working so well. Time to make a stand against IT, as well as militant Islam. Good comments, Rich. You’ve nailed it. Thanks.

      • upaces88 says:

        I read this article and it hit me so hard thar I wrote to the author to allow me top copy it and past it everywhere I could.

        Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech
        The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.

        The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.

        I. Definition of Political Correctness

        Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. defines PC as

        1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

        PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.

        One author sums up this idea:

        Political correctness has 3 features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes & beliefs divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think & what they are permitted to discuss. Third, & most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, & which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, & become focused on the cares & concerns of minority groups.

        Yet, when peeling back the layers of the onion of PC, one cannot help but notice a strongly socialist or Marxist bent to these rules. And this is no coincidence. As Bill Lind says,

        Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

        So PC is a method for transporting Marxist ideas into traditional cultures.

        PLEASE Continue reading:

        Kelly can be reached

  2. Kathy says:

    The problem with the muzzies is that they don’t care how offended we are – it only matters when they’re offended by something we did. Otherwise, they’d be in the streets denouncing the terrorist actions.

    I just wish they’d stop calling it a phobia, because it’s not. It’s hatred, whatever the word is for that.

    Good piece, Clyde.

    • Clyde says:

      Thanks, Kathy. Great catch. Hatred is indeed the issue. It DAMN sure isn’t about “being offended”. Democrats, and leftists offend ME every day, and yet, I have done THEM no harm.

  3. Garnet92 says:

    Rich really stole my thunder in blaming political correctness for our coddling of muslim terrorists and their activities. We don’t want to “offend” anyone. Aren’t we taught that fairness demands that we treat others the way that we want to be treated ourselves? Then why do we accept the jihad against everything that we hold holy as SOP? As has been said many times, THEY are at war with us, but we’re not at war with them – we keep turning the other cheek. One day, when our population wakes up and finds sharia intruding into our everyday lives, we’ll put an end to it. I only hope that we have a POTUS with balls who will do what needs to be done.

    Think about it, what will the world miss if we exterminate the cancerous portion of muslims that are causing the problems, we’d miss Charlie Hebdo, the 911 disaster, the Ft. Hood shootings, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. Is that so bad?

    • Clyde says:

      Rich has a way of getting right down to it, for sure. YOUR comments are excellent as well. WE are awake to the threat. Our “leaders”, and their media mouthpiece myrmidons are NOT. Big difference. Thanks, Garnet.

  4. CW says:

    Funny how the Left didn’t excuse police for reacting to the provocative acts by Michael Brown (unless they want to claim that pushing a cop and attempting to grab for his gun don’t qualify as “provocative”). There’s always one standard for them and another standard for everyone else, depending on what suits the agenda.

    • Clyde says:

      No question about it, CW. Just yesterday in Detroit, a black man hijacked a car at gunpoint, the police nailed him, the asshole was SHOWN ON VIDEO clearly going for an officer’s weapon, the MEDIA is claimuing police brutality after the video shows the other officers kicking, punching, doing whatever THEY can do to keep from being shot. The MEDIA ITSELF is a BIG part of the problem.

  5. Terry says:

    Excellent comments by all.
    But since no one else used it, allow me :

    “It’s not ‘Islamophobia’ if they REALLY ARE trying (and succeeding) to kill you.”

    And they are, brother, they are.