On January 7th we saw the political, intellectual, and mainstream
media establishments around the world stare with dropped jaws and frozen saucer
eyes at the massacre
of twelve people
in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. The spectacle
was worthy of a “deer in the headlights” Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
In the wake of the attacks, those establishments went into full
denial mode. They repaired to the Club of Denial for a sleep-over.
They’ve had time to sleep on the event, recover from the trauma,
regain their composure, and in the morning, issue in their grogginess hysterical,
astonishing denials that the three individuals responsible for machine gunning
the staff of the satirical magazine to revenge the “Prophet” had nothing to do
with Islam, or that Islam had nothing to do with the attack. They haven’t got
that straight yet.  One almost expects
them to claim that the three Muslims were renegade Quakers who were really
upset at Charlie Hebdo over its impiety.  They dressed like terrorists and spoke Arabic
just to fool everyone.
Or, they were really Muslims who wanted to besmirch Islam’s “good
name”? Or, perhaps didn’t want to besmirch it? 
Nevertheless, according to the politicians, the intellectuals and PC
pundits, and the MSM, the killers had nothing to do with Islam. They’d heard
that the jihadists even left a note to that effect on the body of one of their
victims, a note which the French authorities have not yet released to the public
lest it compound the offense and cause more car burnings and “lone wolf”
assaults on Frenchmen. Sources close to their contacts say the note read: L’Islam est une religion de paix! 
Obviously, these “terrorists” had mental problems, they were all
escapees from a Bolivian psychiatric hospital and traveling on false Tasmanian passports.
They had a history of mental turmoil ever since they threw their Korans to the
floor from their highchairs in a typical infantile tantrum because they
couldn’t have their halal oatmeal.  So, who knows which screws are loose in the
attackers’ minds? Responsibility can’t rest on any one set of ideas.
Those “violent” Koranic imperatives, after all, could just as
easily be interpreted to read : “Take a Jew to lunch at the Behind the Tree
Coffee Shop,” or “Rape is bad. That isn’t nice. Invite the exposed meat to a Tupperware
party, or  “There’s no money in
beheadings. Open up a Barber Shop and Hair Salon for Men and Women instead.”
The killers had nothing to do with Islam.  They weren’t motivated by Islam, except
perhaps by a paltry handful of Koranic verses that could be interpreted any one
of a dozen ways. They were blameless “Walking Dead” zombies who can’t help but
kill and destroy. That’s the Party line.
You see, psychotic, touchy, super-sensitive criminals obsessed
with an icon, Mohammad, who was also a psychotic, touchy, super-sensitive
criminal, have a right not to be provoked or incited by loose lips that sink
ships and cartoons that swell and inflame their frontal cortexes.
If they go on murderous rampages, it’s our fault for sticking our tongues out
at them or giving them the Italian salute or by putting eye-liner and rouge on
depictions of Mohammad.  Had we not
offended them by mocking their icon, we wouldn’t even know they were there.
Except that we know they’re there and object to their presence –
nay, even to their very existence among us, for they are either passive,
assembly-line manqués, or grenades whose pins ready to be pulled.
One senses that the kneejerk deniers of the true calling of Islam  are quivering with the fear that the public
will expect them to lay the blame on Islam, pure and simple. This, they don’t
want to do. That would mean emerging from their Kantian, moral relativity shells
to look at the truth with saucer eyes and with all the dignity of a newly
hatched ostrich.
One reads the actual denials and they’re not far from being
self-satirical. One asks: What world are these people living in? Are they
actually pod people sprung from alien watermelons? Invaders from a parallel universe
who have settled here and taken control of our culture?
Is it a neurosis that strikes just liberals and leftists and
cringing conservatives? Or is it an undiagnosed psychosis for which there exists
no cure and no medication? Whatever its identity, the condition is embedded in
their minds and there is no reconciliation or redemption in it.
The truth is that every one of these vehicles of denial is living in an imaginary universe where
reality is simply a phantasm, but their communal, consensus-driven fantasy
takes precedence over facts and truth because they’ve imbibed the idea from
Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel and their disciples that reality is unreal and
subjective and unknowable. They’ve drunk from that well of philosophical
Kool-Aid called Kantiism. They exude a militant delusion that refuses to accept
the evidence of their senses.  
It does no good to point to the reality
that Islam
is the root cause and nihilistic end of all the violence we have
seen over the last month: From the Sydney chocolate shop murders by Muslims to
the car jihad actions to the murder-executions of Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier
and his staff in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, followed by the cold-blooded
killing of a French policewoman during a traffic accident and the hostage-
takings at two other French locations, a kosher grocery store and a printing
shop, where hostages were taken (and four murdered). It’s a waste of time to
shove reality in front of their faces. They aren’t going to be persuaded.
They’d rather kiss a Muslim’s butt than stop and ask him: “What’s
wrong with you?”
 Nous sommes tous Charlie. We are all Charlie now. Well, not everyone. Many might mean it. The
politicians, intellectuals, PC Pundits, however, are all crying crocodile
tears. (Except for Barack
Obama
, who uttered the usual formulaic platitudes, but don’t expect him to
retract his U.N. diktat that “the
future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam
.”)
They don’t want to be
Charlie Hebdo. That would contradict their chimerical world view.
The list of broadcasters, columnists, and publications that are in
denial and refuse to even reprint one of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical
covers
is a long and indecent roll-call of cowards and compromisers.  Heading the list here is the White House’s
latest Charley McCarthy ventriloquist dummy, Press
Secretary Josh Earnest.
, who was interviewed on January 7th as the Paris
events were unfolding.
 “This is a terrible act of violence, and
one that we condemn in the strongest possible terms,” White House
spokesman Josh Earnest told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday
morning, shortly after masked gunman killed 12 people at the offices of a
satirical newspaper in Paris that has made fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
French
President Francois Hollande called Tuesday’s massacre a terror attack, but
Earnest did not: He used the phrase “terrible act of violence” three
times, and he also called Islam a “peaceful religion.”
How original. Dear Mr. Earnest: Name me an “act of violence” that
involves slaughtering unarmed people that isn’t “terrible.”  By that definition, the St. Valentine’s Day
Massacre in Chicago in 1929, which saw gangsters gunning down unarmed
gangsters,  was “terrible.”
This violent
extremism is something that the world has been dealing with for more than a
decade now,” Earnest said. “And we obviously are trying to monitor
what we consider to be a really important threat, which is this threat of
foreign fighters. So it is clear that ISIL does harbor the ambition to try and
radicalize people all across the globe, and one core component of our strategy
has been to mobilize the …leaders in the Muslim community, particularly the
moderate voices in the Muslim community, to talk about what the values of Islam
really are. It’s a peaceful religion.
“And it’s
terrible that we’re seeing some radical extremists attempt to use some of the
values and tenets of that religion and distort them greatly and inspire people
to commit terrible acts of violence.”
There’s those “radical extremists” again. Those renegade Quakers.
President of France François Hollande assured
his nation
on January 9th that the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre
and subsequent carnage involving the murders of policemen and hostages had
nothing to do with anything.  Especially
not with Islam.
“Not being divided means we must not paint people with a broad brush, we
must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these
terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the
Muslim religion.”
Au contraire, replies Anjem
Choudary
, the “British” preacher of “fundamentalist” Islam, who provided
the world with a clarification in USA TODAY on January 8th on just how much
Islam is a “religion of peace.”
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather
means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not
believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions
are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression,
even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an
increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of
insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them
than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be
an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime
under Sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.
This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet
kill him.” However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which
all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we
often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such
as laws against incitement and hatred.
That’s non-fanatical Islam speaking. You
can’t get plainer than that. Mr. Choudary is as “moderate” as Islam can get. Choudary
says there is a “division,” as between master and slave, and those who say what
they please about the “prophet” must be dealt with in fatal fashion, even by
alleged “radicals” who take the law into their own hands. We infidels have a
statutory responsibility to gag ourselves when we are tempted to observe that
the duck fills all the criteria of being a duck.
As Muslims in Britain run “grooming” gangs to subject British girls
to sexual slavery, beginning with sweet talk and long walks on the beach, and
ending with gang rapes in anonymous rooms,
the West is being “groomed,” as well, beginning with sweet
talk  — aka, taqiyya – and ending with across-the-board slavery as rightless
kaffirs and deferential subjects of Allah, is what Islam has in mind for the
West. The petit fascism of political
correcntess can only become a fascism writ large, and Islam means to be that
fascism.
But, what enables Islam? Kant. Moral relativism.  Progressivism. Multiculturalism. Tolerance of
the irrational under the guise of cultural diversity. A refusal to think. All
in all, these doctrines, dogmas, and habits save their adherents the bother of
having any values to fight for, to defend, to preserve, to protect. Values mean
thinking and passing judgment. The adherents don’t want to judge. They don’t
want to think. They want to exist without values, without reason.
Literally.
Mark Steyn, that  irascible,
fisticuffs champion of freedom of speech, in his January 10th column,
appropriately named “Hollande Daze,” ladled
out some biting sauces for the goose and for the gander:
The louder the perpetrators yell “Allahu Akbar” and rejoice
that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and
Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no
Islam to see here. M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s
commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his
monstrous lie.
Is he just pandering? There are, supposedly, six million Muslims in
France, and he got 93 per cent of their vote last time round. Or is he afraid
of the forces that might be unleashed if the Official Lie were not
wholeheartedly upheld? Stéphane Charbonnier said he’d rather die standing than
live on his knees; M Hollande thinks he can get by with a furtive crouch.
Here is a short roll-call of the Club of Denial:
The German
Interior Minister Thomas
de Maizière
: “The extremist Islamism, Islamist terrorism, is something
quite different from the Islam. And this differentiation is urgently needed
just on a day like today.”
Fox News,
MSNBC, NBC, CNN:  In its breaking news
coverage of the Paris
killings at Charlie Hebdo magazine
, “Fox & Friends,” the morning show
of Fox News, showed a shot of one of the magazine’s controversial cartoons. Yet
the network, according to a spokeswoman, has “no plans” to show further
examples. Fox News’s decision falls in line with those of other cable news
outlets. As reported earlier here
and here,
CNN has cropped out the provocative drawings from its coverage of the killings.
And in an extensive
rundown of the news media’s approach to the matter
, Rosie Gray and Ellie
Hall of BuzzFeed note this policy at the NBC family: “Our NBC News Group
Standards team has sent guidance to NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC not to show
headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive.”
Financial
Times
of London: “…It is merely to say that some common sense would be
useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten,
which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.”
Variety:
“The Charlie Hebdo carnage will likely fuel the racism and anti-Islam sentiment
which has been on the rise in France.  It will also certainly boost the
popularity of far-right (Front national) party leader Marine Le Pen, who is
expected to run for President in 2017.”
All of these brave publications and many more answered “Present”
when the Chairman of the Club of Denial called the roll for a vote on whether
or not  to show Charlie Hebdo’s
unadulterated Mohammad cartoons. The Nays have it: “No.”  
There was one dissenting vote against self-censorship, but he was
wrestled to the floor by the sergeant-at-arms and ejected from the chamber as
most members taunted him with charges of “Islamophobe!” “racist!” and “bigot!”
Douglas Murray in a Gatestone Institute column, “We Are
Charlie: Free Speech vs. Self-Censorship
” on January 8th observed: 
Those of us who
have proposed that all Western — and in particular European — news outlets
should multilaterally publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons have been
greeted in return with a terrified and terrifyingly self-conscious silence. The
papers and broadcasters do not want to do it. Last time they refused to
republish the cartoons, from Denmark’s Jyllands Posten, they said it was
because the cartoons were from a “right wing” newspaper.
In conclusion, on January 9th Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish
offered some rational advice on how to combat Islam in his column, “Let’s
Laugh at Islam
”:
The true war
against Islam is not a military war, it is a cultural war. For Islam it is a
religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life
into one defined by Islam. For us it is about preserving our way of life. The
cartoon controversy woke many Europeans to the fact that free speech and many
of the other attributes of democracy that they take for granted are
incompatible with Islam. Under the relentless pressure of multi-culturalism,
they and we are increasingly deciding that our way of life has to bow to
theirs.

This is the ultimate victory of Islam. Not the fall of the Twin Towers or any
single act of terrorism is as great a victory for Islam as when our own
government and press repeat their propaganda and muzzle their critics. This
represents the submission of the West to their rule. It turns Islam into the
only legally sanctioned religion in Western nations that have long since
instituted separations of Church and State.
If there are more such slaughters and mayhem committed by Muslims in
the future – and, to judge by the official, politically correct response to the
Charlie Hebdo massacre – the blame can largely be laid at the doorsteps of our
so-called lovers of freedom of speech – the politicians, the mainstream media,
the academics, and the intellectuals who govern our culture and that of Europe.
Ils ne sont pas Charlie Hebdo.  They are not Charlie Hebdo. Not a bit.
They are all “anti-reality.”