I shall not gloat that I was right in just about every one of my predictions about Sayfullo Saipov’s attack on pedestrians in New York. I will admit to being surprised at just how quickly this latest attack by a jihadist maniac has dropped off the radar – quicker even than the failed bomb attack at Parsons Green underground station. The past week has revealed is the strange priorities of the media and those who rule us.
At the moment we are constantly being told by our lords and masters to report anything suspicious to the police. Here in Australia, there is a television campaign that exhorts people to report something that “feels wrong.” Like the infantile advice from the Metropolitan Police to “Run, Hide, Tell” we are all being told to be the school sneak. Anyone who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s can tell you what happened to the sort of person who used to go telling tales to the teacher. And let’s consider the case of Sayfullo Saipov who, to be brutally frank, is a person whose appearance is straight out of central casting for ‘jihadist maniac.’ What would have happened if an employee at Home Depot had refused to rent a van to Saipov? The whole ‘Islamophobia’ industry would have descended on the company and its employee and there would have been a social media circus accusing both Home Depot and the unfortunate staff member of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry.’ Most people who have witnessed the sort of media frenzy that ensues when anyone offends against the ruling ideology of identity politics would hesitate to put themselves at the centre of such a storm. Incidentally, Saipov has allegedly asked for an ISIS flag in his hospital room; would it surprise anyone if some shyster lawyer claimed his ‘human rights’ had been infringed by a refusal to allow him to have the flag?
The reaction to Saipov’s actions in New York and the gun massacres in Las Vegas and Texas reveal a disturbing truth about modern politics and the media. It appears that people do not judge the actions of a person but the person themselves; if the person who commits a crime is on your ‘team’ or if they qualify for the coveted status of ‘victim’ then your reaction will be different to the actions of a person who is not on your side of politics or is not deemed an acceptable ‘victim.’ When an Islamist commits an atrocity, the Guardian and the so-called BBC are quick to dub him a ‘lone wolf’ and not representative of Islam before quickly moving on to fears of a ‘backlash’ against Muslims. As experts in medicine as well as Islamic law, the Guardianistas and the corrupt denizens of Jimmy Savile House always claim the perpetrator was mentally ill. When the perpetrator is a gun nut or a white American male, no such restrain is apparent.
But it would be wrong to label the pseudo-left alone as guilty of judging the person not the attack. The orangutan-in-chief was quick to label the Texas attack as about mental illness not guns. So warped has the debate about guns become in the USA, that the attorney-general of Texas said that more people should be taking their guns to church! Opponents of gun control are quick to cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution which states that the right to bear arms cannot be “infringed.” Like the apologists for Islam who love to quote truncated and out-of-context Koranic verses, they are guilty of cherrypicking the Constitution. The Second Amendment actually says…
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [my emphasis]
…which puts a rather different perspective on the idiots who claim the Founding Fathers would support the right of anyone to amass dozens of assault weapons to hunt squirrels.
The Las Vegas, New York and Texas attacks simply cannot compete with the ongoing frenzy about sexual harassment on both sides of the Atlantic. It is far, far more important to spend hundreds of hours discussing whether a bit-part actress had her backside pinched by a producer thirty years ago than to confront the consequences of the ludicrous gun culture in the USA or the fascist ideology of Islamism. The media is giving a huge amount of attention to actresses who claim to have been raped or sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein or to actors who claim to have been molested by Kevin Spacey. This is the same media that refuses to give similar attention to the large-scale grooming of underage working-class girls in cities across the north of England or to ‘honour’ crimes against women and girls in minority communities.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder but the Hollywood royalty currently attacking Weinstein and Spacey are the same people who fete and glorify Roman Polanski. Forgive me but at the time of writing, Weinstein has not be convicted of any crime; on the other hand, Polanski fled the United States to avoid sentencing after being found guilty of raping and sodomising a thirteen year old girl. I am well aware that rape and sexual assault can cause all sorts of trauma to victims and there are many good reasons why a victim may not report such crimes for many years. But the media is not the correct place to report serious assaults. Unfortunately, anyone in public life who is accused of any sexual misdemeanors is being found guilty by the media. A Welsh Labour politician has committed suicide after allegations of sexual misconduct. In our litigious times, I wonder if this politician’s family will sue the women who have made these accusations?
The media reaction to the New York jihadist, the Las Vegas and Texas shootings, the Hollywood sex scandal, the hideous abuse of young working-class girls across England and ‘honour’ crimes against female members of minority communities have all been coloured by the all-pervasive ideology of identity politics. We no longer judge actions by any objective standard but though the prism of identity – the very opposite of Martin Luther King’s dream. A crime committed by a perceived ‘victim’ is considered far less important than one committed by someone from the ‘dominant’ group. This is not only an affront to natural justice but it is against all the traditions of individual (not group) rights that has been the basis of English common law for centuries.
Let me put it another way – if you are a ‘feminist’ who is angry about the treatment of millionaire, mostly white Hollywood actresses but if you refuse to condemn the widespread abuse of poor girls of every colour by gangs of (mostly) nonwhite men and if you look the other way when female children from minority communities are subjected to genital mutilation, to forced marriage and to ‘honour’ killings, then you are a special kind of racist and bigot.
Mike's Place 
One thought on “The New York Attack Update”