RUTHFULLY YOURS

As was the case in the wake of January’s attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish supermarket in Paris, it was remarkable how quickly the narrative about the latest terror rampage in the city became less focused on the appalling details of the attacks themselves, and more about reporting on — and celebrating — the public’s response to the attacks.

After the January attacks it was #JeSuisCharlie and cartoons of broken pencils that were going viral. This time it was Eiffel Tower peace signs doing the rounds, along with more fatuous tweets (#TerrorismHasNoReligion, etc.) and montages of national landmarks lit up in red, white, and blue.

And, of course, that guy playing “Imagine” on a piano. They invoke Allah, and we invoke John Lennon.

As in January, this narrative has been crafted by politicians and the mainstream media, and embraced by millions in France and around the world, especially by liberals. It’s a narrative that justly celebrates the resolve of the French people, but which also allows millions with no connection to the horrific events in Paris to join in vicariously. And it enables liberals to indulge in their favorite pastime of virtue signalling and to congratulate themselves on how downright tolerant they are.

Rather than address the consequences of a multiculturalism it promoted as signifying nothing more than happy-clappy falafels and exotic costumes, our political class prefers to decry the public’s alleged intolerance. The next election might bring quite a surprise
The enemy is within, and it is not only gun-toting, bomb-wearing sociopathic jihadists that Australians must worry about — it is their vast anti-Western ideological and institutional support system that must be confronted. This ideological support is essential to the jihadists, as it provides a ready-made justification for their murderous rampages. It also shapes the utterances of their fellow travellers and useful idiots amongst the political elite, in academia, the news media, social media, the ABC, the Human Rights Commission, and NGOs as they trot out the cliché-ridden rationalizations for mass-slaughter in the name of Allah and demand that the West accept responsibility for the attacks upon it.

The most recent glaring example of this ideological mindset is the now infamous statement made by the Muslim Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, about the Paris atrocities. His Muftiness’s worldview is obviously indebted to the anti-Western post-colonial theory that dominates our universities and serves as the basic ideological paradigm of the Greens and the far left. Consequently, he indulged in a classic case of ‘blaming the victim’, declaring that the murder of the innocents in Paris had been prompted by “causative factors”, whose origins lie solely within the imperialist and oppressive West, including “racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention”. It is the policies of Western nations, allegedly directed against innocent Muslims, that are the cause of all the trouble. As Andrew Bolt recently observed, “So clearly did the Mufti’s statement read like a warning to submit [to Islam] or die that even Turnbull Government ministers attacked it.”

Yes, Virginia, there was a Santa Claus, but peaceful Islamists cut off his head.

The strength and resilience of Muslim terrorists in their various guises is built on an extremely solid and graduated structure underneath them. One level supports the next above. And the connectivity is bonded with a powerful adhesive, Islam itself
Has there been a hush-hush Islamic revolution? Have the grand muftis produced a redacted version of the Koran, in which only the peaceful passages remain, and slipped it secretly to politicians? It is one of those riddles wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Yet it seems to be the only explanation. Otherwise, how could textual exhortations to kill and enslave be described as peaceful by our elected elite?

Imagine a cone divided into segments. At the base are non-practicing Muslims. In the next are Muslims who occasionally attend mosque. In the next are devout Muslims who ‘religiously’ attend mosque. In the next are extreme Muslims who would like a world caliphate and sharia law. And at the top (‘coneheads’?) are terrorist Muslims who want to kill people in the name of Allah and often do.

Now it is possible, of course, to come up with finer and more complex divisions but these will do. Is my description of the cone’s segments objectionable? I can’t see any reason why it would be. It is simply putting the different views of Muslims into broad categories.

“Instead of bombing Raqqah, France should be bombing Molenbeek.” — Eric Zemmour, French journalist.

No one, at least outside Belgium, is talking about Molenbeek’s long-time anti-Semitic mayor and the alliance with radical Islamists that secured his power.

The majority of the terrorists who have appeared in Europe in recent times originated from a single neighborhood, six square-kilometers in size — an astounding concentration.

“[T]here are more veiled women here in Molenbeek than in Casablanca.” — Resident interviewed by investigative reporter Gilles Gaetner.

The many shops run by Jews suddenly disappeared in 2008 after harassment and threats by local “youths.” How did Mayor Moureaux react? By accusing Belgian Jews of wanting to deny Muslims the “right to diversity.”

It is supposed to be Israel’s fault when the Arabs of Belgium — and especially those of Molenbeek — have a bad reputation? This type of anti-Semitic resentment is unfortunately not only typical for Moureaux, but for his entire party.

The Molenbeek district of Brussels is considered Europe’s “terrorist factory.” At least three of the perpetrators of the November terrorist attacks in Paris came from there: Ibrahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud and the remaining fugitive Salah Abdeslam. The list does not stop there. The Viennese daily newspaper “Die Presse” writes: