Some time ago Elaine Ganley, Associated Press Writer, referred to the French politician Philippe de Villiers as “a presidential hopeful who opposes Muslim immigration” and as a “far-right politician.” She wrote, with thinly disguised contempt, that de Villiers “claimed” to “base his book, ‘The Mosques of Roissy,’ on intelligence reports,” while “many saw the book as a publicity grab.”
This kind of coverage is typical. Philippe de Villiers is no more, and no less, "far right" than the late Democratic Senator Henry Jackson, or for that matter than the late Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, or William Proxmire, or any number of others. Philippe de Villiers is as "far right" as Raymond Aron, or Alexis de Toqueville, or Benjamin Constant. He is as "far right" as Jean Moulin, fighting the more obvious Fascists of the more obvious army, the Wehrmacht, in France.
This kind of epithet should not be in Elaine Ganley’s report for Associated Press, but it is typical of such reports. It is intended to frame the reader's reception, to make him already hostile to this supposedly "far-right" politician. Philippe de Villiers has been consistently, over the past few years, possibly the most intelligent commentator on the menace of Islam among figures in French political life. That is what has earned him this epithet.
During the war that the Muslims, the "Palestinians" and the locals unleashed on the Christians of Lebanon, a phrase appeared all over the Western world. It was always and everywhere "the right-wing Christians." Ionesco observed that "the paper that everyone reads" (he meant Le Monde; he did not have to specify further) always called the Lebanese Christians "right-wing." In what, Ionesco, wondered, did their "right-wingness" consist? Were they for a certain economic policy normally associated with the "right-wing"? Were they supporters of, or supported by, Fascists and unreconstructed Nazis all over the world? No, the Fascists and the Nazis, including known war criminals, had always been on the side of Muslims. Hitler himself expressed outrage and dropped ready crocodile tears over the "oppression" of the "Arabs of Palestine," especially in 1938, when he was also deploring what the horrible Czechs were doing to those poor and oppressed Germans of the Sudetenland, carefully called "Sudeteners." Unfortunately for Hitler, the "Palestinian people" had not yet been invented, so "Arabs of Palestine" it was.
Why do newspapers, or the radio, or television, permit this propagandistic use of epithets for which not the slightest evidence is presented? The word "far right" or "right-wing" should not be used, as it has been used, to blacken the name and reputation of anyone at all who happens to grimly perceive the menace of Islam. What made Pim Fortuyn, the bemused libertine, "right-wing," as he was routinely called, so stupidly, in the French, British, American press? What? There was nothing. Was Bertrand Russell "right-wing" because of how he saw Islam? Churchill -- was he "right-wing" or "far right-wing"? Spinoza? Hume? John Quincy Adams? Jacques Ellul? Are they all "right-wing" because they grasped the essence of Islam?
The AP is now out of control. Their editors apparently delight in the sensationalism of the photographs (contextless, and very doubtful in other ways) provided by its nearly all-Arab staff in southern Lebanon. This is akin to the fact that Hassan Fattah and Jad Mouawad were the reporters selected during Israel’s incursion into Lebanon last year for their ability to be fair in their dispatches from Lebanon for The New Duranty Times. The Times could not quite conceive of the notion that no Muslim reporter could possibly convey the real nature, attitudes, and atmospherics, of the entirely unequal -- but not in the way the Arabs present it -- battle between Israel and the bezonians of Hizballah. Nor could they, of course, possibly convey the conflict between Israel and the monstrously biased presentation of Israel given to us by monstrously ignorant reporters and by those who employ them. Neither those reporters nor their employers have any sense of context, or of warfare, or of the teachings of Islam, or of the asymmetry of the aims: the Israelis not wishing to wipe out, efface from the earth, Lebanon or the Arabs or the Muslims, but the other side, Hizballah and behind it the Islamic Republic of Iran, have gleefully and repeatedly declared that that, sooner or later, that will be the goal for Israel. They have announced it well in advance, and mean someday to attain it.
But to point that out would be “right-wing.”
"Biased BBC" did a little study of the BBC news on-line archives a while back. They found that the term "right wing" was used regularly to imply an objectionable political stance. "Left wing" was used only in relation to sports - a position in rugby or football.
Hugh posted (in this excellent article):
"This kind of epithet should not be in Elaine Ganley’s report for Associated Press, but it is typical of such reports. It is intended to frame the reader's reception,..."
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!!
From Ganley's Article:
"Villiers claimed to base his book, "The Mosques of Roissy," on intelligence reports. While many saw the book as a publicity grab, it caused a stir and briefly climbed the best seller list."
She uses not only the "right-wing" frame but the "unsophisticted masses" frame.
The implication is that anyone who did buy the book is the sort of person who can be "stirred" (like a nest of ants) and mindlessly buy books meant only for "publicity"s sake.
The correct question to ask at this point is, Was it actually based on intelligence reports? It probably was. But the manner in which Ganley frames this already leads the reader to assume the "claim" was only that.
Thanks, Hugh. Never a dull moment here.
Why do newspapers, or the radio, or television, permit this propagandistic use of epithets for which not the slightest evidence is presented?
from above
Most probably cos there is some invisible hand behinde them with ovbious purpose to ruin as much as possible everything which stands for progress and democracy. Or othervise they would need to spend much more time showing us real way of life in islamic world instead desperate search for some western blunder in history or in conteporary time.In that case every muslim cleric who teach (ie brainwash) his fellow muslims that path to heaven and everlasting sex with 72 virgins led through inflicting the pain and death to non muslims, would be declared as madman by very same MSM and not just radical. And any other person which stands against jihad as Churchill was against nazism would be declared as freedomfighter and not rightwinged bigot.
Speaking about Churchill and MSM one exemple: Viasat History, which pretends to be exactly in matters of past what BBC & other MSM for present, made an epizode about Galipoly. It turn out that it was just Churchill political gambit and nothing more, although I sincerely belive that man just try to do with the Turks what he done later with nazists.But again, other politicians in GB were suspitious, public change the interest easily (after all, turks didnt bomb and killed british like hitler did), and as a consecvence pending disaster was not turned into hard victory but into real disaster, which aftermath we all see today.And one day we shall all feel it when Turkey join the EU.
"Hitler himself expressed outrage and dropped ready crocodile tears over the "oppression" of the "Arabs of Palestine," especially in 1938, when he was also deploring what the horrible Czechs were doing to those poor and oppressed Germans of the Sudetenland, carefully called "Sudeteners." Unfortunately for Hitler, the "Palestinian people" had not yet been invented, so "Arabs of Palestine" it was.
...from Hugh's post
A bit OT, but isn't about time that those maghrebian mohametans who have colonized France's suburbs be given their own identity? I mean they already control much of what was once France, and they certainly would not identify themselves as Frenchmen, yet they are no longer Algerians or Tunisians, either. It's hard for our mahometan brethren to advocate a "two state solution" in France when one of the parties remains unnamed. Let's have a contest.
It is interesting in that during the time of the Lebanese civil war (I was a pre-teen) when the BBC used the term right wing to describe the Christians, I thought they were like the Nazi's and sub-consciously thought they deserve it. Which I think is the whole intention behind the use of this phrase and how it was and is bandied around.
Those members of the press and in higher institutions of learning who continue to frame this war in terms mentioned above will find that the Earth has shifted and the warm water they'd been playing in has receded far out from the beach.
Hopefully they'll have enough presence of mind to move to higher ground before the Islami tsunami comes down on their heads. This fashion of thinking will come with a heavy price soon enough.
The spark cannot come at the polls. In 2007, too many are addicted to government benefits and jobs. The Muslim vote will support continued income redistribution. The bloated bureaucracy's vote will always be to sustain itself. The wealth producer will vote with his feet.
The spark will be the collapse of the social safety net. Play the French Budget Director’s ‘don’t blame me’ video game Cyber-Budget (produced with public funds). One-half of recently polled Frenchmen worry about becoming homeless on the street.
http://www.cyber-budget.fr/
Infidel 33
First thought: New Riyadh.
Is Robert "far-right"? He has identified himself as "conservative", but his demeanor seems pretty open-minded and relaxed and humorous, not at all as rigid as "far-right" people supposedly are.
Is Hugh "far-right"? His politics are a mystery (to me at least), but some of the things he has written seem to be the antithesis of "far-right".
Marisol? Sorry, I have no idea.
So, are they "far-right"? What are their views on abortion, supply-side economics, international activism, gay-marriage, nationalized health care, fiscal responsibility, education, prison reform, etc. etc. etc.?
Does it matter?
Do one's political views color (or taint) purely objective statements, like "jihadists use quotations from their holy Qur'an to justify violence against non-Muslims"? I don't see how politics enters into proving or disproving that statement. Look at news reports of what jihadists say, look at statistics of religiously-motivated terrorism, look at the cause and composition of "insurgencies" all over the world. But focusing on the politics of the messenger is simply another way to redirect attention away from where it belongs, which is on the jihad, and on the jihadists.
Had Churchill been indeed "far right" he might not have lamented the appeasement policies of the british elites who fawned over herr Hitler's achievements in bringing honour and pride to the German people, so humiliated by the chains and shackles hoisted upon them by the post WW1 treaties.
How would he have dealt with the continued oppositon for Britain to rearm itself so as not to offend their German brethren?
He might have taken a leaf from the Nazis own book and used propaganda to transform the German threat into a covert Jewish plot to conquer Europe. Hitler would have been portrayed as a Jew.
That would have woken up the British who would have sprung into action,rearmed and taken immediate precautions to counter the 'Zionazi' threat!
"Is Hugh "far-right"? His politics are a mystery..."
-- from a posting above
If my "politics" are a mystery to you, how do you think I feel?
When pollsters ask people what category (in terms of politics) from left to right, do they fall into, the answers vary depending on what country a person lives in. So the "defining" feature of being, say, "right-wing" in the United States may be supporting an anti-abortion stance. In Israel the "defining" feature of "left" or "right" will be about what should be done with respect to "the territories." In Canada, a "right-winger" usually designates someone's who emphasizes fiscal responsibility in public spending. In France, a "right-winger" will be someone who emphasizes Catholicism and The Republic. Every country has its unique and special way of defining its political spectrum. So, APs automatic alignment of "right-wing" with that which is politically objectionable (from a "left-wing" point of view) is, in itself, objectionable. It's an objectionable editorial extension which falsifies reality (what it means to be "right-wing" in France is not the same as being "right-wing" in the United States or Great Britain).
J.S. said
Oops, forgot to end J.S.'s quote after the first paragraph.
I don't want to marginalize and denigrate J.S. by implying s/he is a "left-wing"er.
Hugh said
Based on the nightly news, "vindicated".
special_guest wrote:
"Hugh said
If my "politics" are a mystery to you, how do you think I feel?
Based on the nightly news, "vindicated"."
Talk about Pyrrhic victories...
The BBC regularly employs the terms 'right-wing' and 'far-right' when talking about hardline Muslim clerics and bug-eyed Islamists.
They - and other esteemed media outlets - also use expressions such as 'conservative' (to describe your normal, run-of-the-mill clerical moonbat) and 'ultra-conservative' (people like Ahmadinejad and the Taleban, Ariel Sharon).
All of which is quite amusing because the people who most vociferously oppose these loons are themselves described by the Beeb and others as 'conservative', 'right-wing', et al (e.g. Little Green Footballs, Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Oriana Fallaci).
It goes without saying the terms 'right-wing' and 'conservative' are used to describe people who are - in the eyes of the neutral BBC or AP journalist - not very nice and offer views that are at variance with the hack's world-view.
On most issues I consider myself a left of centre type -I just think Islam is a terrible religion and wish the left would distance itself from the adherents of such a retrograde and reactionary religion.
Unfortunately the Islamists still get a free ride by hitching themselves to more worthwhile causes: Germany is currently trying to push through Europe wide legislation combating 'far right extremism' which may well be quite laudable in many respects (making life difficult for neo-nazis and overtly racist groups). Muslims, however, will no doubt attempt to exploit it to the full, until no non-Muslim will dare say anything at all about their accursed 'prophet' unless it is in praise.
see:
http://euobserver.com/9/23210/?rk=1
"German call for EU initiative against right-wing extremism
An EU law combating racism and xenophobia has been stuck in the legislative pipelines since 2003 with Rome objecting to it in the past on freedom of speech grounds.
The proposed law says that member states should make punishable "public incitement to discrimination, violence or hatred against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin"."
http://euobserver.com/9/23210/?rk=1
sorry for duplication of link in the above
It's hard for our mahometan brethren to advocate a "two state solution" in France when one of the parties remains unnamed. Let's have a contest.
Posted by: Infidel33
I'd like to suggest we call then "les dendons".
"German call for EU initiative against right-wing extremism
An EU law combating racism and xenophobia has been stuck in the legislative pipelines since 2003 with Rome objecting to it in the past on freedom of speech grounds.
Reading that is gut-wrenching! The Germans just don't learn. Is this still on the table now that Angela Merkel is in office? They really want to play Big Brother, eh? God help us all!
I've been saying this for months! The mainstream is blatantly pro-Islamic. Not only do they misrepresent facts, they often invent them:
See "Multicultural Myopia: How Islam Suffocates Diversity" on stefcho.blog-city.com - a reporter on the BBC invented headlines that were the opposite of actions taking place on the ground.
People should start holding the press to account for their irresponsible reporting.
-Stefcho.
MeanieMo, some help for us non-Francophones, s'il vous plaît?
(I get a strutting bird for dindon??)
Ah, I should have said for "us culturally deprived non-Francophones" I get the reference now. As Emily Latella would say, "nevermind".