It's The Special Olympics Of Victimhood Poker

Yep, looks like the Guardian has had the cards out again. They've denounced someone for anti-Semitism. Your challenge is to guess who:

1. An Islamopath


2. A Black 'Communidee Leader'


3. A Loony Christian
   

Yep, if you guessed 3, you're bang on. The Guardian has decided that Mel Gibson's latest film is anti-Semitic.

Whassat ? You're saying that it features Mayans. Well, technically, yesssssssss, but you know, our supa-smart Liberal betters can detect all manner of code words there - they've got that there theological literacy. Try this:

For Mayan pyramids read Jewish temple. Gibson knows that Jewish temple worship only involved animal sacrifice. None the less, his Mayan high priest draws from some of the worst caricatures of the bloodthirsty Jew as invented during the middle ages.

Frankly, it seems kind of a stretch.

On the other hand, you don't need a lot of theological literacy to detect anti-Semitism in, say, a major newspaper pushing fraudulent claims of bloodthirsty Jewish savages raining down fire on ambulances. But no: the only anti-Semites the Left hates are the ones who worship a Jew.

Jews: Is There Anything They Can't Do ?

While the Guardian is desperately trying to convince us that a lass who pirouettes for a living and is married to a Chinese dude from Cuba is a really huge Nazi, they’re carrying on with their normal program of anti-Semitic lunacy.

Yes, I know: two-faced scumbaggery from the Left. Whatever next ? But what makes this an extra special example of humbuggery is that it’s all wrapped up in an article full of pious preaching about those unaccountable bloggers. It’s a perfect 10 of Liberal pathology.

Of course, it’s always painful, yet compelling, when Liberals try to moralise like, say, watching David Cameron rapping, or Rowan Williams try and breakdance. The Guardian is not impressed that US uber-blogger Zombietime dared raise questions about the supposed Israeli attack on two ambulances. The Left won’t let her get away with that – no, siree. HRW rushed into print with a report claiming Zombietime is super-wrong to infinity plus one.

Yes, indeed: Zombietime suggested that Lefty NGOs and the MSM were, unwittingly or otherwise, part of an anti-Israeli hoax, and the Left’s response is to cite a report from a Lefty NGO. Well, I’m convinced…

Wait….. I heart a plaintive whining in the corner. Why, it’s Mr Liberal, he’s asking that we consider the report on its own merits, rather than dismiss it of of hand just because of its association with a bunch of lunatics – you know, just like the Left always does.

Well, OK, let’s see what strikes the Guardian as a knockout blow, namely this statement from the Israeli Army:

We (Israel Defence Forces) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety. There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure.

What might strike Earth people as a statement of the blindingly obvious –namely that the IDF doesn’t target civilians, but they can’t ensure the safety of any that blunder into an area where fire is being exchanged, is counted by the Guardian as ‘probably as close to an admission as we are going to get’.

This is so desperate it doesn’t even count as sleight of hand. What even the hard core loonies at HRW acknowledge is that the damage could only have been caused by an air-strike. There could have been shelling of Somme proportions, but that couldn’t possible account for the damage observed.

Ditto, all you need to know about the HRW approach to evidence is that having admitted that the putative strike could only have been carried out by either a conventional aircraft or a drone, yet finding no one who could testify to seeing an aircraft, they announce that this proves there must have been a drone there. The lack of evidence itself becomes proof. This is the logic of the Inquisition.

It’s the same story with the muntitions supposedly used. In abscene of so much as a single fragment of the putative bomb, HRW half-heartedly suggests a couple of possible candidates, neither of them credible (and both comprehensively debunked by Zombietime), before concluding that the attack was clearly carried out by some kind of experimental weapon whose details have not been made public. So, once again, the absence of evidence is proof of guilt.

Incidentally, this must be some bomb. As Zombietime points out, the damage can only be accounted for by a bomb that fragments so as to rain down shrapnel on the vehicles yet can penetrate straight through the ambulances and into the road below.

It’s a sign of the times when the closest HRW get to landing a glove on Zombietime is when they sneer that they, unlike her, have actually been to the site of the alleged bombings. Yes, indeed. This is the state of the modern, Liberal-infested, Left: arguing that we should believe them because they are rich and influential, and their opponents are neither. It’s also ironic that an MSM outlet is quoting approvingly folks whose position is basically that you can’t tell anything just by analysing the output of the media.

For that matter, what did HRW’s tour of Lebanon actually yield? Consider the question of the mystery munition. HRW’s report includes photographs of holes in the road it says were caused by the mystery bomb, but their crack investigators didn’t think to move on to the obvious next stage, namely digging up the supposed fragments. Au contraire, what’s striking about HRW’s supposed investigation on the ground is how little new evidence it produced. For all the sneering at Zombietime, you’d be hard pressed to see what HRW’s trip to Lebanon has actually produced, other than confirmation that the people who claimed that the Israelis bomb ambulances, are still claiming that Israelis bomb ambulances.

Whatever the specifics of this particular case, it’s hard not to detect a certain strangeness in the MSM declaring that claims that left-leaning NGOs took part in a hoax have been debunked by a report from a left-leaning NGO. Memo to MSM: you don’t get to decide anymore. If it’s a choice between Zombietime citing yields of Israeli ordinance and HRW’s explosive deus ex machine, I know who I’ll go for.

But there’s more to it than mere blog-bashing. Questioning the MSM isn’t just blasphemy, why, it even puts lives at risk:

However, as I have written before, these types of claims do really place the lives of humanitarian aid workers in danger.

See what I mean about the Left always missing out Stage 2 ? Citizens raise questions about MSM reporting, something something something, humanitarian aid workers end up dead. Huh ? Guess the only way to be safe is to blindly accept anything they say.

On the other hand, the Guardian and its MSM fellow travellers carrying vile, anti-Semitic drivel about magic missiles, invisible aircraft and the like is the very epitome of democracy. Absolutely no danger of any violence being stirred up there!

To return to where we came in, Simone Clarke never made any anti-Semitic comments, she never took part in an anti-Semitic fraud and she never authored an article which drew on every negative stereotype of murderous Jews savages slaughtering the innocent. Maybe that’s where she went wrong ?

Outing: Now Back In

Say what you like about the BNP, but they perform a useful social role in letting us know what Liberals say when there’s no social pressure to dial down the crazy. Take, for example, Liberal outrage at MI-5 monitoring of Islamic groups: they’re shocked – shocked! – at the idea of Five infiltrating these groups, but Liberal journalists infiltrating the BNP ? Why sir, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

Then there’s the Left’s ever-changing burden of proof when detecting extremism:

In my seven months as a party member I heard very few racist epithets, and no anti-semitic comments. Such language appears almost to be frowned upon in Griffin's post-makeover BNP. Perhaps it is a tribute to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986, and to the gently shifting mores of British life, that racists rarely feel able to express themselves, even among like-minded people. But some of the fear and the hatred remains: it just emerges in code.

Code words, ah yes. As with much else Liberals have written about the BNP, you find yourself asking - who couldn’t that charge be levelled against ? They’re writing about school vouchers, but really they mean ‘kill the Welsh’. I guess our Secret Squirrel is just hacked off because he’s had to admit that BNP members are less anti-Semitic than the average edition of the Guardian.

Even stranger, our Mata Hari constantly mocks the BNP for their obsession with security. Hey, it’s not like they have to put up with, say, sleazy journalists trying to infiltrate the Party to cause trouble for their members, is it ?

Actually, this is the part that really sticks in the throat. The article publishes the names of several party members. Back in the day, the Guardian waxed lyrical about how digusterated they were by the News of the World publishing the names of convicted paedophiles. So, let’s check the scores on the doors here: outing perverts who prey on kids: bad, outing people who support a party the Left disapproves of: good. It’s not even as if the subtext is well hidden so, after a seven months investigation, the only evidence of people subtly endorsing violence or harassment comes from the Guardian itself. Classy!

The strange thing is that in outing several respectable folks who support the BNP, the Guardian contradicts its own line about super-sinister BNPers secretly plotting to blow up the local Tandori. Take, for example, this one:

Among my members, I discover, is Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the English National Ballet. During a subsequent conversation, Ms Clarke says that she believes immigration "has really got out of hand", despite her partner, both on and off-stage, being a Cuban dancer of Chinese extraction. She adds: "If everyone who thinks like I do joined, it would really make a difference."

This is only a mystery if you believe, as Liberals do, that any opposition to open borders must be racially-based. Maybe she just doesn’t see why we should be paying welfare to people who want to blow up the No 27 bus ?

This is the problem when you use the same language to describe people who want to deport mad mullahs as you do to talk about people who want to murder anyone darker than Casper the Ghost. Tell people that wanting Britain to have an immigration policy makes them knuckle-dragging thugs and they’ll naturally conclude that knuckle-dragging thugs are just people who have opinions Liberals don’t like.

Put it this way, there’s more evidence of moderates successfully overcoming violent radical factions in the BNP than there is in the Iranian government, so how come the Guardian isn’t calling for constructive engagement with Nick Griffin ? The same folks obsessing about BNP code words are the ones who think that Iranian President Achmakindofmad is just using colourful metaphor when he refers to Israel being wiped from the map.

See, that’s the irony right there. It’s articles like this that drive people to the BNP. The determination to detect evil subtexts in everything BNP members say contrasts sharply with the Guardian’s relaxed attitude to even the most extreme rhetoric from Abu Hamza, Lee Jasper or the rest of the Left’s insane clown posse. Hell, look at July 7: Islamopaths blow up trains and a bus, and Liberals think that means police officers should be used to protect mosques from a non-existent backlash. However toxic the BNP’s rhetoric about ethnic minorities, it can’t hardly match the intense loathing Liberals have for native Britons.