What's the recipe for preparing and dismembering the bird of an opposing political view?The remains will usually feed as many of the ignorant masses who want to pack their gullets with their dying liberties, freedoms, and participatory politics.
- Sprinkle generously with a choice word here and a choice word there (planting seeds of doubt; e.g., change, right-wing, hope, fascist, Nazi, right ... as in a "right" to this and a "right" to that)
- Rub vigorously with twists of meaning here and twists of meaning there (raising suspicions concerning motivations leading to distrust of the opposition; e.g., pro-"choice", "separation" of church and state, constitutional "right," as well as "the era of hope," "eight more years," "politics of hate")
- Bake slowly under the watchful eye of cultural elites, academics, and a biased press (keeping the dumb-downed public's focus from real issues and the facts; e.g., immigration policy, radical Islam, government by entitlement, defense vis a vis economy)
- Maintain temperature high enough to keep the hungry at a distance (socialists don't want the public to see the cooking bird is not really a turkey ... rather it's the democratic eagle)
- When done, take a sledgehammer to the sucker and smash it to smithereens.
I bring this culinary delight to you as the result of seeing Martin Sullivan's all too transparent application of this recipe to Martin Wingfield's 11/28/08 post concerning the obvious ties between Islam and the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. (See Atlas Shrugs for antisemitic tie.)
Sullivan is the principal contributor for Islamophobia Watch, an Islamic apologetics collective and news site purporting to expose Western Islamophobia.
Does he comment on the content of the post? No! Does he exposit the article with critical comment? No! Does he excise the falsehoods and present evidence of their falsity? No! Does he point to an alternate explanation or facts unavailable to or ignored by Wingfield? No! Not a word.
So what does he do? He does what all of us do when we blog, he selects what he feels are money quotes from the article and publishes those for his readers. Okay, so if we all do that, what has he done wrong?
He takes the anti-democracy recipe and applies it in his title: "Fascist draws lessons from the Mumbai terrorist attacks."
Dear reader, do you know if Wingfield is a fascist? No! But the first word off Sullivan's keyboard warns you he can't be trusted. Who would trust a fascist after all? No one in their right minds would, now would they?
Have your read Wingfield's entire post? Go there and look for misstatements of fact or distortion of the news. Enthusiasm for his viewpoint? Yes! Hyperbole? Yes!
Sullivan also adds one sweet spice to his title, the choice word "lessons." Sullivan knows that in our modern Western culture no reader wants to receive a "lesson" from a news source. That's anathema!
The only crime Wingfield has committed is that he has used what remains of Britain's freedom of speech to speak his mind.
It is true that he is a member of the dreaded BNP (British National Party), a party branded as fascist by radical Muslims throughout Europe and enabled in doing so by leftist elites, academics, and press.