Rather more serious, however, is his distortion of something else that I wrote. He quotes this from a Spectator blog post that I wrote about the murder of the Israeli Fogel family in the West Bank, a terrorist atrocity in which even the throats of the children and a baby were cut:
The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media…
And she says she makes a distinction between violent and non-violent Muslims…Hmmm, really?
His implication is that I was accusing all Arabs of being morally depraved. But of course I was not…
…And thus he merely draws further attention to his weird obsession with me (check it out for yourself on Google) which is now driving him ever deeper into that hole he has dug.
I also do find it amusing that Melanie Phillips accuses me of ‘obsession’ given I have blogged on her a few times… compared to the thousands of articles she has written just about Muslims. What would that be called?
It seems Melanie Phillips checked our blog, and got the idea all wrong, as demonstrated in her latest piece in the Daily Mail today.
Mentioning Breivik’s drug habits and patriarchal problems as possible reasons for his, quote ‘psychosis‘, it seems dearest Melanie is trying ever so hard for it not to appear that she, and some other (insert minority group)-phobes, and a murderer have similar political attitudes.
From their Coffee House blog:
A leading left-wing British blogger decided that the real story of the Norway tragedy was that in his bizarre online manifesto, Breivik had quoted from articles by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail and Jeremy Clarkson in the Sunday Times. As with the Giffords aftermath, it was insinuated (and more) that conservative columnists are not merely people the left disagree with, but active facilitators of murder.
…not quite, just active facilitators of intolerance, in all it’s forms.
On her blog, July 25
A concerned reader has sent me a post by Sunny Hundal on the Liberal Conspiracy blog. Hundal brings us what he clearly considers to be the most important news about the Norwegian atrocity. This is that, in the ‘manifesto’ reportedly published by the terrorist suspect Anders Behring Breivik, two of my articles are quoted.
Golly. Is Hundal suggesting that my writing provoked the mass murder of some 93 Norwegians? Doubtless with one eye on the law of libel, he piously avers:
…there is no suggestion that his actions were inspired by Melanie Phillips, nor am I making that claim.
Yet apart from a glancing reference to Jeremy Clarkson, whose remark about the flag of St George is also cited in this ‘manifesto’, I am the only person to whom Hundal refers to in this blog post, quoting at some length both my article and Breivik’s comments on it. He therefore gives the impression that I play a major role in this supposed ‘manifesto’, which he describes as warning of the ‘Islamic colonisation of western Europe’.
But in fact, there are only two references to me or my work in its 1500 pages. Those references are to two articles by me published in the Daily Mail, a mainstream British paper — one on mass fatherlessness in Britain, and the other on the revelation by a former civil servant of a covert Labour government policy of mass immigration into Britain. There is no reference whatever to my writing on Islamisation.
Not only that, Breivik name-checks a vast number of mainstream writers and thinkers, including Bernard Lewis, Roger Scruton, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Hannan, Diana West, Lars Hedegaard, Frank Field, Nicolas Soames, Keith Windschuttle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich Hayek, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Ghandi, George Orwell and many others; indeed, it’s a roll call of western thinking and beyond, past and present.
So why doesn’t Hundal refer to any of these people who have also been thus name-checked? Why has he singled me out in this way? It looks like yet another crude attempt to smear me by a writer who has long displayed an unhealthy obsession with my work (see here andhere and here for example).
The supposed beliefs of the Norway massacre’s perpetrator has got the left in general wetting itself in delirium at this apparently heaven-sent opportunity to take down those who fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against those who would destroy it. On Twitter and the net and in the liberal media, the forces of spite, malice and venom have been unleashed in a terrifying display of irrationality.
After all, we don’t even know yet whether Breivik acted alone. We don’t know whether this ‘manifesto’ was indeed written by him or indeed what it is: as Mark Steyn observes here, it reads like as weird kind of cut-and-paste job. If it is indeed the work of a psychopath, it doesn’t bear examination for a single minute. And yet the words of a deranged individual are being cited by people like Hundal who are taking them entirely seriously. Since when did people ever use the ravings of a madman in public debate? As Steyn writes:
…when a Norwegian man is citing Locke and Burke as a prelude to gunning down dozens of Norwegian teenagers, he is lost in his own psychoses. Free societies can survive the occasional Breivik. If Norway responds to this as the left appears to wish, by shriveling even further the bounds of public discourse, freedom will have a tougher time.
Already, through the selective and distorted use of this document and the amplification of such malevolence through Twitter and the net, a blood-lust is building. Thus I am receiving emails such as one from Carsten T Holst-Lyngaard who says:
I congratulate you on your part in the Norway massacre;
or this from Taper Collins:
blood on your hands. hope you’re happy with the effects of your anti-everyone vitriol. abhorrent.
Breivik may be one unhinged psychopath – but what is now erupting as a result of the Norway atrocity is the frenzy of a western culture that has lost its mind.
On Liberal Conspiracy, July 26, 9:02 am
Melanie Phillips and the gaggle of paranoids that make up the internet’s nutty ‘Counter-Jihad’ movement are loudly insisting that they don’t advocate acts of violence or terrorism.
For now, let’s assume that’s true and move on from there.
What, exactly, do they imagine it is that they are advocating?
I ask because the message they’ve been sending out loud and clear is that Europe is under threat of imminent enslavement, and quite possibly genocide, at the hands of a sinister cabal of Marxist fifth-columnists in cahoots with one of our largest ethnic minority groups, the latter of which they portray as irrevocably violent and totalitarian.
Unsurprisingly, they’re stridently in favour of “resisting” this theoretical dictatorship.
That being the case, what kind of “resistance” do they expect the urgent threat of Nazi-Commie-Jihadist European domination to inspire in their readership? A sudden upsurge in the creation of idiot blogs?
It isn’t good enough to pimp this fearmongering lunacy then disown the crazy actions of your ideological stablemates.
If your message amounts to this:
“I’m not saying that we need to take up arms in extreme violence against our compatriots or viciously repress our nations’ ethnic minorities. I’m just saying that inaction will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the western way of life and the enslavement of our loved ones at the hands of a foreign invader whose motivations are entirely alien and malign. But I’m definitely not urging violence in the face of certain genocide”.
…What is it that you want your readers to take away from your work?
There are plenty of calls for calm around, with reasonable people counselling against linking one man’s horrific crimes to the deranged views he espouses, those being a half-baked political analysis that has been festering on the internet and even in the pages of the mainstream right wing press such as the Mail and the Spectator for years.
I disagree. I think that now, more than ever, fingers need to be pointed squarely at those who have been disseminating this poisonous cack, and searching questions need to be asked.
First up – What the fuck did you think you were doing?