Islamintern Propaganda: The Players

by Hugh Fitzgerald (June 2006)

Way back at the start of 1979, when the Iranian people took to the streets and the late Shah was overthrown, the media – as I recall – did not so much give a shudder of horror as heave a sigh of relief. Indeed, one London periodical (the ultra-respectable, middle-of-the-road Spectator) went almost overboard in its exultation. Writing from Teheran, one of its contributors, Mr. Edward Mortimer of The Times of London, actually went so far as to begin his article with Charles James Fox’s comment on the fall of the Bastille: ‘How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world, and how much the best!’ Those words, added Mr. Mortimer, seemed to him ‘entirely apposite.’

And not surprisingly, Mortimer is venomous on the subject of Israel. Now the real antisemites, as is known, have a few topics that they cannot leave alone, that haunt them, that they love to discuss endlessly. For some, it may be the supposedly “deliberate” attack by Israeli planes on the U.S.S. Liberty in June 1967 despite the careful analyses and now the released tapes that show conclusively that it was, of course, a mistake, friendly fire of the most understandable kind. (This does not prevent the likes of James Bamford in one of his books from claiming, without the least evidence, that Israel did this in order to “cover up” its crimes of executing Egyptian prisoners — but then Bamford, of course, is the kind of man who pretends to be a tough, no-nonsense clear-eyed defender of America while opposing efforts to wiretap violent jihadists and insisting that there is no problem with Islam or a Jihad, no, of course not — the problem is America’s unreserved and total (!) “support of Israel.” Tell that to the Christians in East Timor or the Southern Sudan.

Well done, Edward Mortimer. Well done, illegitimate Edward.

Occupied Europe, the Europe in which indigenous Infidels are fearful of those bearers of the belief-system of Islam who have come to settle among them, and who do not hesitate to oppose the laws, customs, manners, understandings, of the locals, and whose presence has caused the indigenous Infidels to lead lives far more unsettled and unpleasant and expensive and physically dangerous, than they might otherwise be, from Malmo to Marseilles, from Madrid to Mannheim, is ill-served by the present BBC. For its policies and personnel have created a situation where, in a sense, we know have Lord Haw-Haw safely ensconced in Bush House, rather than having to broadcast to his listeners from Berlin.

Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses now broadcast conveniently right from Bush House and PBS, untouched and seemingly untouchable. And what is even more maddening, they are being paid by British and American taxpayers, respectively. Sentimentality about a free press misses the point. These organizations are self-contained, immune to criticism or oversight. Who appointed the smarmy Dick Gordon (now moved on to fresh fields and pastures new, thank god), or the self-assured and comically ignorant Tom Ashbrook, to their PBS news programs? Was there a poll? Was any audience consulted? Or was it a decision by the very well paid czarette of WBUR, Jane Christo?

Spare us.