Je ne suis pas ‘Charlie’!

It is an accepted fact of Western Life that we all exist under a definite level of Censorship. No Western publication, in fact no world-wide Publication, will print or publish anything which is contrary or condemnatory to Islamic thought, Teaching or Beliefs. Why? Because the truth, which we all accept that if a Muslim tenet, or belief, or one of their prophets is ridiculed, even if true; will turn the killers loose upon the Publishers, the Printers or those allied to the first two groups. Charlie Hebdo printed a lampoon of Mohammed and his twisted theories, and, as a direct result of that publication; twelve died and eleven injured, by machine gun and automatic pistol fire. The world united, and all the usual bullshit erupted of ‘Solidarity’ and ‘We shall not be divided’; along with all the other liberal crap spouted by virtue-signalling idiots. They marched arm-in-arm down the Champs Elysee, and everyone felt really good about the response: and the Censorship grew ever tighter!

But we now see the first co-ordinated Censorship of an American professor with Right-Wing views, who had the extreme audacity to publish an essay entitled The Case for Colonialism, published in academic journal Third World Quarterly. Immediately, the battalions of the Left rose up and demanded that not only should the article be withdrawn, the professor should be summarily fired from his University post, and eviscerated publicly for the terrible crime of offending decent people who suffered for decades under Colonial Rule. The avalanche of criticism succeeded, the article can no longer be seen online, the professor has been muted, and all can now relax: or can we?

The publisher writes:-

This Viewpoint essay has been withdrawn at the request of the academic journal editor, and in agreement with the author of the essay. Following a number of complaints, Taylor & Francis conducted a thorough investigation into the peer review process on this article. Whilst this clearly demonstrated the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, in line with the journal’s editorial policy, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. These threats are linked to the publication of this essay. As the publisher, we must take this seriously. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.

The essay has been deleted. I cannot locate it at all: it seems to have also been obliterated from web-cache streams, which is most instructive, as it is usually extremely difficult to scrub everything from Web-based memory, but, there again, if the Publisher has received real threats, one can but understand that the ‘Charlie’ scenario could be easily played out again, only in America, where semi-automatics are easily available to all who qualify

 

Muslim ferocity: or Left-wing fury; they are both the same, and we give in, because we as a Society, will not stand up for what is right, under the Law!

8 comments for “Je ne suis pas ‘Charlie’!

  1. James Strong
    December 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Censorship is not confined to Islamic matters.
    Gareth Bennett, a member of the Welsh Assembly, spoke out and warned about pandering to ‘trans’ claims.

    The Presiding Officer has said that, because of this, she will not call on him to speak in the chamber at all during 2018. His constituents are therefore denied his voice in the Assembly chamber.

    He offended against PC, is how I see it.

    I have already written to her about what I view as an abuse of her power.

    If your readers in Wales would like to write, her address is

    llywydd@assembly.wales

    • Mona
      December 14, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      I used to visit Wales a lot, could not not stop smiling when I heard hobly gobly spoken. Is that racist I hope so.

      • James Strong
        December 15, 2017 at 8:01 am

        I speak ‘hobly gobly’, more usually known around here as ‘the language of Heaven’.
        You are no more racist than the boss of the Welsh FA who doesn’t want an English manager for the national football team. And I think he is right.

        Your form of ‘racism’ is fine, since it is nothing like racism.

        When ‘racists’ start calling for diminished rights before the law based on ‘race’ then I’ll start denouncing them.

        Of course followers of the Religion of Peace are in favour of reduced rights for non-mohammedans in a society ruled by the Religion of Peace.

        But I guess I am a ‘racist’ for pointing that out.

  2. December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    But we now see the first co-ordinated Censorship of an American professor with Right-Wing views, who had the extreme audacity to publish an essay entitled The Case for Colonialism, published in academic journal Third World Quarterly.

    California and Twitter both have things in the pipeline, the first one starts on the 18th.

  3. December 14, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    A commenter on another blog has highlit the actual essay I was writing about, and it can be found at https://archive.org/details/Gilley for download.

    I have read it, and it is an illuminating document. Perhaps the fury of the Left can best be described in the words I used.

    I can well understand the fury which this innocent article generated on the Left side of things, as it just repeats what I, and many others who have lived and worked in post-colonial Africa, have observed for ourselves.

    I sat beside two Zambian farmers whilst staying at the Victoria Falls hotel, and listened whilst both fervently wished for the return of the White British Administration for one and only one reason; they were absolutely incorruptible. Said a great deal about the former White Government!

  4. Pcar
    December 14, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    @Mike,

    Thanks for download link. Done as txt, pdf & gz

    PS ~2008 a Civl Servant blog vanished overnight, as did all caches & archive.org copies.

  5. Errol
    December 16, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    The Left seem to hate anything that disagrees with their narrative.

    It’s tiresome. If the information is factual, then it is. There are too many lies allowed and promoted by the Left to suit their own arrogance. Do they no realise that it just repeats fascism?

  6. LJ90
    December 17, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    Hmmmm.

    Much of this is a bit spurious I am afraid, based largely around the conflation of two issues that are actually quite distinct in terms of reality.

    The “left” (ah, we have to love a nebulous target!) may have contributed to an article coming down from an academic journal but judging by the comment the author was part of the decision making process, even if he was quite a muted one. People may have called for him to be fired but was he actually fired? And if he was, at least he lives to fight another day. Unlike…

    Onto Charlie Hebdo. Free speech prevailed, with tragic consequences. And the magazine was allowed to print its cover after the attack, even if many chose not to share it while de facto promoting it. But even as politicians adopted their standard posturing, let’s not forget how those attackers are doing today. The French state – under that naive lackwit Hollande – allowed them to carry on doing what they were doing. Oh wait, no. They died. As did their prison associate who hijacked a hypermarche in what could hardly be seen as a blow against free speech but rather yet another repugnant surfacing of anti-Semitism that is so often associated with the scum who pledge allegiance to ISIS.

    In short, we have an act of terror and we have an act where people used their right to free speech to protest an article they did not agree with. Yeah, we can suggest that had things gone differently and those wraith like figures on the left could have armed themselves and taken out the article writer, but they didn’t. We could argue that the left should be more tolerant and allow opinions that differ from their own to be allowed to stand (which I wholeheartedly endorse, even while accepting that I would probably hate the contents of the article) but in calling for the article to be taken down they were just as assuredly using their right to free speech as the article’s author. To equate this sorry state of affairs with the attack on Charlie Hebdo and beyond is a massive mis-step, in my opinion, and this post would have done far better to find a copy of the article concerned and shown why it deserved a fair hearing while simultaneously given it a wider airing for others to decide.

    Rule of thumb for the future: if an incident does involve death by shotgun then it isn’t the same as one that does not.

Comments are closed.