Scottish Newspapers' Dishonesty Revealed

Various newspapers have stories about David Livingstone's newly-revealed diaries today. The diaries tell of an incident in which Livingstone witnessed hundreds of negroes being massacred by Arabs. You can read a fuller account of this on my other site here.

From our perspective, though, the most important point is how political correctness has caused the Herald to omit key parts of the story. It quotes Livingstone's account of the massacre as follows:

The diary showed Livingstone was horrified by the massacre, as three Arab slavers with guns entered the market in Nyangwe, a Congolese village, where 1500 people were gathered, most of them women.

“Fifty yards off two guns were fired and a general flight took place ... shot after shot followed on the terrified fugitives ... great numbers died ... it is awful ... terrible, a dreadful world this,’ wrote Livingstone.

“As I write, shot after shot falls on the fugitives on the other side [of the river] who are wailing loudly over those they know are already slain ... Oh let thy kingdom come.”

Source: The Herald

The Times, though, offers us fuller extracts from the diaries, allowing us to see what the Herald chose to leave out.

Fearing that some of his own men had been responsible for 400 deaths that day, in the original version he wrote: “[S]hot after shot followed on the terrified fugitives — great numbers died — and a worthless Moslem asserted that all was done by the people of the English . . . It is awful — terrible.”

Within a year, he had written a new “official” account of the massacre: “Two wretched Moslems asserted ‘that the firing was done by the people of the English’. I asked one of them why he lied so and he could utter no excuse . . . he stood abashed before me and telling him not to tell palpable falsehoods left him gaping.”

Source: The Times (£)
So, just to be politically correct, the Herald chose to leave out the key part about Livingstone blaming the 'worthless Moslem' and 'wretched Moslems'. Shameful.

The Scotsman's account here could even be considered worse than the Herald's. It doesn't quote from the diaries at all. Nor does it mention that the perpetrators were Arabs. The natural inference of most readers would then be that they were Europeans. Thanks to unceasing propaganda, most people now believe that the slave trade was a uniquely European phenomenon. The fact that the Muslims had been operating a slave trade in Africa for almost 1000 years before the Europeans got involved is completely unknown to most people. And the Scotsman obviously wants it to stay that way.

People need to realise we are living in a Soviet-like media environment, one in which almost all mainstream sources display relentless and systematic dishonesty as they defend the multicult ideology of the ruling elite.

Herald Describes Historical Knights Templar as Freelance Group of Fundamentalists

In an article about Anders Behring Breivik today, the Herald described the historical Knights Templar as a freelance "group of fundamentalists".

The original Knights Templar were a 13th century group of fundamentalists effectively acting as freelance security service for Christian pilgrims in medieval Europe.

It's hard to say what's more shocking here, the contempt for European tradition or the sheer ignorance of historical facts. First of all, the Knights Templar were founded in the 12th century, not the 13th, century and were officially dissolved by order of the pope in the early 14th century. They safeguarded pilgrims in the Holy Land (Middle East), not Europe, and they did a bit more than merely safeguarding pilgrims in any case.

There was even a book published a few years ago that floated some interesting (if far-fetched) theories about the role of the Knights Templar in Scottish history. Essentially, the authors argued that the Templars had fled to Scotland en masse (along with much of their treasure) after being officially dissolved by the Pope and persecuted throughout Europe. In Scotland they were safe because the edicts of the Pope were disregarded there owing to Robert the Bruce having been excommunicated because he had killed one of his rivals in a church. According to this book, the Knights Templar may have intervened on the Scottish side at the battle of Bannockburn, ensuring the Scottish victory. They then went on to embody their secret knowledge in Rosslyn Chapel and evolve into modern freemasonry.

As I say, this strikes me as "over-imaginative" historical writing, but either way I'm sure the historical Knights Templar deserved better than to be called a freelance "group of fundamentalists" by a clueless Herald journalist who ought to know better.

Scotland in a Time Warp

There could be no clearer illustration of the extent to which Scotland is in a timewarp on the question of coming to grips with the threat of Islam than Ruth Wishart's article in the Herald today.

She has a bright idea about how to minimise the threat of terrorism. The idea is - wait for it - multiculturalism.

But the battle to make society safe from terrorist acts can also be fought on other fronts. I would contend that multiculturalism is actually the sanest weapon available to us all in this ill-named “war on terror”.

This is a bit like saying, "I've got a great idea about to improve our economy: nationalise all private property, let the government run all the companies, give jobs to those best suited for them and let a central committee allocate national resources to wherever they are needed most."

It's been tried, dear. It didn't work. All across Europe multiculturalism is being disavowed, but Ruth Wishart thinks it sounds like a great idea.

There was a time when this kind of naive, utopian thinking might have been viewed indulgently. After all these are clearly nice, gentle-minded people. And like many nice, gentle-minded people, they tend to think that deep down everyone else is basically nice and gentle-minded too. But there is no excuse for it now. There were the same mistakes that were made in England and in every other country in Europe that has been colonised by Muslims. Those approaches failed - everywhere they were tried. Indeed every approach to integrating Muslims anywhere in Europe has failed. A variety of different policies produced exactly the same kind of failure: no-go areas for non-Muslims, massive Muslim benefits dependency and fraud, systematic aggression against non-Muslims, the cultivation of contempt for the indigenous population and the incubation of terrorism. This is what Muslim colonisation has produced in every part of Europe.

And this is all the more extraordinary because the Muslims themselves were different. They came from different countries. They spoke different languages. They were different genetically. In Germany, they came from Turkey; in France, from North Africa; in Britain, from the Indian sub-continent. Yet all these diverse Muslims managed to produce exactly the same set of problems, problems that other third-world immigrants didn't produce.

There is only one thing these Muslims had in common: Islam. The only reasonable conclusion is that there is something in the nature of Islam that produces these problems. Even if you knew nothing at all about Islam you could reach that conclusion through the simple application of logic.

Scotland is 30-40 years behind England and most of the rest of Europe in the extent of Muslim colonisation. It would be tragic if Scotland had to go through exactly the same process, making exactly the same mistakes that all the other countries made, learning nothing from the lessons they left behind. But if it's left to people like Ruth Wishart, you can be sure that is exactly what will happen.

Source

Pro-Muslim Propaganda in the Herald

The Herald today has an absurd non-story about a few Muslim women who, to get some daft award, went out and removed some fallen-down trees from a path. Why is this news? Why is it being reported? If a few Jews or Greek Orthodox or Wee Frees or Buddhists had done this, would it be reported? No. Someone at the Herald wants to inculcate a favourable view of Muslims into us. Why?