Here they come, predictable as the sunrise. Ladies and gents, I give you the vile, despicable Left, in all its pus-oozing depravity.
“I wonder how many art pieces and artifacts that were sitting in the Notre Dame were stolen from former colonies,” said user Shaziya. When confronted with criticism and backlash, she doubled down: “I’m criticizing French colonialism, if this bothers you so much then you ought to reevaluate your morals, bye.”
Well, SOMEBODY certainly ought to, yeah.
“I think it sucks that Notre Dame is burning but f*** imagine if we had this same energy for every historic building we carpetbombed in the Middle East,” said another user.
Other users reveled in the fact that “white people” were saddened to see Notre Dame go up in flames. “I’m dying at the white people triggered,” said one person named Aly. “It’s a damn building that’s literally used for tourism, no one died, move on.”
While Notre Dame indeed invited tourists to look upon its magnificent beauty, becoming one of France’s most iconic landmarks, the cathedral still served as a home to practicing Catholics who worshiped God through the Holy Mass every Sunday — not to mention the multiple popes in recent history who have led processions there. The church hosted weddings, funerals, and consecrations. It never sacrificed its Christian mission at the altar of commercialism, as perhaps best exemplified by the priceless relics — including the crown of thorns said to have been worn by Christ — that Notre Dame housed within its walls.
“Notre Dame on fire is the most aesthetically pleasing visually I’ve ever seen,” said another user.
“This one’s for colonizing African countries b****,” said another user.
“Notre Dame burning is cosmic karma for all the historical sites and artefacts [sic] France destroyed and stole when being colonialist scum,” said the blue-checkmark “culture writer” Hikikomori Povich.
Sickening. Elsewhere, Rick Moran shits the bed.
It may turn out that the fire that destroyed most of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was deliberately set. Maybe it was terrorism. Maybe it was a protest against President Macron. Perhaps it was your garden variety right-wing or left-wing nuts.
But jumping to conclusions at this point is silly and stupid. My colleague Monica Showalter wrote the proper takedown of these fools. And kudos to Fox News hosts Shep Smith and Neil Cavuto for actually cutting off conspiracy theorists who appeared on their shows.
Don’t you wish hosts on other networks had cut off the wild speculation from liberals about the fantastical idea of Russian collusion?
I have no real problem with Moran’s call for caution in the immediate aftermath of events like these, when rumors are flying, no one really knows a whole hell of a lot for sure, and solid facts are awfully thin on the ground. But in this case he’s wilfully brushing past certain realities, particularly Parisian ones, and his shrill accusation of “conspiracy theorizing” on the part of Catholic League president Bill Donohue is just over the top.
Smith’s reaction was exactly right. Cavuto echoed his sentiments:
Several hours later, Cavuto had a similar experience with Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who immediately raised the notion that this inferno was tied to other church burnings.
“Well, Neil, if it is an accident, it’s a monumental tragedy,” Donohoe said. “But forgive me for being suspicious.”
He added: “Just last month, a 17th-century church was set on fire in Paris. We have seen Tabernacles knocked down, crosses have been torn down, statues have been smashed.”
Cavuto went on to request that Donohue avoid bringing up his suspicions as no connections have been made by officials. The Catholic League leader, however, was unable to help himself, eventually asserting: “I’m sorry, when I find out that the Eucharist is being destroyed and excrement is being smeared on crosses, this is what’s going on now.”
The Fox News anchor interjected, letting Donohue that while he appreciates his time, “we cannot make conjectures about this.” Cavuto then dropped the call.
Too often, the media allow this kind of speculation to run rampant, feeding the paranoia of right- and left-wing extremists who will believe anything bad about their perceived enemies. For any news outlet, speculation without evidence is irresponsible. If you want to feed your conspiracy habit, there are plenty of nutcases posting nonsense on the internet where you can get your fix.
Professional news organizations are supposed to be in the business of reporting facts. Intelligent speculation is one thing. But wild fantasies with zero evidence to back them up belongs on social media, not on news broadcasts.
Um, sorry to have to point it out and all, Rick, but like it or not, Donohoe didn’t say anything in the above quote that wasn’t…ummm, y’know…established, well-known fact. Maybe he got into some “wild fantasies” elsewhere in the truncated interview; I didn’t see the thing, so I can’t say. But if the above is what you call “wild fantasies,” “extremist,” “paranoia,” and “conspiracy theorizing,” well, your definition of those things differs one hell of a lot from mine.
Donohoe noted that attacks on Christian churches in Paris are numerous, and escalating. Which, y’know, is true. He cited some specific desecrations. Which, y’know, happened. He then said, calmly and not unreasonably, that this history left him “suspicious”—without naming any names, or accusing anybody of anything at all.
For this, Cavuto went full-on hysterical and cut him off. Moran then took up the cudgel and bashed Donohoe over the head with it, for his “irresponsible speculation” among other atrocities. Both, for no good reason at all. Oddly enough, I can’t seem to recall either Cavuto or Moran reacting quite this intensely to the Left’s knee-jerk penchant for blaming every recent mass-shooting incident on “right-wing extremists” of one stripe or another—a tired, seemingly involuntary reflex the Left maintains despite nearly every one of those shootings later turning out to have been perpetrated either by a Left-leaning psycho or a politically-incoherent or -disinterested one.
I myself am perfectly comfortable with speculating—based on both recurrent historical fact and the oft-stated intentions of Muslims themselves—that it’s very damned likely one (or more) of them was behind the Notre Dame fire. Should it turn out that I’m wrong this time I’m okay with that too, and have no problem owning up to it. Seems to me that maybe my reaction is a good bit less irresponsible, unhinged, and extreme than Moran’s and Cavuto’s were. But hey, YMMV and all that jazz.
Limbaugh, who also includes herein the complete transcript of Cavuto’s unfairly interrupted interview with Donohoe, makes the telling point:
Well, I’ll admit here this could all be irrelevant. The Notre Dame fire could very well have been accidental, caused by some construction worker flicking a still-burning cigarette. But as a thought experiment, apply all the numbers that I just recited to black churches in the United States, and then imagine a fire like the one at Notre Dame at a black church in America, and then imagine how the media would react to that.
Using the same theory, if there had been over a thousand black church fires, acts of vandalism, cemetery violence, if that had been happening in the last two years in the United States and a big black church erupted in flames yesterday, what do you think the story would be? The story would be who on the right did this? What white nationalist is doing this?
The speculation on who on the right could have been responsible would be the story. There wouldn’t be any, “Hey, let’s not jump to conclusions. It could be arson. It could be totally innocent. Let’s not go there.” Every guest would have been required to blame such a fire at a black church in America on white nationalists.
I’ll be honest with you here, folks. I’ve never understood… That’s not the right way to say it. I understand it. That’s the problem! I understand it. You go back to 9/11, and at the time, we knew who did it. The next day, who knew who did it! There were their pictures all over the news of the 19 hijackers. We knew who did it. We knew their names. We knew where they grew up. We knew where they were trained, that the majority of them were from Saudi Arabia — and then Osama Bin Laden is out claiming credit for it.
It’s a no-brainer who did it. And yet, within a few short days the entire narrative changes and becomes our fault. “What did we do to inspire this kind of attack?” The State Department! The State Department convened a symposium on, “Why do they hate us so much?” And it didn’t take long after 9/11 before you weren’t allowed to talk about the people who did it. You know the old saw about, “Oh, we’ve got to guard against the backlash against Muslims in the United States.”
What do you mean guard against a backlash against…? It’s descended from there consistently to today, where you’re not even allowed to mention it, speculate, talk about it. Even things that we know were Islamist terrorism we’re not really supposed to say this.
At some point, it becomes far more irrational and damaging to blind ourselves to observed reality than it is to make speculative judgment based on it, even if such judgment might turn out to be incorrect once in a while. As far as I’m concerned, we passed that point with Muslim terrorism a long time ago. I repeat: if this story quietly goes away in a few more days, you’ll know we’ve just taken another step down the primrose path…with folks like Cavuto and Moran skipping happily along in the lead.