Friday, 23 June 2017

Open Thread

An even-sided,  balanced Open Thread

Lord Prescott v Huw Edwards

Following Eddie Mair's interview with Boris Johnson on Wednesday's PM this exchange ensued on Twitter:

Incidentally, Wednesday night's Newsnight also covered it with Evan Davis playing a clip and saying:
Now that point was forcefully made to the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson this afternoon, when he was interviewed by Eddie Mair on Radio 4's PM programme. Mr Johnson tried to rebut it, but it didn't go well.


Did the BBC underplay the latest immigration figures, which show UK population growth rising sharply after record migration levels, increasing by 538,000 in just one year and taking our country's population to 65,648,000?

Well, one way to judge that question is to see how much time was devoted to the issue on the main BBC One news bulletins. 

BBC One's News at Six gave it 28 seconds (midway through the bulletin), reporting it in this way:
The population of the UK has seen its sharpest annual increase in nearly 70 years. The Office for National Statistics says from June 2015 to June 2016 the population rose by 538,000 people. That takes the total estimated population of the UK to more than 65.6 million. It's thought the change has been driven by immigration but also more births and fewer deaths.
BBC One's News at Ten gave it 26 seconds (close to the end of the bulletin), reporting it in this way:
The population of the UK has seen its sharpest annual increase in nearly 70 years. The Office for National Statistics says from June 2015 to June 2016 the population rose by 538,000 people and that takes the total estimated population of the UK to more than 65.6 million. It's thought the change has been driven by immigration, but also by more births and fewer deaths. 
And that was it for both bulletins.

So the news was reported but not dwelt on.

The language used there - "It's thought the change has been driven by immigration but also more births and fewer deaths" - was echoed in Shaun Ley's run-through of the newspaper headlines on the BBC News Channel last night. Coming to the Daily Express's headline 'MIGRANT NUMBERS ROCKET' Shaun said, "The Daily Express argues mass immigration has contributed to the sharpest rise in the UK population in 70 years."

Net international migration remains the largest component of population change. 
Overall, natural change accounted for 35.8 per cent of the population change, net international migration for 62.4 per cent and other changes 1.8 per cent.

'Embarrassing defeat'

The BBC News website's home page has the following headline this morning:

The BBC report's sub-headline is:

And who is being quoted there? A politician or diplomat from one side of the dispute? No, it's the BBC's diplomatic editor James Landale. 

The BBC is highlighting its own reporter's take on the news there.

And that's not his only opinion. James also blames the defeat on the Brexit vote:

Thursday, 22 June 2017

"Well, I don’t think anybody would know whether I was a Brexiteer or, or not"

Here's a transcript (via News-watch) of Nick Robinson's interview with John Simpson on this morning where he defended his claim that this past year has been "the worst year for Britain is (his) lifetime".

It was a remarkable interview on many levels, not least for the complete lack of self-awareness on display as regards bias. 

I had to smile after reading Alan at Biased BBC saying that the BBC "never lets a day go by without some snide passing comment about the Mail" and then hearing Nick Robinson snidely saying to John Simpson, "I can hear someone at the Daily Mail being commissioned now to say, ‘BBC Remoaner John Simpson whinges about Brexit instead of saying what a great dawn, a new dawn it is’".

And I smiled even more broadly after hearing John Simpson insist "Well, I don’t think anybody would know whether I was a Brexiteer or, or not. And, actually, to be really honest, Nick, and I bet it’s the same with you, I can see both sides of the coin" despite everything else he said in that interview (all negative about Brexit) and his previous expressions of opinion of the matter, not least this from 2016 about the EU referendum:

I'm afraid, John, that even if we don't know if you were a Brexiteer or not, we can made a very informed guess that you very, very probably weren't - or you would surely never have expressed yourself in such a way in public. 

Anyhow, here's the transcript:

NICK ROBINSON: Now, John Simpson has just taken up tweeting and he tweeted, 'It was the worst year for Britain in my lifetime', and it produced quite a reaction. So John has been writing a little bit more about that, and he joins us on the line from Oxford........Now, talking of terrible days, you wrote this phrase ‘The worst year for Britain in my lifetime’. I think quite a lot of people then responded to you, and said, ‘Come off it, Simpson! You know, what about ’72? What about ’74? What about the Suez Crisis of 66 (sic)? Why this year do you say it’s the worst?
JOHN SIMPSON: I have to say, only, only a few did, and there’s always somebody that, you know, wants to know better. Erm, but er, if you look back at it, I mean, 1944, the year of my birth, was pretty terrible, V1, V2 rockets crashing down on British cities, but erm, you know, there was real hope, people knew the war was...was over. 1956 was a bad year in many ways, the year of Suez, the year in which Britain really ceased to be a world power. Erm, but there was Harold Macmillan, full of rather phony self-confidence to tell is that it was all going to be well and soon telling us we’d never had it so good.  1972 was a particularly bad year, with Bloody Sunday and the IRA attacks and so on, ’74, when we didn’t seem to have proper government...
NICK ROBINSON(speaking over) Well you’re, you’re reminding us how grim it all was, so why are you saying that...
JOHN SIMPSON(speaking over) But...
NICK ROBINSON...2017 is worse?
JOHN SIMPSONBecause this is a real all-round kind of storm. We’ve got everything, we’ve got utterly weak government, we have got a time when the...Governor of the Bank of England is warning that Brexit is gonna make us poorer, erm, we don’t know where we’re going to be in a year, two years’ time. And, and on top of all that, we have these dreadful incidents, the bombings sure, but that doesn’t send to shake us so much, but . . . 
JOHN SIMPSON... there’s the terrible business of the Grenfell flats . . . 
NICK ROBINSON(interrupting) Indeed, you’re used to this John, but I might as well ask you, give you a chance to get yer retaliation in first.  I can hear someone at the Daily Mail being commissioned now to say, ‘BBC Remoaner John Simpson whinges about Brexit instead of saying what a great dawn, a new dawn it is.’
JOHN SIMPSONWell, I don’t think anybody would know whether I was a Brexiteer or, or not. And, actually, to be really honest, Nick, and I bet it’s the same with you, I can see both sides of the coin. Erm, but the fact is we don’t know where we’re going to be, and it’s that uncertainty, regarding that maybe, there may be wonderful sunny uplands just ahead of others, but at the moment it’s a bad time, and it was ushered in by the dreadful murder of Jo Cox with that awful man shouting out ‘This is for Britain, Britain will always come first’...
JOHN SIMPSON...and it’s come right through, and do you know...
NICK ROBINSON(speaking over) We’ve got to leave it there, I’m afraid. You have stimulated, I think, a national conversation. Perhaps will pursue it, and with two other rather famous Johns here of a certain age, we might be...might be able to do it on another day...
JOHN HUMPHRYS: (speaking over) We must rapidly move on, I think, from that (moves on to next story).

We'd like to apologise

These are from Guido. The perils of live broadcasting?  Or something.

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

The state we're in

I thought it was pretty surprising that the BBC hadn’t shown any interest in last Sunday’s Al-Quds march through central London. Not even with the Hezbollah flags and that menacing drumbeat. It’s even more surprising, the BBC being what it is, that it didn’t even seem interested in the counter demo with those well-funded Zionist flags and inflammatory chanting. (We want peace!)

Have a quick look at page 15 of Today’s Times. What have we got? 

I haven’t seen any of those, but they do sound mighty offensive and Google should take them down sharpish.

In the middle of that article, there’s a highlighted column headed ”Complaints about ITV show.” Apparently ITV has received 72 virgins complaints about “far-right activist” Tommy Robinson. He shouldn’t have been allowed on ITV at all, they say.

Below these two pieces, there’s a double column entitled: 

At the bottom there’s a small photo of Sajid Javid comforting a woman after the mosque attack. 
“We can’t keep sharing hate and violence” says the mother of the Muslim child. “we can’t keep doing this. I’m tired and I want my child to be safe”.

So do I, dear tearful lady,  I want my children to be safe too. 

The facetious side of me was tempted to add ‘I’m so glad I haven’t got a Muslim child’ - but my facetious interior wrestled with my serious interior and it was a draw.

Now for something entirely predictable. From the Guardian. Finsbury Park suspect ‘made abusive remarks about Palestinian march’

It seems that the perpetrator of the Finsbury Park van-ram had been making nasty remarks about the al-Quds Day march (helpful link for any Guardianista who might not realise what a wonderful cause this march was for)
That irrepressible facetious side wants to point out the similarity between the name of the perpetrator and Sharon Osbourne. Either that or I’m going a bit deaf.

Not to be confused

God. At the risk of finding the far-right police a-knocking at my door, I’m tempted to admit I find the whole business laughable. Not the injuries - I’m genuinely sorry about those. But the fact is that for all the sanctimonious verbiage about ‘terrorism’ and ‘far-right’ the man wasn’t very good at it, was he? 
I mean the sole fatality was most probably pre-dead, and the entire incident had an undeniably comedic element.  (I wonder if there are any massively politically incorrect jokes out there - in playgrounds and pubs and places I wouldn’t know about.) 

The young eyewitness who had to speak for his father who "hasn’t got much English” also struck me as hilarious though this was announced on the news with the utmost sobriety. No-one could be blamed for wondering how long the hapless fellow been in the country. Then there was that video of worshippers trying to beat Darren Osborne to a pulp, and the Imam bravely intervening. Cartoon stuff.  
Oh yes, and by the way the Finsbury Park Mosque  has quite a reputation I understand. 
Abu Hamza’s old haunt I believe. No harm in mentioning it, since everyone is quite comfortable with bringing up Tommy Robinson’s disreputable past. 

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Defining terrorism

Some of the visitors to this blog will think I shouldn’t worry my pretty little head about non-BBC matters, but in the name of human rights I beg permission to deviate, alongside my usual hesitation and repetition.

There have been a few dodgy pieces in The Times of late, but recent events have created a mishmash of confused thinking - almost epitomised by Piers Morgan as per my previous post. Such a shame ITV took the video down.

Piers was trying to argue that Islam is a faith, therefore ‘good’, but Islamism, extremism, violence and terrorism are obviously ‘bad’ and entirely different.
A bully like Piers Morgan will typically clutch at any straw to maintain the popularity, if not the adulation, that sustains him.

On that occasion Piers Morgan was torn between associating himself with the views of a figure (Tommy Robinson) whom the mob has deemed to be ‘from the extreme right’ on the one hand, and on the other he was probably afraid of coming across as yet another of those ‘useful idiots’ on the left who pipe up all over the place as apologists for Islam.

The mainstream media have brought the debate down to a matter of semantics. They spend hours dancing on the head of a pin over what is and isn’t “terrorism” and explaining that criticising Islam amounts to calling all Muslims terrorists.

Tactically, they leave themselves with little choice other than to construct a giant haystack from a pile of straw men.

Tommy Robinson has learned a lot since he started his crusade. Are we allowed to call it that?
If we mean it in the sense of: ‘a vigorous campaign for political, social, or religious change’, then it should be okay.

He has developed. Nowadays he is more articulate and his arguments are more mature and substantive than they were before.  They have to be because he has a multi-pronged enemy to defeat.

One is the huge number of people who are completely flummoxed by the crime of criticising any belief system that is labelled ‘religion’.  Religion has to be respected. To tag a bit of religious piety onto a Marxist, a Nazi, a bigot and a racist is to make their toxic political opinions untouchable.

Tommy Robinson now knows the political implications of Islam far better than the bulk of his critics in the media who think of themselves as his superior. Most of them haven’t studied it in any meaningful way but they just know, Islam must be righteous, because ‘faith’. Terrorism is a distorted version. It must be, because ‘religion’.

He also has The State to fight. The state is trying to contain something that looks increasingly uncontainable. When it goes off, it will surely go off with a bang.
Putting Tommy Robinson behind bars, let alone leaving him there at the mercy of bloodthirsty Muslim criminals, is no way for any state to behave, least of all the state that’s supposed to represent the most tolerant country in the world. Silencing Tommy Robinson is not going to contain the problem. Wildfires have a habit of flaring up in unexpected places..

 First, I want to commend this article by Melanie Phillips in The Times (£). Never mind terrorism or Brexit for a minute. Melanie has articulated a very urgent threat to the social cohesion that the State is so cack-handedly trying to maintain.

Left-wing agitators are planning a “day of rage” tomorrow in protest at the government’s austerity policies, which they say caused the tragedy. The protest is being led by the Movement for Justice By Any Means Necessary, whose Facebook page declares: “We must escalate our actions to take down this rotten government, which has lost all authority to govern.”

(I read this when it appeared in the Spectator a few days ago.)
“What’s happening is an attempt to stir insurrection on the streets against the democratically elected Westminster government. Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell has called for a million people to take to the streets on Saturday to force Theresa May from power. 
At a Liverpool conference on March 10, 2012, McDonnell said there were three ways to change society. The first was through the ballot box; the second via industrial action. “The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action . . . we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.”

Give John McDonnell a long nightie and a little crotchet cap and he’d have a free pass to do as he sees fit. Not that he doesn’t have one already. (The free pass rather than the outfit)
Many naive Labour voters believe Jeremy Corbyn is a “nice man”. The reality is frighteningly different. A fearsome tragedy is being cynically politicised. Even before all the dead of Grenfell tower have been retrieved and buried, Labour is unleashing mob rule in their name. Compassion is being hijacked and weaponised in what is nothing short of a planned uprising against democracy itself.

Now, let’s look at Hugo Rifkind whose article happens to appear on the opposite page. He’s doing his Piers Morgan thing for Times readers who don’t watch ITV.

“Not all preachers of hate wear a skullcap and robes. Some wear jeans.” 

That sounds about right. However, I can’t be sure, but I think Hugo is saying that the right is just as capable of radicalising its followers as the skullcap and robes brigade. Then I think he’s saying that to flatter the weirdos with the term ‘terrorist’ is to absolve them from personal responsibility.

Surely, as soon as one commits an act of terrorism one automatically becomes a weirdo. Therefore all terrorists are weirdos, but not all weirdos are terrorists.

Was the Finsbury Park Mosque incident an act of terrorism?
“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” is one definition of the term.

The Welsh weirdo who ran down Muslim worshippers had a kind of political aim; allegedly, to “kill all Muslims”.  Was that a political act? If it was designed to put fear into all Muslims as well as bumping a few off, it certainly was. Also, the victims were most likely civilians, so on the whole this incident probably did qualify as terrorism.
But what if it was a revenge thing, or a copy-cat thing or an act of pure weirdoism? The political connection would be tenuous then, would it not?  And anyway, would the term used to define it really matter?
“If you do not like the notion that even mainstream Muslim narratives have a nebulous culpability for Islamist attacks — and I do not — then it seems contradictory to decide that western media narratives are culpable for attacks by people who consider themselves on the other side.”
Says Hugo.

Yup. The MCB won’t accept that Islam bears responsibility for terrorism unless we Islamophobes also accept that Douglas Murray is responsible for the Finsbury Park Mosque van-ramming.

If the MCB thinks it can deflect the notion that Islam bears responsibility for terrorism by arguing that Douglas Murray must accept responsibility for Finsbury Park, that is wrong. There are many flaws in this imaginary comparison. Apart from the huge difference in scale and ‘pattern’, and the differing elements of direct incitement to violence -  (some in the case of hate preachers and none from Douglas Murray) the most fundamental difference is that Islam is the catalyst and “the other side” is the response. The equivalence theory is not going to work.  There is no equivalence and no contradictory principle there.

My take on it is this. It doesn’t actually matter to me whether a murder qualifies as terrorism or just weirdoism, and equally I don’t care whether or not mainstream Muslim narratives have a nebulous or direct culpability for violent acts. The nature of the beast makes the question almost irrelevant.

I see the mainstream Muslim narrative itself as divisive, antisemitic, and wrong-headed. The fact that it’s a religion shouldn’t make it untouchable. Whether it leads to violence or just simmers away in the background fomenting division, it’s not good for Britain.  I don’t like violence or racism from anyone and I don’t want to hear excuses for any of it. Fearing Islam is not a matter of racism.
Journalists can dance on heads of pins as much as they like, but in my opinion they’re wasting everyone’s time.

Now back to the BBC. On the Daily Politics Tom Wilson from the Henry Jackson Society was invited to into the studio to defend Douglas Murray’s eminently sensible suggestion that “we need less Islam” , a remark he made during a discussion about the Prevent strategy. 

Yesterday’s guest on the programme, Miqdaad Versi, wanted the BBC to no-platform Douglas Murray for making that particular remark, which Jo Coburn called ‘inflammatory.’

She turned to her other guest, Lord (Digby) Jones to ask what he thought about it. “Well, we must be clear about the distinction between ordinary Islam and extremism” he opined.
So there you have it. There’s benign Islam, and there’s fundamental Islam. One is good, because ‘faith’. The other is not so good because ‘terror’.

It is a BBC-related matter after all, and I am worried about it and so should you be.

Good Morning Tommy

I’ve never watched ITV in the morning before, but I have seen Piers Morgan on other programmes and I’m aware of his reputation so I sort of know what he’s like. I remember seeing Susanna Reid quite a while ago, hosting one of the BBC’s Sunday Morning shows. They're both assholes in their own way, but controversialist Piers Morgan has his uses and Susanna  probably has nice legs, so I can understand why ITV employs them in the dog eat dog scramble for ratings and advertising revenue.

A member of this household alerted me to it. I hope it will be on YouTube soon. In the meantime, the tabloids have picked it up, and so has the Telegraph. Twitter is ablaze. (link temporarily unavailable)

And now, it IS on YouTube. Enjoy.

"Was lost, but now is found"

Monday, 19 June 2017

Incitement is incitement is incitement

If you have joined “The State’ in hounding Tommy Robinson for inciting violence against the Muslims, you should wash your mouth out with soap immediately.

If anyone says something that’s considered ’wrong’ these days, you can bet that some cloth-eared bully of a media pundit will reinterpret it and encourage the baying mob to ridicule you. Incitement is incitement is incitement.

Guido got a severe bollocking below the line for his post about Tommy Robinson, and quite right too.

Tommy Robinson has made several mistakes along the way, but he deserves to be listened to. He certainly wasn’t taken apart by Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman and as for Guido’s cobbled together list of ‘similarities between Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary’ it’s as wrong-headed as it is dumb.

Both agree on an expansionist, conquering interpretation of the Quran.
Big difference. Choudary is for and Robinson is against.

Both are denounced by the vast, vast majority of British Muslims.
Who isn’t?

Both have been in prison.
But for committing what crime?

Both led extremist organisations.
Cheap and sloppy.

Both love noisy confrontational street demonstrations where violence and arrests were common.
Sloppy and cheap.

Both have been taken apart in BBC interviews by Andrew Neil.

Both, in their time, loved a beer and a fag.

Both were based in Luton.

Both struggled to keep their language short of incitement to violence laws, treading carefully to avoid official action against them.
Choudary managed to avoid official action for far too long whereas Robinson failed to avoid the patently unwarranted official action that was taken against him.

Both are attention-seeking media manipulators who exploit legitimate grievances.
Aren’t we all?   1/10.

Now go back to exposing the real villains.

Thoughts and Prayers

Craig will tell you that I never did have very much faith in Theresa May. As for Brexit, I like the principle that we can take back control but - ‘That’s all very well’ I’d say, ‘but who is gonna be the ‘we’ that takes it?

It could be Jeremy Corbyn, propelled into P.M-ship by the upcoming post-Brexit dip in the  economy. If Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were the ‘we’, it would be even worse than the dreaded bad-deal, but by the same token if Theresa May made a pig’s ear of the negotiations we could be lumbered with a deal that could be a good deal worse than a bad deal..

Her first cabinet reshuffle was hardly confidence-inspiring, and her disastrous election campaign with its clumsily presented, ill-judged, and if I may say so, arrogant manifesto, together with Jeremy Corbyn’s fairy-godmother manifesto, not to mention those furious rallies and all the bullying by his antisemitic, politically illiterate Momentumists; between them they created a perfect storm.

For want of a better alternative many people were prepared to settle for Theresa May.

But, and it’s a big but (as Jeremy Corbyn probably said to the Shadow Home Secretary) if there’s one thing I certainly don’t think Theresa May should be criticised for, it’s the absence of that public show of emotion that everyone is clamouring for. I don’t want to see Theresa May or any other politician blinking back tears and I’m fed up of listening to anyone prefacing their political opinion with a sad-faced statement concerning their thoughts and prayers.  What prayers? Does everyone say prayers now?*

After Grenfell surely Theresa May should have been doing exactly what she says she has been doing. Setting up the public enquiry. Putting emergency funding in place. Doing Prime Minister stuff.

Yet we had a veritable stream  of identical-looking women parading through the TV studios (BBC and Sky) reviewing the Sunday papers. They all said the same thing, directly or indirectly, that Theresa May hasn’t shown sufficient emotional incontinence in public.

There’s a theory that economics influences fashion. Something in the current climate - hair straighteners ? - has produced armies of clones with the same infantilising hair-style and the same infantile opinions. They all want everything delivered in the form of a soap opera. To earn their approval Theresa May must be seen in public fanning her red-rimmed eyes and hugging a poor person.
Perhaps Theresa May can take heart from the turnaround within Her Majesty’s opposition.
Jeremy Corbyn outwitted the critics and rebels in his own party whose desire to unseat him evaporated with his electioneering triumph; so if he can ride out the storm, maybe she can too.
All she needs is a good Breakfast Breggsit Brexit.


I was too busy to blog yesterday. Now I’ve got Theresa May’s emotional inadequacy off my chest there's the latest car-ramming incident to respond to. More tear-filled thoughts and prayers. 

The BBC already speaks fluent Muslamic. Announcers pronounce “Muslim’ with the double ‘ss’. ‘Moosslim’, and enunciate the term ‘Friday prayers’ with a familiarity that subliminally incorporates Friday Prayers* into standard British culture, which I suppose, these days it just about has been. Mosque-goers are referred to as ‘worshippers’ in a reverential manner I’ve yet to hear applied to any other religion.

Unlike Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn has done the right thing. He’s blubbed. He’s just soo  honest.

Most of the Today Programme was devoted to this incident.  John Humphrys consulted Brendan Cox to ask if this was an act of hatred or an act of insanity?

“There is an increasingly strong group of people who are actively inciting hatred against others, and that has certainly been true from bits of the extremist Islamist community in the past and we’e spoken about what we can do to crack down on those hate preachers, but I think it’s also something, in the case of Islamophobia, people, there are extremists again who are driving hatred, who are using language about cleansing Britain of Islam, who are talking about a final solution for Muslims and I think we have to treat this  act of terrorism, if that’s what it ends up being, in the same as any other act of terrorism”

“Final solution” now where have I heard that before? Apart from your actual Hitler, wasn't it his modern incarnation, hate preacher and thought criminal Katie Hopkins? 

“Extremist voices feel more emboldened to act on these views and that’s all about the climate. You know, for example when there is the US president talking about Muslims in a disparaging way and failing to break down the difference between extremists and people that just happen to belong to a community, it changes the entire tenet of the debate. The person that did this is the person that has the responsibility. I said that in the context of the Manchester attack and the London attacks and the murder of my wife; the person that did it is the person that’s responsible, but we do have to look at the context in which these events happen and I don’t think we take that seriously enough.

Is there any evidence at all of any coherent organisation behind this far right extremism?

You’ll see online, and it’s very clear that there are a series of organisations who are actively inciting hatred, not against extremists, but against Muslims as a whole and I think those people are very organised, they’re well funded they’re well financed, and again I think we have to have a dual approach to this cos it’s partly about those extremist organisations, but I also think we all have to have a look at ourselves and actually more mainstream organisations and organisations who probably don’t tip over into that incitement to violence, but I think sometimes we do blur the distinction and talk in a way where people think that Muslims as a whole are represented by the people that committed the attacks in Manchester or London. They don’t, in the same way that this attack doesn’t represent the vast majority of people.
 You know yesterday and over the weekend we had this huge coming together of communities in celebration of the things that unite us across the UK.
That’s what represents our country, but we have to get much better at tackling hatred in whatever community that comes from.”

Who or what is this well organised, well-funded and well financed group? I’d be interested to know.

I didn’t join any of those ‘Get-Together’ celebrations yesterday but I did find time to watch some of the live-streamed footage of the Al Quds march through central London. 

People, including Sadiq Khan, who were talking about coming together were probably too busy to notice the bile that was megaphoned over the streets of London to the insistent beating of a drum. 

If Brendan Cox doesn’t acknowledge that it’s not just the violence of the few that needs to be dealt with, but the extremism of the many, then all his posturing is hypocritical and hollow.