It had to come to this. Indeed, I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised at how quickly it came. There is now talk of a big book and media deal with self-confessed terrorist David Hicks. According to a report in today’s Sunday Herald Sun, the marketers are already saying Hicks could make millions.
An RMIT marketing expert says Hicks could easily make $4 million on a multi-media tell-all deal about his experiences. Not bad pay for a terrorist. The two trapped Beaconsfield miners could only rake in a measly $2.6 million for their story. Of course they weren’t trying to kill fellow Aussies or Americans.
The truth is, the malignant Left has managed to turn David Hicks into an international cause celebre. They have put the best possible spin on Mr Hicks, while doing their best to blame America and Australia, somehow seeking to convince us that we in fact are the bad guys here, not the terrorists.
In an age of spin doctoring, the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out. They have portrayed Hicks as just a good Aussie kid out on an adventure, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thus all of his self-incriminating words about turning to Islam and hating the West are simply overlooked.
But Hicks was caught doing what he fully wanted to do: combating the West, and siding with the likes of al-Qaeda. As one senior intelligence expert put it, “There wasn’t a white man on the planet who was closer to Osama bin Laden than Hicks.”
When the enemies of everything we hold dear in the West are not resisted, but in fact embraced and coddled by radical Westerners, then things look very grim indeed for the fight against terror. Many Western intellectualoids have managed to convince themselves that gun-toting terrorists are not a bad bunch, while Western nations intent on resisting the terrorist onslaught are the real menace.
Triumphal Entry
It is now just a matter of time before Hicks makes his triumphal entry back into Australia. His five-years in detention may not have been a picnic, but it seems they will be more than offset by the good life he will be living from here on in.
The very West which Hicks has been warring against now seems ready to reward him for his actions. Indeed, parts of the West are stumbling over themselves in the attempt to turn Hicks into a national icon.
As such, six burning questions await answers. First, how soon before the Labor Party invites Hicks to be their next star recruit, their next celebrity candidate? Eventually the supply of unionists and ABCers will dry up, and the exciting new category of “freedom fighter” can be tapped into.
Second, just who will portray Hicks in the hagiographic movie version of events sure to come out real soon? Plenty of lefty Hollyweird types come to mind: George Clooney? Sean Penn? Tim Robbins? And maybe Charlie Sheen to play his dad?
Third, how many days before his followers demand that Hicks be proclaimed a “national living treasure,” or that he receive the Order of Australia?
Fourth, just how many interviews with Hicks will the ABC manage to pull off during the first week of his arrival?
Fifth, at what point will the liberal/left churches in Australia begin the canonisation process for Hicks? When will they proclaim Saint Hicks day? And how many sermons will he be allowed to give to their dwindling congregations on how Jesus was a terrorist, and George Bush is in fact the anti-Christ as foretold in the book of Revelation?
Sixth, just how big of a multimillionaire will Hicks in fact become, with his tell-all book contracts, gossip mag stories, and TV interviews?
And most people thought that by earning an honest living they could manage to get by, pay off the mortgage, and so on. Silly them. It appears that if get-rich schemes are the way to go, then it pays to be a self-confessed terrorist.
15 Replies to “How To Make Millions By Hating the West”
hehe well said Bill. Disgusting doesn’t quite describe the effects of the Left to turn a terrorist into a national hero.
These people side with the Islamofascists yet do not realise that if their supposed Islamic pals were in charge of this country they would have no freedom to speak out. They condemn the West whilst soaking up the prosperity and freedom that comes with being here. Most of these people would choke at the thought of living anywhere but the West.
Damien Spillane
Though I sympathize with your sentiments about the loony left calling evil ‘good’ and calling good ‘evil’ I think that we need to be more careful in what we say so that when our rhetoric turns to hyperbole we cannot be accused of being misleading.
What do you think? The obvious literary device where you use exaggeration and outrageous assertions makes your point very well, but shouldn’t you exclude assertions that could not ever possibly be true. That is my suggestion.
Kind regards, Dale Flannery
It’s sad that there has been so much focus on David Hicks. It’s not his case that is newsworthy, but the way the US has dealt with suspects outside of the usual justice system.
Nathan Jones
Nathan, did you read Bill’s recent article called “The Terrorist Cheer Squad”? In it he put this quote from “The Australian” by Janet Albrechtsen:
As to the law: “Military commissions have long been sanctioned by US courts as a proper means for trying those alleged to have committed offences against the laws of war. . . . In June 1942, German saboteurs landed on a deserted beach on Long Island, New York, intent on terrorising the US’s home front. They were arrested and tried by a military commission. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that military commission and the penalties (in that case, executions) it ordered. Last year the US Supreme Court once again upheld military commissions as an appropriate means for trying those captured and charged with breaking the laws of war, specifically in relation to the war on terror. The court demanded congressional approval. That has been given. So that’s the law.”
Rebecca Field
Thanks Dale
Was I being facetious here? Did I exaggerate? Did I overstate the case? Were these rhetorical devices? Yes to all.
Is there a place for such writing? I think so, on occasion. Are there examples of this in Scripture? I think so, on occasion.
Consider Elijah taking on the prophets of Baal, or Isaiah taking on the false gods, or Paul taking on his opponents.
Sometimes the silliness and moral vacuity of the other side’s arguments seem to warrant such polemics – but not always.
My own assessment is: This is such poor writing. Lacks balance, is poorly researched, begins in speculation and concludes in hysteria….
After this rant by Muehlenberg, his claim that ‘the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out’ looks a little partisan. Has he been hoisted on his own petard?
I don’t expect you to publish this critique. The truth can hurt.
Frank Golding
Thanks Frank
Yes it is clearly risky business trying to use a bit of humour on sacred icons such as Saint Hicks: the peace-loving Left goes absolutely ballistic. Plenty of hatred and venom being poured out in these comments. The Left does seem to be a pretty humourless and sour bunch.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Actually, to those critical of Bill’s use of rhetoric in this post, I have to say that I thought this was one of the most entertaining articles he has written for a long while. I got a good laugh out of it. I hope Bill writes many more in this style.
Those of us on Bill’s side of the ‘culture war’ debate need a good laugh from time to time to offset all the negative scenarios that we see happening around us as our once Christian culture slides into barbarianism.
Keep up the good (and entertaining) work, Bill.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria
Thanks Ewan
At least the Right still has a sense of humour.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The reason Hicks is championed is not because he has been a model Aussie, but because our government failed to support an Australian citizen being incarcerated without trial for 5 years.
Hicks has agreed to passing on any earnings from telling his story to the Australian government, so I don’t see how he can become a multimillionaire from doing this.
David McKay
Thanks David
But I am not aware of any government that would actively want to “support” someone found to be fighting against it. Most would have had him executed by now.
As to the rest, I of course was being facetious, but the Left has little time for such things. Whether he makes a penny or not is not my main concern. My real concern is how so many on the Left are seeking to make him into a hero, while demonizing the American and Australian governments.
Was I concerned that David Hicks was held for so long without charge? Of course. Was I concerned that David Hicks was not being treated properly whilst being held in camp x-ray? Of course.
What I was most concerned about though, was how a young Aussie could so easliy turn his back on his country and take up arms and support those that would stand against all that we hold dear. This seems to continually be overlooked by the supporters of David Hicks. Was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? No way! In his thinking he was exactly where he planned to be! That should be cause for concern for all of us!
George Kokonis
Bill, I think your assessment of the Hicks situation is spot on and I don’t think you have overdone the rhetoric. In fact, I think your exaggerations are too close to the truth for comfort.
Andrew Lansdown, Perth
Thanks guys. There is a good article on Hicks here:
hehe well said Bill. Disgusting doesn’t quite describe the effects of the Left to turn a terrorist into a national hero.
These people side with the Islamofascists yet do not realise that if their supposed Islamic pals were in charge of this country they would have no freedom to speak out. They condemn the West whilst soaking up the prosperity and freedom that comes with being here. Most of these people would choke at the thought of living anywhere but the West.
Damien Spillane
Though I sympathize with your sentiments about the loony left calling evil ‘good’ and calling good ‘evil’ I think that we need to be more careful in what we say so that when our rhetoric turns to hyperbole we cannot be accused of being misleading.
What do you think? The obvious literary device where you use exaggeration and outrageous assertions makes your point very well, but shouldn’t you exclude assertions that could not ever possibly be true. That is my suggestion.
Kind regards, Dale Flannery
It’s sad that there has been so much focus on David Hicks. It’s not his case that is newsworthy, but the way the US has dealt with suspects outside of the usual justice system.
Nathan Jones
Nathan, did you read Bill’s recent article called “The Terrorist Cheer Squad”? In it he put this quote from “The Australian” by Janet Albrechtsen:
As to the law: “Military commissions have long been sanctioned by US courts as a proper means for trying those alleged to have committed offences against the laws of war. . . . In June 1942, German saboteurs landed on a deserted beach on Long Island, New York, intent on terrorising the US’s home front. They were arrested and tried by a military commission. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that military commission and the penalties (in that case, executions) it ordered. Last year the US Supreme Court once again upheld military commissions as an appropriate means for trying those captured and charged with breaking the laws of war, specifically in relation to the war on terror. The court demanded congressional approval. That has been given. So that’s the law.”
Rebecca Field
Thanks Dale
Was I being facetious here? Did I exaggerate? Did I overstate the case? Were these rhetorical devices? Yes to all.
Is there a place for such writing? I think so, on occasion. Are there examples of this in Scripture? I think so, on occasion.
Consider Elijah taking on the prophets of Baal, or Isaiah taking on the false gods, or Paul taking on his opponents.
Sometimes the silliness and moral vacuity of the other side’s arguments seem to warrant such polemics – but not always.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Mr Muehlenber and followers, the reponse to this article on OLO is far from flattering. See
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5694
My own assessment is: This is such poor writing. Lacks balance, is poorly researched, begins in speculation and concludes in hysteria….
After this rant by Muehlenberg, his claim that ‘the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out’ looks a little partisan. Has he been hoisted on his own petard?
I don’t expect you to publish this critique. The truth can hurt.
Frank Golding
Thanks Frank
Yes it is clearly risky business trying to use a bit of humour on sacred icons such as Saint Hicks: the peace-loving Left goes absolutely ballistic. Plenty of hatred and venom being poured out in these comments. The Left does seem to be a pretty humourless and sour bunch.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Actually, to those critical of Bill’s use of rhetoric in this post, I have to say that I thought this was one of the most entertaining articles he has written for a long while. I got a good laugh out of it. I hope Bill writes many more in this style.
Those of us on Bill’s side of the ‘culture war’ debate need a good laugh from time to time to offset all the negative scenarios that we see happening around us as our once Christian culture slides into barbarianism.
Keep up the good (and entertaining) work, Bill.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria
Thanks Ewan
At least the Right still has a sense of humour.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The reason Hicks is championed is not because he has been a model Aussie, but because our government failed to support an Australian citizen being incarcerated without trial for 5 years.
Hicks has agreed to passing on any earnings from telling his story to the Australian government, so I don’t see how he can become a multimillionaire from doing this.
David McKay
Thanks David
But I am not aware of any government that would actively want to “support” someone found to be fighting against it. Most would have had him executed by now.
As to the rest, I of course was being facetious, but the Left has little time for such things. Whether he makes a penny or not is not my main concern. My real concern is how so many on the Left are seeking to make him into a hero, while demonizing the American and Australian governments.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
News flash: Labor may not consider asking Hicks to run, but it appears that the Democrats are not hesitant about such a possibility: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21503258-5006009,00.html
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Was I concerned that David Hicks was held for so long without charge? Of course. Was I concerned that David Hicks was not being treated properly whilst being held in camp x-ray? Of course.
What I was most concerned about though, was how a young Aussie could so easliy turn his back on his country and take up arms and support those that would stand against all that we hold dear. This seems to continually be overlooked by the supporters of David Hicks. Was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? No way! In his thinking he was exactly where he planned to be! That should be cause for concern for all of us!
George Kokonis
Bill, I think your assessment of the Hicks situation is spot on and I don’t think you have overdone the rhetoric. In fact, I think your exaggerations are too close to the truth for comfort.
Andrew Lansdown, Perth
Thanks guys. There is a good article on Hicks here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/ovation-for-david-hicks-was-a-disgrace/story-e6frfhqf-1226062967732
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch