Hugh Fitzgerald deconstructs the New York Times

In a fine piece of analytical journalism, Hugh Fitzgerald refutes the New York Times meticulously, point by point, line by line.

What Hugh is refuting is the attempt of the New York Times to construct a narrative to "explain" the motivations of the Orlando ghazi, Omar Mateen, with every explanation under the sun except for one -- Islam.

It is a deconstruction one could say is the mirror image of the process of defusing a bomb -- insofar as what the New York Times has constructed is not a live bomb, which Hugh has then prevented from exploding, but rather a phony bomb calculated to pre-empt the explosion (or more accurately, to divert our attention away from the explosion elsewhere).  In its editorial, the New York Times as elucidated by Hugh's analysis is evidently weaving a complex tapestry of taqiyya.  Since their piece was written by "Dan Barry, Serge F. Kovaleski, Alan Blinder and Mujib Mashal" -- a Christian, two Jews, and a Muslim -- we can surmise that it's three Useful Idiots and a sly taqiyya Muslim responsible (if we valiantly uphold our disinclination to go conspiracy theorist, that is).

In his meticulously masterful analysis, perhaps a tad calmer than James Bond at the climax of Goldfinger figuring out how to stop the timer on the atom bomb he's been handcuffed to in Fort Knox, and stopping it in time at the seven-second mark ("007"), Hugh restores the explosion -- and its explosive ingredient and intricate wiring of Islam -- in our minds.

Let's just hope that such analyses the Counter-Jihad keeps producing over the years will at some point stop at "911" -- which means will wake up our broader, surrounding West -- before it's too late.