Initially created to inform the public and offer a quick and objective knowledge of events unfolding around them, the media now produces instead a generalized confusion, that benefits solely those who only prosper in such confusion. Those who make a profession out of complaining are in fact the most ferocious partisans of stagnation and the most adamant opposition to progress.
Every era possesses its own particular potential, its own objective to achieve and its own challenges. A great particularity of ours is that we have never before systematically put in question absolutely everything expressed or practiced in the past. An absolute downpour of suspicion, contestation and denigration has descended upon all that was the cement of past civilizations, of our societies, of our relations one with the other. This tendency to put in question the slightest moral and political principle has, until now, led to no coherent, concrete or constructive results. On the contrary, the confusion that comes of this seems only to produce again and ever more confusion. Instead of seeing a warning or lesson, it appears that these professional detractors derive only a morbid supplementary motivation to sink themselves deeper.
But do they really know where they are going? Could they explain to us towards what exactly they are heading for? And what is their message, exactly? In the eyes of those they could claim, the answer is horribly clear and without reprieve. Visibly, above all this is an intellectual posture, a kind of utopia obsession. No trace of a structured thought aimed at confronting reality and its rules. The stakes of this position are not to pronounce oneself in favor of some precise alternative, but only and in priority, to oppose themselves to decisions that are put in practice, so as to later, be able to publicly use the failure as blatant proof that these decisions were not pertinent.
But why such a lack of responsibility in the face of events that impact on the lives of individuals? Because these decisions were not taken under their control and consequently, esteem that it is their duty to make them fail, out of fear of being distanced from the democratic game, even relegated out of the decision centers. This paranoia is not an argument that pleads in favor of their mental health, also the value of their slightest opinion. Otherwise, how else to explain this capacity to denigrate, insult, slander, when this is not in anyway necessary in any kind of serious debate?
It is probably a painful reminiscence of their youth, who wants that its partisans of liberty, without obstacle, always call upon the passion or fear of a perpetual conspiracy, instigated by the military industrial complex. (Even though they themselves systematically forget that they dispose of as many entries into the cogs of the political and economic system. They also withhold from mentioning that powerful Trusts are as much committed to their side and that, for who are the security services, civilian as military, they count as well numerous partisans of their political opinions among their ranks).
All this supposed struggle against the invisible perils crumbles like a house of cards, if one takes the trouble to dig and analyze all this. What remains, is a publicity advantage on the political communication level and a lack of renewal in the manner of understanding things and wanting to explain them. Leaders in the past, once power was lost, fell behind on the present. They persist today, to eternally replay the same scheme as yesterday, when the situation has awfully changed. What more, everyone knows forthwith their difficulties, when it comes to their incompetence in realizing what they promise without limit. As well, their lack of discernment on the subjects that cannot be appealed, like security and the resort of force, too imprinted with ideology of appeasement and pacifism. While the menace is concretized, they cling to their irresponsible disposition to conciliate with those who seek only an unconditional victory.
Our era thus had their word confiscated by those who profess to free themselves and who, in the name of their intellectual superiority, appropriate the means of communication. Little does it matter to them that their school of thought represents only them and that their ranks diminish regularly.
The Future While Dragging One's Feet
Nowadays, take a moral point of view of things and one will immediately reproach you for showing a lack of tolerance. In the name of a concept that has become an unchangeable truth, all ideas are worth each other, nothing deserves greater attention nor recognition except that which identifies itself to nothing in particular. The truly free individual is the one who feels attached by no links, does not owe anything to anyone and who accepts no responsibility. They pretend to have the right, as if it were owed, to all that pleases them and refuse all that does not correspond to their expectations.
This absurd conception of individualism diffuses itself amidst the weak and bitter and perturbs the vital debate that animates nations, who today find themselves confronted by crucial choices concerning international decisions.
The animators of this nonsensical theory are the artisans of this limitless contestation, they clamor no idea deserves that one should fight for it. Not having obviously the means to express these kinds of fantasies in a convincing way to the general public, they have opted for the reverse strategy, that being to block those who do not share in their ideology from expressing themselves. In the name of freedom of expression, they endeavor to monopolize debates everywhere where they might occur. These useless of a psychiatric utopia world redirect the proposals of their detractor and noisily manifest, at every occasion that presents itself.
These enlightened minds are so open to any kind of phoney experiences that breezes become hurricanes and the debates diatribes. They cry out so much for their love of peace that one wonders why they are not more interested in the causes of war. Discussion is not forcibly apt to solve all differences, some end in war, otherwise those battles would have been resolved before, by discussion. The state of war is an exception in a continuity of peace and one does not fight for war to last, but to bring back the peace.
One only has to note that these inepties, if they were not so propagated all over the world, then reused with relish by that international latrine of intellectuals, would certainly make the people of goodwill smile at such a lack of seriousness. The problem is that all this is not a game, that words have a meaning and that this ends with mortal consequences for a certain number of individuals throughout the planet. It concerns their freedom and their lives and not that of the impoverished media's influence, that so affections the champions of humanitarian causes.
In education, no one neglects that laxism and fatalism come as a pair and that it has never brought about a sense of responsibility that helps the rapport between people to evolve. But more an opening towards decadence, that only leads to laziness, individualism and, ultimately, as a nihilism that destroys everything that was built to allow the individual to get out of barbary and spare him sliding back into the errors that were committed before him. The lessons of history are there to serve as examples, so much sacrifice and courage was necessary to edify the world in which we live, it would be quite out of place not to take the trouble to give it some thought and take them into consideration.
Let us not be foolishly drawn away like others were before us, simply because false prophets, blind and hysterical, flatter our feeling of invulnerability. Let us not give into the sirens that draw us towards the denial of civilization, let's be useful and really struggle for those who are in need, instead of keeping them at a distance, in a demeaning and unfruitful dependence.
Flatter Rather Than Affirm
In being constantly confronted by the media tool, the politicians, in a tendency that is spreading, find themselves more and more reduced to take on the ticks and mannerisms of advertisers, expressing and opting for easy solutions, that win over adherence the most obvious way in the world of journalism and communication.
As much as it is possible for him, in conforming to the codes and modes used by the profession, to win a few quick successes, as such, when this man seeks to endure in his domain, these successes turn against him like an infernal trap. For the public only let themselves be seduced the time it takes them to recover. He knows perfectly the difference between consuming a product, because one presents it in an appealing way and subscribing to ideas that involve your existence and that of your relatives, as they are portrayed to you as ideals. There will always be something to make him quickly regain the confidence accorded to those who will compromise their political task with the game of advertising.
Politics is assuredly not a market like others, it is not enough to address oneself to the public as being convincing for the length of the speech. One still has to put into practice what motivated people to let themselves be convinced and for the duration, as in adversity, there is no longer a question of seduction and evaluation of the presenter, but indeed of competences, convictions and honesty. And this kind of obstacle is impossible to cross if one only has under one’s belt decorations and fanfares to support you.
And the whole difficulty resides indeed here, as finally, can one seduce the people with a truly pragmatic approach and with no bearing on reality, in the context of a typical media communication? Do we not find ourselves handicapped, or out of sync, when addressing the tricky subjects without seeking to flatter the electorate, when faced with a competition that uses shamelessly of all the customary artifices? It is only once the verdict is given, that he who showed lightness finds himself caught by his own trap.
Another consequence of this standardization of media communication is that it is very difficult to escape the rule in application in the quite specific domain of politics. In effect, the different contestants must not disassociate themselves too much from one another in the specificities, in order not to risk getting separated or distanced from the leaders, who correspond to the respectable norm accepted by the public, who do not preoccupy themselves to massively support the smallest formations, judged as unreliable since marginal.
So how to present oneself when one avoids differentiating oneself at all cost? All that remains is to attack the other on what one judges as holding a good potential for controversy in his arguments. And the laboratory for potentially controversial issues, are the media, who produce in continuum and one could even add, blindly, all the controversy possible and imaginable. Developing all and its contrary, in the admitted aim of nourishing a permanent flow of all kinds of criticism, without attaching the slightest importance to their pertinence or the answers they give them.
One hence looks to attack the adversary on a tone that does not seek the explanation, but rather the reply, in the great tradition of televised clashes, where each aggresses one after the other, waiting for one of the two contestants to lose his calm and show his true face. Which pays off immediately by the disaffection of the public, who do not tolerate that a political person let themselves reveal their weaknesses, there where one expects of them only ardor and conviction on all matters, flattery without sentimental complication. Not that the public does not tolerate this obscene unveiling of emotions and self-pity, it is just a question of appropriate manner and program time.
During the show, there is a moment for everything and above all, a determined place for each thing, and politics does not mix with psychoanalytical unravelling. They are two different slots in media business and if everything boils over any which way, there is a conflict of interest. This confusion does not benefit business, it scrambles it. On the other hand, a political person in disaffection can always catch themselves up on another program, on another theme, in another approach, or even return for an assault once his public therapy has paid off, as all can be sold and disaffection is as fruitful as anything, it remains only to know how to orchestrate it correctly.
By continuing to express oneself like an advertiser, the politician has adopted the language and behavior of journalists. Due to this, journalists have gained confidence in themselves and behave at present like politicians. To such an extent that there are greater advantages in being a journalist, as there is nothing to actualize once the slogan is adopted by the public. There is no duty for results, one just has to be content with the idea and, luck of the draw, the journalist even has the right to change his mind at the rate that pleases him, which is supposed to be the proof that he or she is completely independent of pressure.
This little perverted game has no real impact on this individual and moreover procures delicious chills. Knowing that the effects of the slightest error or deliberate bad interpretation in the proposals of a politician, can ruin his career, when it is not his honor, purely and simply.
Ingratitude and Unconditional Amnesia
The journalist owes it to himself to persist with the most extreme diligence to provoke and maintain this alternating between flattery and suspicion in the most grotesque way possible, so as to always offer the public an objective impression of his own arbitrary value. To put in opposition with those, forcibly twisted and interested, their young political mares, who owe it to themselves to fend the most courteously possible, so as to also not be taken for a lout without education.
For if the television viewer gets bored all is lost: the political and media gamble and the publicity sales. Everyone would be quite saddened to have bothered to move and gone to all the trouble for such a result. So, anything goes to bring things to a boil and when the controversy and random accusations have exhausted the cold attention of the public, he can at last allow himself an unforgivable revenge on his all passive condition. The sanction for the loss of interest will therefore end up with the disposal of the bad player, who did not bother to offer the minimum, that being the link between a commercial and a program.
The journalist enjoys a non-negligible advantage when facing a politician: the fact that he has already encountered a certain number. Politicians, a journalist honorable of that name has seen a few fall, he has also certainly participated to the ascension of some and nobody is fooled, there will still be others to come. The novelty is that it is becoming nonetheless more and more difficult to accord the slightest kind of attention to a politician of the past. All those who did their time now have a curious propensity to disappear into a disturbing collective oblivion. Which enables newcomers without doubt to not get stuck in references which would certainly bore those who are convinced of starting the world over each time. This could also inopportunely reveal other situations and other eras, with for consequence making emerge little secrets and deals, troublesome for all those who regularly affirm owing nothing to no one and as having created themselves on their own.
Once again, one can see a convincing example of how the tool ends up trapping the user, if this one does not pay attention not to forget its function. A little like those crazy machines in science fiction novels, who acquire by themselves a certain autonomy, then rush to liberate themselves from the influence of their creators, to only finally serve them totally.
One notes still and always that it is of our era to almost systematically make oneself servant of what was supposed to serve us, such that people have developed this incredible facility of always seeking to think as little as possible. This laziness ends up by the fact that once the so desired place is reached, the fortunately elected one rests on his laurels without a care, not looking for anything but the obscene satisfaction of being there, waiting without conscience for those who wait in line behind him to seize the opportune moment to jump on him and in turn reduce him into pieces.
Maybe this is all just additional proof that he who has a truth to demonstrate, a mission to accomplish, can only be extremely reticent to use the media tool for addressing those to whom he wishes to express his views. Also certainly, the more one has a precise sense of reality and the necessary efforts to put into effect to succeed in having an influence on one's era in a durable and convincing way, the more one immediately feels the healthy reflex of keeping one's distance with these structures that swallow you whilst making you believe they are defending you.
For it is evident that every one of the victims consenting to the media machine, with their ample dose of unconsciousness and sentiments of invulnerability, feels much more cunning than his predecessor. And sees himself convinced of being able to not get drawn into the whirlwind, so acclaimed by those who dream of giving themselves to it, so criticized by those who are rejected from it.
One can finally ask oneself about the strange derailing of this tool. Initially created to inform the public and offer a quick and objective knowledge of events unfolding around them, so as to be more apt to position themselves in accordance with expectations and motivations. And which has become, ever since this same tool acquired power, that its employees need only justify by the fact that to oppose it would amount to being taxed as totalitarian, a kind of uncontrollable weapon. Which opens fire time and time again on all the protagonists of the democratic game, without ever turning it on themselves, nor accepting the simple principle of tempering their enthusiasm when racing to denunciate and weaken all that incarnates in their eyes, a counter-weight or alternative.
We are here faced with those who were supposed to enlighten our minds, elevate the debate and who, in the end, more propagate partisan gossip and slander. Saying all and its contrary and refusing to recognize their systematic inclination for the side of contestation and subversion. And, in any event, producing in majority a generalized confusion, that benefits solely those who only prosper in confusion.
Ultimately, those who find the most satisfaction from the world not evolving quickly enough, are indeed those who make a profession out of complaining. They are in fact the most ferocious partisans of stagnation and the most adamant opposition to progress. For nothing can appear more unbearable than an improvement to which they did not contribute, shouting and disturbing the daily life of all those who work peacefully.
But in fact what are they complaining about? Since everything for them is a pretext to complain and complaining is precisely what they are looking for? Would they be capable of complaining about not having anything to complain about?
They dub themselves opposed to capitalism because there are poor people, one could just as easily be against the rain because there are floods, or against the sun because there are droughts. Their vision of the world corresponds strangely to a comic book reality, where all exists to comfort them in their preconceptions, where all must be permitted because the world is kind . . .
Bar Manners Intellectual Con, Media Thought Poverty
To illustrate the proposal of this tiresome spin, one just has to listen and look closely at the few recent events in the news, to discover here an awful mine of manipulations in meaning of some words and the propagation of slogans with partisan ends.
These methods are not without recalling those fluently used by totalitarian agitators (communists and fascists), who utilize without shame any possibility that offered weakness and the lack of courage of democrats, always pleasing themselves in pity, guilt and the frenzied quest for alibis to justify their imperial need to revolt against all that makes the use of revolting possible. History will not retain anything, if not an enormous and futile loss of time, a phenomenal waste of energy and a revealed support for those who make a profession of destroying democracy.
A current example, used by a good number of individuals, who do it without even thinking, is the accusation of fascism. One says today of an individual that he is fascist, not because he claims to be one politically and one must note that these days, it is moreover rare to still find this kind of bizarre luminary, but indeed because he seems more authoritarian than the tolerated threshold fixed by media and good university consciences.
This vocabulary is therefore absolutely not used in a political context, but more like a slanderous signal, that places the accused in a position of banishment, with the famous fantasy that, if he gained power, would for certain establish a dictatorship in which he would immediately execute all his opposition.
As such, a police officer, a prison guard or a ticket controller are fascists, unless they prove to be bad natured as to the implementation of their task. In fact, practically anyone that wears a uniform is fascist, since they conform themselves to a group that represents a certain authority. And the anti-fascist, he, is always in opposition to someone in uniform.
However, the subtlety is that a member of a gang who slaughters in cold blood a rival, or a terrorist who executes his hostage, cannot be taxed of fascist. They are either victims of society, or anti-imperial combatants. In fact, behind all this rigmarole is carpeted a much more serious and concerted logic than appears, since we are talking of politics and ideology.
This technique was initialized by the communist militants of the post-war era, who used it at that time to denigrate, of course the true fascists, but especially their democrat adversaries, as well as their own dissidents. For in their eyes, all those who were not pledged to their word of command could only be enemies, therefore fascists. Being designated as such, in this era of ferocious struggle among small groups manipulated by minds twisted and imbued to totalitarian power, was equivalent to being put on the sideline. It was the supreme insult that made of you an outcast, an irrecoverable. And the democratic organizations kept themselves from appearing with someone as compromising, relaying the anathema that would then slam them in turn, when the time was right.
Here is a practice that proved itself in its day and which seduced almost all the leftist militant organizations, as much through its simplicity and efficiency, as by its wonderful possibility to denigrate the contestant, without getting bogged down with theories, contradictory discussions and debates. All of which is professed by those who posed as champions of social progress, that affirmed wanting to educate the manipulated mass and at last transmit the virus of the critical mind . . .
This successful wheeler-dealer dialectic is now reused by the leftists recycled into journalists, who see herein an astonishing way to continue the struggle, under the guise of objectivity and without having to take the slightest risk as to the social progression for their end of career. Safely in their nests integrated within the system, they only have to worry for their future as a militant, whose outcomes were not really uplifting, financially speaking.
The advantage no less, that procures the use of this term and allows the petty political reporter to always be in a position of censorship, is to distribute the good and bad points, and it is exactly what affections particularly these “models of social consciousness,” missing a power that cannot be shared.
Strangely, when it comes to militants or politicians whose opinions and practices do not correspond to their objectives, the fascist anathema surges instantly, like a devil at the bottom of his box, whereas when it is a question of Islamo-fascists, kidnapping and terrorizing civilian populations, never, in the complete sense, would they dare use this slanderous term to denigrate them. Moreover, they will seek by all means, even more unscrupulous, to find the justifications for their acts, without supporting them for as much, so they say, reserving always their insults for those who will not execute them, if they did not conform to their aims.
And it follows suit that national-socialism, so in vogue at present in Latin America, is led by this Venezuelan trade fair charlatan, where no camera will miss the slightest of his verbal venting. Getting excited to the edge of obscenity for what he calls, with all his convulsive seriousness, a struggle of the weak against the strong, of the small against the powerful. Without ever, not even for a moment, reflecting on the vulgar aspect of petty manipulation in favor of all the halfwits of western democracies, in perpetual demand of fresh popular ringleaders and totalitarians, that they may take charge of the global revolution, without ever having opened an economic or philosophical book worthy of that name.
Let us finish with a question: in history, what kind of contributors were those who, taking advantage of a democratic debate, use shameless processes consisting of accusing their adversaries of intentions or practices totally unfounded, wielding calumny and defamation as an acceptable tool in their dialectical arsenal? Do they therefore search for an elaboration of a constructive debate, the levelling of divergences to overcome? And lastly how, politically, does one designate an individual who manipulates this type of method, with the aim of destroying his detractor or discriminate him, rather than participate in a contradictory exchange.
Utopists Hunt Pragmatics to Denigrate
If there is a slogan that contributes so well to spread this confusion, so sought by those who want a place to shine, without having anything to offer in counterpart, it is indeed the one that follows: "It is capitalism that creates misery. Globalization makes that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer." A small variant has recently been added, to bring up to date this slogan from the end of the 19th century: "Globalization is a kind of capitalist conspiracy, that profits only to the multinationals who control the world."
In the past, this successful concept allowed to throw, throughout the world, thousands of imbeciles into the streets of their towns, crying out to the injustice and to the revolution, before regaining their minds and retaining of these stray collectives only fond memories of youth, to sell with B/W photographs. This will prove that they were responsible and conscious people and that they can forthwith give moral lessons and economic alternatives to professionals who run the economic flux, without needing to try to insert some kind of ideology, but quite simply by a better rationalization, in that rational method that generates wealth which is called capitalism.
What is surprising, is to note, once again, that these intellectuals visibly have no concerns of appearing ridiculous, when those they proclaim have never produced any example validating their affirmations. For the record their socialo/communist economic alternatives have never offered any kind of viable result, when they did not act, purely and simply, out of generalized bankruptcy. Moreover, any country submitted to the market economy, even the most corrupt, offers better possibilities to those unfortunate than any regime pronouncing the nationalization of their means of production, as guaranty of equitable sharing of wealth.
What can the secret be for this die-hard slogan, when the entire planet and human history itself invariably refutes it? How is it that today still, we hear incessant chanting of the docile descendants of apprentice sorcerers in the history of human strays? What is he doing here, among us, harming always and more the fluctuating mental health of young idealists, in need of injustice to take down without risk?
It would be unheeded to look for a meaning in what has none, even a logic to what is irrational. The meaning of this success is more to search in a perseverance and relentlessness that confirms these immature hard-liners, to not want to understand the world that surrounds them. From continuously playing this role, they have become a kind of reference, systematically solicited by media, once it concerns organizing a political debate. They hence derive a legitimacy that does not come from the real world, but from the media village ideal. Which allows them, in the end, to tirelessly continue being clowns, without risking getting demolished by the cruelty that history testifies to those who are of no use and do whatever. One can add that they owe their survival to the naive kindness, possibly the passive weakness of democracies, who do not really need to take it out on them, to continue participating in the evolution of a world, than is possible to deny only because one does not assume any responsibility.
This frenzy of anti-capitalist spite, displayed by those hordes of militant civil servants and deviated academics, also allows them to prove that they feel concerned for the fate of their society and, later, as some sort of official, they will lay out their whole illustrious career to demonstrate they do not compromise with freedom.
Prophetic Liars versus Reality
This instance to designate the guilty, instead of finding solutions, shows well to what point these givers of lessons feel much better under their halo as the people's commissioner than as an anonymous hero, who does what he feels is right, without always seeking to do it under the photographer's flashes, in a pathetic and deceitful mise-en-scenes.
How to pretend today that the quality of life for the majority of inhabitants on this planet is not evolving? And if, of course, many things remain to be done and without waiting, it is not unreasonable to say that the more this evolution will occur quickly, the more accessible will be the means to complete this task. And it is certainly not by creating social agitation and protests that our societies will come to the end of this misery that sells so well. But much rather by establishing commercial exchanges, in order to give an economic independence to those developing countries. For the solution resides in the accompaniment of those societies, out of the dependence in which they are maintained by all those associations that need not seek to be useful to continue existing.
Capitalism is not a system that thrives in reductions, the more money circulates, the more profits are generated and the more new markets are created. Money makes money and it is with money that one can help those who lack it, not to foster them, but to allow them in turn to earn some, make them partners and make money with them . . . The mechanism of capitalism is perpetual evolution, it does not suffer from stagnation or status quo.
But one will certainly always find a fruitcake to proclaim that one lived better two centuries ago and there will always be a herd of contesters, in lack of jeremiads, to follow him into his delirium. And nothing can appease this hysteria, for it does not nourish itself from any rational reflection. It is only part of a process of venting like children spoilt by our comprehensive societies, in a manner as if we needed their enlightened opinion to enable things in the world to evolve in a productive way.
Yet beyond this vaudevillesque bluffing game, one has to not forget that other forces are at work and derive benefits. Forces that use all they can to slow the advance of progress and find here, an excellent pot to plant their repugnant grains. Inside these groups proliferate bacteria that truly seek to harm and do not do all this to give themselves a good conscience. As is accustomed, these forces dissimulate themselves out of sight to prosper, diffuse their radicalism and orientate their naive apprentices on the path that serves their mortified objectives.
And this complacent tendency of society, with respect to this contestation with appearances of mass analysis, is systematically overtaken when events are radicalized and become more violent. And when they discover that the result of this friendly understanding does not generate any revival of democratic compassion, but more an unconditional support for the enemies of society, they start stupidly whining, regretting the era where all was going so well.
Shock and Shot
These days, a corny song is repeated in loops, in the manner of a mantra, by those who love not to think about what they say and relish taking political postures, because it allows them to get noticed as being particularly intelligent. Which, as a matter of fact, authorizes them to profess a deep despise for those who do not let themselves get deceived by their mundane logic of intellectual protesters.
“The Muslim populations are being pushed into the arms of radical islamism, because of the daily humiliation they suffer on behalf of the coalition forces, in their struggle against terrorism. It is Iraq that created the terrorist surge that we know.”
Our brilliant tacticians think to hold a shock argument in their competition for absurdity, hence affirming that the most responsible attitude, the most democratic, was to especially not react to the menace that loomed over the world, thanks to the detrimental influence of an irrecoverable dictator. It is the famous phrase that the intentioned professor says to the aggravated child: “don’t get drawn into the game of your aggressor, you are much smarter than him and you should not use your fists to defend yourself, as you are morally and intellectually superior.” In reality, this kind of concept allows the student in question to systematically get beaten up, without anything evolving for him, if it is not that he will learn to become a twisted hypocrite, while the educator can pursue in all serenity his yoga class, or reflect on the content of his next tract. Accepting the world as it is, imposes on you knowing how to judge when the use of force is necessary and in what proportion. In other words, placing you in front of your responsibilities and implying a decision that commits you to a course that makes things remain in place, or change them.
But the first refutation to develop, to counter the first slanderous allegation, is that it is precisely Muslims who mostly suffer the ill doing of Islamo-fascists and who, as a result, struggle on the front line against their acts. One can also add that there is no coherence in affirming that the two sides confronting each other are constituted of, on the one hand, oppressed Muslims, with the islamists hiding within their ranks and on the other the western conquerors. There is on one side only Islamo-fascists and on the other, the rest of humanity who do not give in to their pressure, regardless of their religious confession or their color of skin. And for what is a humiliation, it is certainly acutely felt by the terrorists who are not reaching their goals.
This famous humiliation so clamoured, is decidedly not worth very much when confronted by the reality of facts. It is in the end, only a fallacious complaint that rings well in the columns of newspapers selling good conscience in mass print runs. All of which is dyed in a good dose of unconsciousness and pure nastiness towards those who do only what they can, just to not reinforce this terrible blindness, from which so many wretched know how to draw profit so well.
The second concerns a war that produces more terrorists, as it progressively unfolds, which suggests that this concerns an unjust war and that the terrorists are resistants, facing an imperialist type aggression. Hence, in Iraq, there are people who wake up in the morning deciding abruptly to become martyrs, following on from what they were witness to on their streets, during coalition soldiers patrolling. Then therefore equip themselves with explosives and weapons and go to explode themselves in the middle of a market or in front of a police station, in order to fight against the oppressing presence of the foreign occupation forces. Or instead, they start kidnapping people, preferably foreigners, but not necessarily either, and end up decapitating them, filming the whole thing in a macabre mise-en-scene, then burning it on DVD, which they rush off to sell as symbols of saintliness to their cause. Here is a logical construction, clear and constructive . . .
One should take a little into account the methods used by the coalition forces that could not be more watched by the media, always avid to lynch as soon as it concerns revealing to the public a mishap or outburst. Without forgetting in addition the regular leaks, savvily nurtured, surfacing as soon as the opportunity presents itself to denounce the slightest deviation in conduct.
And one can count on the judicial institutions to deliver judges of exemplary severity, when punishing representatives of the authority and incredibly understanding, when it comes to “victims of social misery.” And it is quite surprising to note at what point these ferocious adversaries of democracy, that are the terrorists, capable of forgetting the treatments they inflict on their victims. When it comes to them they esteem themselves aggravated and mistreated in their dignity, as regard their conditions of incarceration.
It is consequently reasonable to admit that the terrorists modify their tactics according to the places where they find themselves, conditions in which they exercise their influence, as well as the environment in which they evolve, in light of the effects they seek to provoke. In a position of strength, they show themselves to be of merciless cruelty, in a position of weakness, they cry out for compassion. With that certitude, that whatever they do, the lust of media will offer them a loudspeaker for any kind of unscrupulous lie, rather than have to position themselves firmly on principles that one does not compromise on. For one resolves this kind of problem only through certitude and determination.
And the most consequent attitude for these unstable populations is indeed to recognize that the resentment for other people is a dead end as to their own emancipation. Instead of feeling humiliated by the success of others, they would be better off to start understanding that it is their own failure which is an important generator of feelings of frustration. Instead of searching to destroy those who manage to develop their aspirations and realize them, they would do better to seriously envisage the edification of their own. To lead one's efforts in a negative quest is probably the most frustrating task there is and one can never generate the slightest satisfaction and encouragement to surpass oneself.
All this nihilist rhetoric will never contribute to allowing these populations to finally come out of the infernal circle in which they avidly threw themselves, preferring outburst to sensed meditation. And the time that passes will take care of opening their eyes, with a cruelty that equals their blindness.
Who is stopping them from emancipating themselves from their executioners, to educate their children to be something other than child assassins, volunteers for all the most odious acts? Who is stopping them from practicing their faith away from the path of violence and carnage? Who puts the bombs in mosques, in markets, ransoms and pillages their neighbors at the slightest opportunity? Who exploits intellectual misery and propagates mortified conceptions in the minds of these people?
And, contrarily to the perverse affirmations of the media: who come from the other side of the planet, from zones where one has the leisure of living peacefully and accepts to risk life to put an end to this blind fury? Who fights daily, on the national and international political terrain, against a relentless opposition, who take over for their own purpose the diffusion of those hateful theories?
The media front wants to be the relay of all the fractions of remission and humiliation. For them, giving in to the injunctions of the terrorists is the best way to fight against them. For if one takes the decision to face them, they risk becoming nastier. And all this is complacently propagated by media all over the world, who are honored to give with ever more content an echo to these allegations, as we progressively get further from the source that initiated it. As it happens, every act or word professed against the Bush administration is systematically used over and amplified, giving the sentiment that at least once a week, a veritable uprising is occurring in the United States. Thanks to which, in turn, the partisans of blind carnage use these defamations to reinforce their pressure on the populations they hold hostage. In fact, due to a whole load of unnatural detours, it shows that a part of the Islamo-fascist ideological frolicking is just a product of the intellectual latrines of western decadence.
The artisans of this propaganda of confusion have decided that they would rather see the coalition camp lose, in this global war on terror, the only way for them to boast having been right all along. In their eyes, this war can only be won through sweetening and compromises, the terrorists are victims and the coalition soldiers are responsible for the massacres of innocent. This systematic inversion is the spearhead for this enterprise of ideological confusion and all those who make themselves relays of this abomination are to be considered as agents of destabilization, at work in our own ranks.
But this period of confusion will end sooner or later and as clarity sees the day, there will be individuals, surviving witnesses of these battles, to ask for accounts from those who, outrageously, perpetuated such curses around them and slapped on the back those who were supposed to explain the purpose. These parasites of history, who so shamelessly propagated the voice of oppression and counter-truth, will have to produce a clear and precise explanation for their odious complacency, as well as their incitements to defeatism and suspicion. And it is desirable that this is done publicly, so this kind of straying or disinformation be spared on future generations.
Topsy-Turvy
Last summer, one could regularly hear the critics of people of goodwill, artisans of peace, in the encounter of Tsahal, during its offensive against the Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon. As became accustomed, it was a cascade of gross lies challenging the Hebrew state, followed by unavoidable calls for compassion towards the militants of the armed palestinian struggle. This media offensive was triggered by a condemnation of the Israeli riposte to the rocket and missile fire on its territory. Then the media tighten themselves by denouncing a disproportion in the firepower used. What cruel irony than to say such things publicly, the Hebrew state should hence riposte to rocket fire on villages and urban areas, by identical firing on civilian Lebanese positions?
The Israeli army took the option of attacking the Hezbollah bases behind enemy lines, its training camps and sanctuaries, military objectives for a regular army wrestling with a militia dissimulated in the heart of civilian population, who supports it and plays skilfully and alternates the civilian or military card according to the interests of the moment. This offensive not only provoked the escape of this militia, it also destabilized the hierarchy in command of the sector, as well the destruction of its infrastructures.
It especially allowed for Lebanon to take back a little the control of its territory, confiscated by Hezbollah, with its armed militia and Islamo-fascist propaganda, in the service of the edification of disorder and the ruin of the whole region. While the foreign observers pounced on relaying all the major oppositions of the cease fire, without ever worrying about the reasons for the triggering of this operation, Hezbollah, in that ill nature that characterizes him, clamored that Israel was beaten, when at the same time, the militias spent their time whining, brandishing flags on the ruins of what was before an operations base.
As they have become accustomed, the Hebrew state does not have the luxury of being content with declarations of principles, but is vowed to action. And while Israeli army forces progress in Lebanese territory, it is a concerto of condemnations that accompanies the pacification of a zone of perpetual tension between two neighbors and in which the responsible for that crisis is a third nation, who uses one of the two countries as a shield and the second as a target.
The intrigued from all walks of life began raising their tone, steadily as it became evident that Hezbollah could not hold, nor save anything, always using as a pretext that nice renowned international law, that wants one helps the aggressor as early as possible, in order to put him in a good disposition to accept the truce. On their side, Hezbollah had never made its intentions a mystery: put the state of Israel in flames and blood by any means. The managers of these militias of active nihilism were happy to parade in front of the cameras, clamoring their everlasting ranting of counter-truths and calls to bloody hate, in there inimitable pathological hysteria, when they were not content to dissimulate themselves behind civilian populations.
Then Tsahal regained its borders, after the specialists in anti-zionist allegations were rallied, promising unanimously an inflammation of the whole region, a Lebanese civilian genocide, a crime against humanity and who knows what else. Imagination exhausted, the new attack against the Hebrew state was that it had lost the war against Hezbollah, a thesis immediately relayed with fervor by those who have nothing more to prove in the domain of duplicity. Hence, after having condemned all the month of August the disproportion of the Israeli riposte, the very same ones, in September, incite us to admit that all this destruction had brought no damage to Hezbollah, who comes out reinforced.
Hence, all the images running in loops of the destruction of neighbourhoods belonging to Hezbollah, by a mysterious effect, have produced precisely the reverse result than announced by our vigilant visionaries. That is, the ruins are in fact the privilege of victory and the state of Israel is the great defeated. Hezbollah is hence the grand victor, as it was not totally annihilated. They will take full advantage in front of the television cameras, all the while complaining of not being considered as peaceful and pacifist citizens.
Such a lack of reservation concerning such crude lies, such an obscenity in the murderous bad faith of those vulgar manipulators can only leave the man of honor without voice, who would search, in his misfortune, to find a way of restoring reason to these enlightened, thirsty for blood, power and a better world?Alexandre Parvulescu, March 2007, Paris.
Read more articles by Alexandre Parvulescu
