Posts
Is government itself.
In the wake of the horrendous Nice killings, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic were quick to pounce on the event in order to further their police state agendas by instilling the populace with the fear of an ever present, undetectable “terrorist threat” — in short by peddling ghosts.
In the immediate aftermath of the horror, there were virtually no details about the assailant. Before it was even known that he was a “French-Tunisian,” Obama declaimed, “I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice,”
On what basis did it “appear to be”? Given the U.S.’s experience with gun-toting lunatics, an American must certainly know that not every mass-killer is a “terrorist.”
A tad more nuanced was Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May who said, “If, as we fear, this was a terrorist attack we must redouble our efforts [against] those who seek to destroy our way of life.” May added, that “a terrorist attack on the UK is highly likely.”
A terrorist attack on the U.K. might be likely, but the present issue was whether the incident in Nice could be taken to be an indicator of that likelihood. May’s statement put two fruits on the table (voilá!) but failed to explain any connection between them.
Similarly, France’s president, François Hollande spoke of the attack as having a “terrorist character” before going on to declaim against “terrorism” while extending the state of emergency that had been about to expire. In speaking this way, Hollande engaged in pure sophistry. His statement ought not to have fooled anyone but it certainly fooled the press whose character appears more and more to be that of terrified geese.
In the days following the incident, press and politicians (who are now merely manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon), sought to make up the evidentiary deficit with almost vaudevillian tabloid slurs.
The assailant was a “loner” with a “history of violence” who “allegedly beat his wife” and whose apartment contained fake weapons and “more documents.”
"He is a terrorist, probably linked to radical Islam one way or another," Prime minister Valls told France 2 television. “Yes, it is a terrorist act and we shall see what links there are with terrorist organizations."
In the wake of the horrendous Nice killings, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic were quick to pounce on the event in order to further their police state agendas by instilling the populace with the fear of an ever present, undetectable “terrorist threat” — in short by peddling ghosts.
In the immediate aftermath of the horror, there were virtually no details about the assailant. Before it was even known that he was a “French-Tunisian,” Obama declaimed, “I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice,”
On what basis did it “appear to be”? Given the U.S.’s experience with gun-toting lunatics, an American must certainly know that not every mass-killer is a “terrorist.”
A tad more nuanced was Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May who said, “If, as we fear, this was a terrorist attack we must redouble our efforts [against] those who seek to destroy our way of life.” May added, that “a terrorist attack on the UK is highly likely.”
A terrorist attack on the U.K. might be likely, but the present issue was whether the incident in Nice could be taken to be an indicator of that likelihood. May’s statement put two fruits on the table (voilá!) but failed to explain any connection between them.
Similarly, France’s president, François Hollande spoke of the attack as having a “terrorist character” before going on to declaim against “terrorism” while extending the state of emergency that had been about to expire. In speaking this way, Hollande engaged in pure sophistry. His statement ought not to have fooled anyone but it certainly fooled the press whose character appears more and more to be that of terrified geese.
In the days following the incident, press and politicians (who are now merely manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon), sought to make up the evidentiary deficit with almost vaudevillian tabloid slurs.
The assailant was a “loner” with a “history of violence” who “allegedly beat his wife” and whose apartment contained fake weapons and “more documents.”
"He is a terrorist, probably linked to radical Islam one way or another," Prime minister Valls told France 2 television. “Yes, it is a terrorist act and we shall see what links there are with terrorist organizations."
Did anyone think to ask how Vals could say it was a terrorist act without there being any known links to terrorist organizations?
Evidently not. Instead, the press decried the “failure” of the French Security Forces. The New York Daily News stating that “The fact he was not on the watch list will be of grave concern as an investigation into last year’s Paris attacks identified multiple failings by France’s intelligence agencies.
A watch list for what? A watch list for spousal discord, relabeled “marital terrorism”?
Inspector Clouseau notwithstanding, Securité is not a bunch of incompetents. The fact that they didn’t detect any “links” even though he was known to police indicates not a failure of investigation but rather the absence of links.
As of July 16th “authorities have not found links to terror groups or evidence of radicalisation.” That did not give any pause to Bernard Cazeneuve, France’s interior minister, who pronounced that the killer most certainly was « radicalisé très rapidement »
Indeed! He was suddenly radicalized just moments before the attack. This sort of thing happens, you know.
What is truly choice is that Cazeneuve can’t cite any evidence that Bouhlel was in anyway interested in Islam or ISIS or Middle east politics. It cannot even be argued that “radical islamic propaganda” was festering and steaming in his brain until suddenly it reached a critical mass in his consciousness causing him to mow down bystanders in a instantaneous murderous “epiphany”
What is known is that he was was a petty criminal who drank alcohol, ate pork, took drugs and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. He was something of a cunt hound and was rumoured to have beat his wife. He got kicked out the house and fell into depression for which he was taken to a psychiatrist by his father. His actual criminal record consisted of petty theft and a road rage battery when he slammed another driver with an “improvised weapon” — i.e. one of the wooden pallets he has in the back of his truck.
The simple facts are that modern society engenders a great deal of alienation and at the same time furnishes a wide spectrum of lethal instrumentalities for misuse. This incident had everything to do with societal dysfunction and nothing to do with terrorism.
Of course, ISIS is always there to rescue Western politicians from their hysterical inanity. According to the UK Guardian, “ In an online statement through news agency Amaq, it described the attackers [sic] as one of its “soldiers” carrying out the “operation in response to calls to target nationals of states that are part of the coalition fighting Islamic State”
The only thing this statement proved is that ISIS is quick to seize any opportunity to puff up its strength and advance its agenda of fear.
What is dismal is that Western politicians have the same agenda. ISIS wants to fan the flames of fear and Western governments want to use those flames to tighten their police grip on society. We’ve seen, before, the symbiotic relationship between subversives, anarchists, disaffected loners and the apparatus of the state.
Manuel Vals has been on our shit-list ever since he called for a "total war" against terrorism in January of this year. Beware the Ides, when politicians start sounding like Goebbels
Post Script (18 July 2016)
French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, admitted to day that links between the Nice killer and ISIS have "yet to be established."
Meanwhile, attending a memorial ceremony in Nice, prime minister Manuel Vals was roundly and loudly booed for minutes on end. The gist of the disapproval was that Vals and his government were "incompetents."
He got what he bargained for. Had he not been cynically pumping this incident up as an act of terrorism he would not have been booed, because no one would hold the government responsible for failing to detect the act of a lone, nutcase, who could hardly be expected to be on Securité's radar.
©
