Mainstream Media and Stupidity

Is it theirs, or what they think of ours?  Example 85,273,569.

What's truly scary about the horrifying attacks that have recently taken place in Orlando, England and France isn't just the number of victims -- it's that the acts themselves are impossible to understand.

This being the summary, offered just below the subject post at Spiegel.  I suspect I don’t have to do much more writing for you to know where this post is headed.  But here goes....

It's been 10 years since the Football World Cup transformed Germany into a "summer fairytale," as it was referred to by Germans. During the weeks of that tournament, the world seemed like a more peaceful place.

Not for people living in Iraq or Afghanistan.  And since then, not for people pretty much anywhere in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe.  Do you wonder why those who didn’t find the world so peaceful ten years ago (and with more added since) might be upset by those who hold such attitudes? 

During the third day of this year's European championship tournament, the worst "mass shooting" in US history took place in a gay club called Pulse in Orlando, where 49 people were killed and dozens were injured.

You know what’s impossible to understand?  Why is this event labeled as the worst mass shooting in US history?  I know, I know – mass shootings performed by men with badges or uniforms don’t really count.

But why is this act “impossible to understand”?  Assuming it wasn’t a false flag (and taking the mainstream narrative as given), why not just take the murderer’s word for it – stop bombing his country!

The author doesn’t begin with this example of violence in any case.  She starts here:

On Thursday, Jo Cox, a young British Labour MP, was shot and stabbed in a public street. A few hours later, she was dead.

Let’s see what Martin Armstrong thinks about this murder / assassination:

So is there a conspiracy? Perhaps. They would never investigate themselves, so all this is has been suspicion. What is clear, has been that the EU will collapse if BREXIT is allowed. There is far too much at stake to allow this vote. The burning question will be, just how they cover it up and at what cost?

I agree – after BREXIT comes the fall.  This would be troubling for many of the elite.  Armstrong’s thought – and he is by no means alone – is worth considering.  Have you seen the swing in the polls since this event?

The [European Championship] matches themselves were accompanied by rioting English, Russian and German hooligans.

This isn’t so hard to understand – setting aside that football has often brought about the more, shall we say, emotional side of many fans…. Violent government begets a violent society.  It is OK for government actors – those charged with providing security against cheating, stealing and murder – to cheat, steal and murder.  It is OK for a government to hold one standard for prosecuting me and you, but quite another in regards to prosecuting one of their own.

Returning to the broader “terrorism” theme: after noting that statistically we (meaning Western Europeans) might be safer than before….

But these days, we are not just afraid of the terror, which is statistical unlikely to affect us -- we are worried about our civilized way of life.

Two thoughts: first, stop bombing people who never did anything to threaten or harm you, and second stop letting in those who might be pissed off about it.  These two simple actions will go a long way toward alleviating your worry.

Haven't we, in Western Europe, grown up with the idea of advancing peace, of globally decreasing violence, contained by a state that enforces peace in the interest of all?

Since when?  Major western European powers have been involved in just about every destabilizing move in the aforementioned North Africa, Middle East and Central Asian conflicts – not to mention stirring the pot in Central and Eastern Europe.

After the events of Orlando and Paris, we once again look to the perpetrators' biographies for explanations of their hate -- into their complex identities and social backgrounds.

What a waste of time.  How about you stop bombing them instead?

The pure desire for destruction that is characteristic of today's terror is not [comprehensible].

Stop bombing them – is this comprehensible enough?

If the violence could somehow be explained, then it could actively be fought.

“I can explain it!  Me, all the way in the back.”  “Yes, little Johnny, go ahead.”  “It’s called blowback.”  “Sorry, never heard of it.  You fail the class.”

Then it would "only" be an aberration that could be rectified through politics.

It can be rectified through politics – stop bombing them.

Have I mentioned yet that the west might start by no longer bombing them?

So far, politicians have done little to curtail the escalating brutality -- quite the contrary.

“Quite the contrary” is right; they keep bombing them.  Does our author finally figure this out?  No, she points to Donald Trump and the deputy chairman of the Russian parliament as two who encourage the violence.  Maybe – but I have a better list:  Every political and military leader in NATO countries and a few other closely associated “allies”.  They not only encourage violence, they practice it daily.

Violence is becoming acceptable to the mainstream and brutality is glorified.

Yes.  Consider the sanctity of our holy warriors….

Conclusion

We cannot get used to brutality. Because when violence is no longer taboo, it endangers free society.

Bingo!  War is the health of the state and the state’s business is to endanger free society.  Nothing is endangering free western society more than the perpetual wars committed by state actors.  Brutality is no longer taboo – many in the west praise their warriors and cheer on the toughest sounding politician.

And free society is most certainly endangered.