Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Je Ne Suis Pas, Nice – West’s Denial is More Dangerous than Terrorism

The West is incapable of combatting Islamic Terrorism effectively because its ideological and spiritual void makes it incapable of defending itself even from the most barbaric ideology.

Iben Thranholm

Published

on

653 Views

I dare say it: Je ne suis pas Nice. This is not because this writer is insensitive to the victims and their bereaved. Nor is it because I am a generally cynical and cold individual. It is because the “Je suis” movements have become an expression of passivity and denial, which poses a threat to Western culture as serious as terrorism itself.Images of people lighting candles, hugging teddy bears, people of all races holding hands, hashtags. Solidarity demonstrations are actually entirely oblivious to evil. The passivity and denial they generate will doubtless cost many more lives in the near future.

In spite of repeated attacks inside France committed by French nationals – of Arab ethnicity and Muslim identity – Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, who had a well-documented criminal record, succeeded in getting past roadblocks and police checkpoints driving a large truck, which he proceeded to plough through a crowd of thousands of defenceless people at high speed, leaving 84 dead and many more injured. If anyone had bothered to inspect the cargo hold of the truck, it would have revealed a load of ammunition and hand grenades. He deceived the police simply by telling them he was delivering ice cream, a chilling and revealing fact.

The ingenious element of his terrorist attack was he had understood the extent to which the French lie to themselves. His act is a symbolic reflection of France. Rather eat ice cream and have fun than acknowledge the war conducted against France on her own soil, as well as in other European countries, by people driven by an ideology of hatred.

The next day French President Francois Hollande spoke on the attack, which he very reluctantly labeled “terrorism”. His explanation of the terrorist’s reason for striking precisely Nice provides a stunning illustration of France’s complete divorce from reality. The president said:

“Why Nice? Because Nice is one of the most beautiful cities on Earth. Why 14 July? Because this day celebrates freedom and it harms France.”

This is the alleged reason why this individual committed this terrorist atrocity.

It is an alarming display of impotence when a president reduces an act of terrorism to a matter of a “lone individual”, a sociopath, who just does not like beautiful cities and celebration, disregarding any political implications of his act.

The same divorce from reality characterised Pope Francis’s reference to the Nice attack as “blind violence”.

With all due respect to the Holy Father, Mohamed Bouhlel did not commit “blind violence” when he executed a carefully planned atrocity.  He had filled the truck with weapons and selected, very specifically, 14 July for his atrocity, perpetrated in the name of his god. His religious convictions provided the driving force and motivation. The Pope’s open border policy and his statement about “blind violence” show that he is in denial as to the real problems including violent assaults occurring as a direct consequence of mass immigration, such as new year’s eve in Cologne.

France’s inability to protect her citizens adequately, most recently highlighted in Nice, is neither rooted in a shortage of military hardware, nor police or intelligence resources in the West.  Impotence springs from a lack of resolve. And in particular: absence of values.

The West denies not merely the legitimate security needs of their own populations. The West also refuses to protect its own culture and civilisation.

The most remarkable element in the entire debate on terrorism, mass immigration and European values is that the West is devoid of any resolve to protect its own culture. A highly civilized and developed culture is succumbing to a fundamentalist, backwards, barbaric ideology, which only the other day burned 20 women to death because they refused to have sex with them, behead infidels and execute people using methods that were otherwise long abandoned. Why has the West become so signally impotent?

The root cause is an absence of moral authority, inability to declare that ISIS and its adherents are wrong and identify them as evil. We do hear politicians condemning ISIS, but it is one thing to talk and quite another to believe that this is actually so.

From this moral vacuum springs the vacuous narratives about mere “lone gunmen” afflicted by psychological problems and criminal propensities.  They may possess these traits, but radicalisation is precisely the straw they can clutch to give meaning to their garbage heap of a life.  Radical adherence to the Quran offers them an opportunity to turn losers into heroes by perpetrating a deed that offers status, recognition and meaning – if not in this world, at least in the world to come.

They believe in something. The West and its leaders have abandoned faith and no longer know what that is.

Although presidents and politicians praise Western values like freedom, human rights and democracy in their rhetorically vetted speeches, they sound like they are not entirely certain why they must
defend these values. Frequently, they are preoccupied by heaping shame on themselves and any other who might have breathed a word of criticism against Islamism, as this is reviled as a condemning attitude.

Terrorists share belief in a message they are willing to die for and they find it expedient that others must die for as well. Westerners have no belief they are willing to die for. Nothing in the West is
worth dying for, so Westerners are victimised by their vacuity and impotence.

In his speech following the attack in Nice, Hollande reminded his audience that the Bastille Day is a celebration of freedom. This is true, but it is also an anti-clerical celebration.

The core of the French Revolution was rebellion against the church and marked the beginning of the West’s rejection of its Christian identity. A bloodbath of decapitated priests and bishops expressed the belief that rejection of the faith and the church was the way to bring freedom to France. The revolutionary rallying cry of “liberty, equality and fraternity” mimicked Christian confession of faith but emptied it of spiritual contents.

For more than 200 years, the godless modernity created by the French revolution prospered by being a parasite sucking life from the riches Christianity had created over centuries. The inheritance and its riches have been exhausted, entirely depleted. We are witnessing France reaping its whirlwind. No capital is left to shore up her defences.

Freedom has been replaced by surveillance. Most impose censorship on themselves despite self-congratulatory lip service to the freedom of speech. Political correctness muzzles statements based on reality and dictates selective opinions. Equality has been changed by right-wing calls for national sovereignty and clear boundaries, in order to cope with the dissolution caused by extreme diversity. Political power and economics are no longer subject to the popular influence exercised through any real democratic process, power is exercised solely by multinational corporations and banks. Fraternity, or brotherhood, has been supplanted by individualism and isolation.

By merely tearing down established values and building on negative foundations, post-modernity has not produced cultural progress but rather decay which have now turned into self hatred. All precepts of liberal democracy have been eroded and remain as a thin varnish to conceal Western society’s loss of faith, loss of belief in own values, history and Christian identity. This loss of faith and the vacuum it generates is the force that sucks in and nurtures Islamism and terrorism.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Understanding the Holodomor and why Russia says nothing

A descendant of Holodomor victims takes the rest of us to school as to whether or not Russia needs to shoulder the blame.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the charges that nationalist Ukrainians often lodge against their Russian neighbors is that the Russian government has never acknowledged or formally apologized to Ukraine for the “Holodomor” that took place in Ukraine in 1932-1933. This was a man-made famine that killed an estimated seven to 10 million Ukrainians , though higher estimates claim 12.5 million and lower ones now claim 3.3 million.

No matter what the total was, it amounts to a lot of people that starved to death. The charge that modern-day Russia ought to apologize for this event is usually met with silence, which further enrages those Ukrainians that believe that this issue must be resolved by the Russian acknowledgement of responsibility for it. Indeed, the prime charge of these Ukrainians is that the Russians committed a genocide against the Ukrainian people. This is a claim Russia denies.

To the outside observer who does not know this history of Russia and Ukraine’s relationship, and who does not know or understand the characteristics of the Soviet Union, this charge seems as simple and laid out as that of the Native Americans or the blacks demanding some sort of recompense or restitution for the damages inflicted on these societies through conquest and / or slavery. But we discovered someone who had family connections involved in the Holodomor, and who offers her own perspective, which is instructive in why perhaps the Russian Federation does not say anything about this situation.

Scene in Kharkiv with dead from the famine 1932-33 lying along the street.

The speaker is Anna Vinogradova, a Russian Israeli-American, who answered the question through Quora of “Why doesn’t Russia recognize the Holodomor as a genocide?” She openly admits that she speaks only for herself, but her answer is still instructive. We offer it here, with some corrections for the sake of smooth and understandable English:

I can’t speak for Russia and what it does and doesn’t recognize. I can speak for myself.

I am a great-granddaughter of a “Kulak” (кулак), or well-to-do peasant, who lived close to the Russia/Ukraine border.

The word “кулак” means “fist” in Russian, and it wasn’t a good thing for a person to be called by this label. A кулак was an exploiter of peasants and a class enemy of the new state of workers and poor peasants. In other words, while under Communism, to be called a кулак was to bring a death sentence upon yourself.

At some point, every rural class enemy, every peasant who wasn’t a member of a collective farm was eliminated one way or another.

Because Ukraine has very fertile land and the Ukrainian style of agriculture often favors individual farms as opposed to villages, there is no question that many, many Ukrainian peasants were considered class enemies like my great grandfather, and eliminated in class warfare.

I have no doubt that class warfare included starvation, among other things.

The catch? My great grandfather was an ethnic Russian living in Russia. What nationality were the communists who persecuted and eventually shot him? They were of every nationality there was (in the Soviet Union), and they were led by a Ukrainian, who was taking orders from a Georgian.

Now, tell me, why I, a descendant of an unjustly killed Russian peasant, need to apologize to the descendants of the Ukrainians who killed him on the orders of a Georgian?

What about the Russian, Kazakh golodomor (Russian rendering of the same famine)? What about the butchers, who came from all ethnicities? Can someone explain why it’s only okay to talk about Ukrainian victims and Russian persecutors? Why do we need to rewrite history decades later to convert that brutal class war into an ethnic war that it wasn’t?

Ethnic warfare did not start in Russia until after WWII, when some ethnicities were accused of collaboration with the Nazis and brutal group punishments were implemented. It was all based on class up to that time.

The communists of those years were fanatically internationalist. “Working people of all countries, unite!” was their slogan and they were fanatical about it.

As for the crimes of Communism, Russia has been healing this wound for decades, and Russia’s government has made its anticommunist position very clear.

This testimony is most instructive. First, it points out information that the charge of the Holodomor as “genocide!” neatly leaves out. In identifying the internationalist aspects of the Soviet Union, Ukraine further was not a country identified as somehow worthy of genocidal actions. Such a thought makes no sense, especially given the great importance of Ukraine as the “breadbasket” of the Soviet Union, which it was.

Secondly, it shows a very western-style of “divide to conquer” with a conveniently incendiary single-word propaganda tool that is no doubt able to excite any Ukrainian who may be neutral to slightly disaffected about Russia, and then after that, all Ukrainians are now victims of the mighty evil overlords in Moscow.

How convenient is this when the evil overlords in Kyiv don’t want their citizens to know what they are doing?

We saw this on Saturday – taken to a very high peak when President Petro Poroshenko announced the new leading “Hierarch” of the “Ukrainian National Church” and said not one single word about Christ, but only:

“This day will go down in history as the day of the creation of an autocephalous Orthodox church in Ukraine… This is the day of the creation of the church as an independent structure… What is this church? It is a church without Putin. It is a church without Kirill, without prayer for the Russian authorities and the Russian army.”

But as long as Russia is made the “problem”, millions of scandalized Ukrainians will not care what this new Church actually does or teaches, which means it is likely to teach just about anything.

Russia had its own Holodomor. The history of the event shows that this was a result of several factors – imposed socialist economics on a deeply individualized form of agrarian capitalism (bad for morale and worse for food production), really inane centralized planning of cropland use, and a governmental structure that really did not exist to serve the governed, but to impose an ideology on people who really were not all that interested in it.

Personal blame might well lay with Stalin, a Georgian, but the biggest source of the famine lay in the structures imposed under communism as a way of economic strategy. This is not Russia’s fault. It is the economic model that failed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mueller Finally Releases Heavily Redacted Key Flynn Memo On Eve Of Sentencing

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Having initially snubbed Judge Emmet Sullivan’s order to release the original 302 report from the Michael Flynn interrogation in January 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally produced the heavily redacted document, just hours before sentencing is due to be handed down.

The memo  – in full below – details then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s interview with FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, and shows Flynn was repeatedly asked about his contacts with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and in each instance, Flynn denied (or did not recall) any such conversations.

The agents had transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls to Russian Ambassador Kislyak, thus showing Flynn to be lying.

Flynn pleaded guilty guilty last December to lying to the FBI agents about those conversations with Kislyak.

The redactions in the document seem oddly placed but otherwise, there is nothing remarkable about the content…

Aside from perhaps Flynn’s incredulity at the media attention…

Flynn is set to be sentenced in that federal court on Tuesday.

Of course, as Christina Laila notes, the real crime is that Flynn was unmasked during his phone calls to Kislyak and his calls were illegally leaked by a senior Obama official to the Washington Post.

*  *  *

Full document below…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Don’t Laugh : It’s Giving Putin What He Wants

The fact of the matter is that humorous lampooning of western establishment Russia narratives writes itself.

Caitlin Johnstone

Published

on

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone:


The BBC has published an article titled “How Putin’s Russia turned humour into a weapon” about the Kremlin’s latest addition to its horrifying deadly hybrid warfare arsenal: comedy.

The article is authored by Olga Robinson, whom the BBC, unhindered by any trace of self-awareness, has titled “Senior Journalist (Disinformation)”. Robinson demonstrates the qualifications and acumen which earned her that title by warning the BBC’s audience that the Kremlin has been using humor to dismiss and ridicule accusations that have been leveled against it by western governments, a “form of trolling” that she reports is designed to “deliberately lower the level of discussion”.

“Russia’s move towards using humour to influence its campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon,” Robinson explains, without speculating as to why Russians might have suddenly begun laughing at their western accusers. She gives no consideration to the possibility that the tightly knit alliance of western nations who suddenly began hysterically shrieking about Russia two years ago have simply gotten much more ridiculous and easier to make fun of during that time.

Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the emergence of a demented media environment wherein everything around the world from French protests to American culture wars to British discontent with the European Union gets blamed on Russia without any facts or evidence. Wherein BBC reporters now correct guests and caution them against voicing skepticism of anti-Russia narratives because the UK is in “an information war” with that nation. Wherein the same cable news Russiagate pundit can claim that both Rex Tillerson’s hiring and his later firing were the result of a Russian conspiracy to benefit the Kremlin. Wherein mainstream outlets can circulate blatantly false information about Julian Assange and unnamed “Russians” and then blame the falseness of that reporting on Russian disinformation. Wherein Pokemon Go, cutesy Facebook memes and $4,700 in Google ads are sincerely cited as methods by which Hillary Clinton’s $1.2 billion presidential campaign was outdone. Wherein conspiracy theories that Putin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government have been blaring on mainstream headline news for two years with absolutely nothing to show for it to this day.

Nope, the only possibility is that the Kremlin suddenly figured out that humor is a thing.

The fact of the matter is that humorous lampooning of western establishment Russia narratives writes itself. The hypocrisy is so cartoonish, the emotions are so breathlessly over-the-top, the stories so riddled with plot holes and the agendas underlying them so glaringly obvious that they translate very easily into laughs. I myself recently authored a satire piece that a lot of people loved and which got picked up by numerous alternative media outlets, and all I did was write down all the various escalations this administration has made against Russia as though they were commands being given to Trump by Putin. It was extremely easy to write, and it was pretty damn funny if I do say so myself. And it didn’t take any Kremlin rubles or dezinformatsiya from St Petersburg to figure out how to write it.

“Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as ‘disinformation for the information age’,” the article warns. Nimmo, ironically, is himself intimately involved with the British domestic disinformation firm Integrity Initiative, whose shady government-sponsored psyops against the Labour Party have sparked a national scandal that is likely far from reaching peak intensity.

“Most comedy programmes on Russian state television these days are anodyne affairs which either do not touch on political topics, or direct humour at the Kremlin’s perceived enemies abroad,” Robinson writes, which I found funny since I’d just recently read an excellent essay by Michael Tracey titled “Why has late night swapped laughs for lusting after Mueller?”

“If the late night ‘comedy’ of the Trump era has something resembling a ‘message,’ it’s that large segments of the nation’s liberal TV viewership are nervously tracking every Russia development with a passion that cannot be conducive to mental health – or for that matter, political efficacy,” Tracey writes, documenting numerous examples of the ways late night comedy now has audiences cheering for a US intelligence insider and Bush appointee instead of challenging power-serving media orthodoxies as programs like The Daily Show once did.

If you wanted the opposite of “anodyne affairs”, it would be comedians ridiculing the way all the establishment talking heads are manipulating their audiences into supporting the US intelligence community and FBI insiders. It would be excoriating the media environment in which unfathomably powerful world-dominating government agencies are subject to less scrutiny and criticism than a man trapped in an embassy who published inconvenient facts about those agencies. It certainly wouldn’t be the cast of Saturday Night Live singing “All I Want for Christmas Is You” to a framed portrait if Robert Mueller wearing a Santa hat. It doesn’t get much more anodyne than that.

Russia makes fun of western establishment narratives about it because those narratives are so incredibly easy to make fun of that they are essentially asking for it, and the nerdy way empire loyalists are suddenly crying victim about it is itself more comedy. When Guardian writer Carole Cadwalladr began insinuating that RT covering standard newsworthy people like Julian Assange and Nigel Farage was a conspiracy to “boost” those people for the advancement of Russian agendas instead of a news outlet doing the thing that news reporting is, RT rightly made fun of her for it. Cadwalladr reacted to RT’s mockery with a claim that she was a victim of “attacks”, instead of the recipient of perfectly justified ridicule for circulating an intensely moronic conspiracy theory.

Ah well. People are nuts and we’re hurtling toward a direct confrontation with a nuclear superpower. Sometimes there’s nothing else to do but laugh. As Wavy Gravy said, “Keep your sense of humor, my friend; if you don’t have a sense of humor it just isn’t funny anymore.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending