Home > About the warmongering cordon marching against humankind
About the warmongering cordon marching against humankind
by InfoAut - Open-Publishing - Sunday 18 January 2015
Everything as expected. The wave of indignation and emotion raised by the attack against the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo is ready to be used as a psychological weapon to be thrown against the people, and especially against those who keep advocating the reasons of an interpretation of Parisian events in terms of class struggle instead of civilization. On this front, mainstream media outlets are the main vehicle of security psychoses, aiming at a brand-new social pacification, capable of coopting the widespread distrust towards current political élites into a new array opposing a free "us" to a threatening "other".
Let’s just take a look to these days’ Italian newspapers. On Repubblica, Ezio Mauro is glorifying those two millions chanting in chorus the Marsellaise, whilst "50 heads of State and government yesterday (Sunday 11) did really make Paris the capital city of a world rejecting violence and hatred because it wants to live defending to any cost everyone’s and every individual’s right, along with the idea of freedom which is at the foundation of the European project". On the Fatto Quotidiano there is the narration of the banlieue screaming "Merci" to the police, and the amazement of witnessing a scene where Netanyahu and Abu Mazen were marching together, overcoming their divisions in the name of something greater, capable of moving the unperturbed Lavrov, as well present in the most powerful cordon in the world...
Last week march was surreal, in a Paris where, according to the words of many witnesses, subway stops looked like the set of Full Metal Jacket, where the huge mass of people demonstrating with rage and rejection against what happened (probably in many cases genuinely, even though it’s worth noticing how there are no statements - for instance through banners or signposts - against the responsibilities of global powers in what happened, as well as no a clear cut in that demonstration from the cordon walking in front of it) was joined by jackal institutional presences: Merkel, Renzi, Davutoglu, Lavrov, Netanyahu, Juncker, Samaras, Rajoy, Sarkozy, Keita, just to mention some of them, who are not for sure symbols of democracies and respect - even liberally meant- of human rights and freedom of speech.
A first row that, even if forerunning it, was marching oriented against the same human river marching behind its back, ready to further compress freedom in the name of a unity useful only to strengthen the powerfulness of its domination and exploitation projects. A march aimed at breaking the widespread opposition towards that massacres caused by the failure of Bush’s war on terror, and already celebrating for re-gaining a political legitimation as the one assured by Paris’ demo last week, where Earth’s power have competed for becoming Charlie, so to overcome out of the blue the crisis of representativeness they were suffering, due to the effects of global economic crisis.
But how are those who approved laws against abortion like the Gallardon one in Spain supposed to be Charlie? How is who have the record of jailed journalist in 2014 like Turkey is supposed to be Charlie? How is the Sarkozy of the banlieue dwelled by "the racaille" (scum) supposed to be Charlie? How is a social butcher like Samaras supposed to be Charlie? And can be Charlie Lavrov and Poroshenko, engaging in the Ukrainian slaughter? We have some doubts that being Charlie is something positive at the moment!
Going back to our media outlets, last week narration has been centred upon the West raised to champion of freedom, which is a deliberation that clashes with many articles inside the same newspapers, narrating for instance the willingness to review Schengen agreement about free circulation in Europe, obviously in a restrictive fashion; it is also ironic that Alfano is looking like a "moderate", whilst his fellow-ministers Fernandez Diaz and Cazeneuve are pushing for reconsidering the 1985 treaty on free circulation in the EU. Meanwhile, there are measures being discussed ranging from a strictest scrutiny on the web to the immediate accessibility for governments to the PNR (which is the flying companies’ passengers’ identification system), as well as the engagement in developing an obscure "counter-rethoric" capable of damming Jihadism’s communication successes.
Even more worrying, since directly acting on more slippery grounds, is Panebianco’s column on Corriere della Sera. It re-proposes, after the same old paranoia on the risks connected to IS’ expansion (where he never deals with a genealogy and, even more, a deliberation upon the support of US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to it), a toxic narration on civilization clashes, of which we report this extract as an example:
"[...] we ought to believe that many Muslims that have been living for a long time in Europe have found a way of making pragmatically co-exist their faith with Western freedoms. [..] [..] these are Muslims «contaminated» by our lifestyle, but that don’t give up praying in the religion of their fathers because of this. Yet the trouble is that they have to deal with a big, numerous part, and even quite well-financed by oil-monarchies and other Muslim regimes: the «uncontaminated», the speakers of a pure Islam, hyper-traditionalist, anti-Western, in the Wahabi and Muslim Brothers’ variants (antagonists amongst them) [..]
Yet overlooking the analysis about who is financially supporting those oil-monarchies mentioned by Panebianco, we are asking ourselves which is the rationale of such a comment: probably, on the one hand, going back to elevating the Western against a Muslim world seen like barbarian and inferior, and as such needy for that contamination that reminds so much the French policy of assimilation, which has proved in these days its outmost failure.
But Panebianco doesn’t stop here:
"The distinction between contaminated/uncontaminated that I use here has nothing to do with the fake one between moderate and non-moderate Islam. Those who are using the latter distinction, actually, are falling in the conceptual trap in which the extremists want them to fall. Indeed, you almost always end up calling a Wahabi or a Muslim Brother «moderate» just because they are dissociating themselves from the Jihadist bloody act of that moment. So you lose the cultural continuities, the common hyper-traditionalist reading of holy texts".
Islam would then be all the same thing, with only one background, and an obliged lined guiding every observant from reading the Qu’ran to Jihadism: unless they don’t get in contact with the West and free world that, despite being the land of Crusade and Nazi-fascist regimes, along with the place where we have witnessed even more cruel massacres (do you remember Breivik), keep enjoying a moral superiority that apparently, if we broaden our gaze to everything has happened in the world after the 9/11, exists only in the malicious and warmongering thoughts of local journalists.
Meanwhile, the most refined techniques of "security alarm", typical of US war on terror, are once again fashionable. Hence we get to know from CIA and Mossad that Vatical will be next IS’ target, even though the situation at the moment "is not presenting concrete elements of risk". Bu then, is there a risk or not? Or there is only the willingness to raise panic around what happened and justifying eventual new, real limitations of freedom of speech?
Never like today there is the need to reject the enrolment we have mentioned in a previous statement of ours, awar of the fact that the yell #JeSuisCharlie - as we would hope - will not reverse into a stance against the vileness of global leaders. We ought to keep fighting everywhere, as far as we can, an harsh battle to target the real culprits for the tragedy at Hebdo, and to avoid that the murder rethoric of civilization clash gets inforced by these crucial days.
18.1.2015
