Help! Woe is us. We're under attack - quick, give away personal freedom and the police guns.
Terror in the UK and - somewhat predictably - the media is enjoying a frenzy of oxygenating radicalism. Here's a more sensible view of how to handle such events:
Yet as the media play their role - it just happens to aid and abet the fear directive, the us and them narrative and help cement our #2 status as arms dealers..
230 innocent civilians died today - in an American-led air strike in Iraq but hardly a word - and certainly no rolling primetime top-of-the-news agenda coverage. The third such attack in recent weeks it's said.
33+ people in a school killed this week in Syria where the building was levelled with 50 families sheltering inside. US coalition air strike again. This cowardly air/drone-based warfare - with remote operators swatting dots on screens and (not) worrying about 'further investigation', whether their attacks are covered by the Law of Armed Conflict, later, is not a mark of a civilised response. This 'Bombing into Peace' attitude is often (always?) a convenient cover for other intentions.
Over and above these covert plans, the only real outcome from indiscriminate terror being rained down on desperate lands is the sprouting of the next crop for ISIS. This much is clear.
Often the regime-change cited has a back-story of some imperialist plan for territory or resources being objected to. How dare people from a region say no to the Military Industrial Complex when such highly armed foreign powers demand access to their homeland or wealth. Obviously 'Johnny foreigner just doesn't understand the 'Might is Right' dogma. Hence they are obviously wrong-'uns to be vilified and bombed into submission.
Unless of course (e.g. Gaddafi amongst many) they turn out to be useful for a different plan when (bless us) sudden redemption and buddy status is conferred. Watch those fickle crusaders in the Promised Land - and make sure you check if they have their blood-stained fingers crossed behind their backs during agreement talks.
Islam is today's watchword of terror - but not many in the mainstream press reported the 20 000 000 Muslims who marched against ISIS.
Recently 30,000 Muslims marched in the UK - again with little fuss in popular media - it just doesn't seem to fit the story that is required?
So where are these narratives coming from? Why would one keep the public in fear - other than perhaps to remove rights and protect citizens - even it seems from themselves? We seem to be moving inexorably forwards (backwards) into the over-quoted Orwellian '1984' - with most chapters' shocking premonitions ticked off, completed or updated.
Our rights to protest are being curtailed - today in the UK a union was making anti protest noises, last year plenty typified the 'arrest first and decide if any offence has been committed later' style of ongoing policing - not that it's as bad as in the US - where hit and run offences are presently being re-written to avoid driver blame should the victim be a (*gasp*) protester in the road. (As reported in a Washington Post hatchet piece on DAPL). Protest is legitimate - we lose that and we gain nothing bar serfdom.
But politicians - supposedly the representatives of the people (although I've met no Etonian millionaires personally, so unsure if they quite capture my worldview) - are surely in a position to balance the occasional death-by-madman; with the road accident statistics / alcohol related violence - and while apportioning funds and policing appropriately, could also direct media attention.. especially via the BBC which they have stocked to the gunnels with their own apologists.
Is it perhaps the media - just market-driven, selling papers or generating click bait to ensure their very survival? Haven't they an over-riding duty to tell real news, research real facts, promulgate considered opinion (and I'm not talking Katie Hopkins' bile). Isn't their brief informing us and creating a balanced national discussion on news-worthy events? Why is it that yesterdays tragedy generated so much coverage, when in the times of the worst IRA attacks in a de facto mainland terrorist campaign they correctly reported crimes using silhouettes and actor voiceovers.
Or is it (tin hat alert) some over-arching Machiavellian standing order? Manipulate the masses to fear, distrust, gaslight, bicker and refuse to participate in an ongoing solution (gee - we might voice the wish that it would be a peaceful future for all - goodness sake). Divide and deride, promote a fragmented myriad of views - due to the post-truth hypernormalised world that the elitist Bilderberger cabal has helped create.
The evidence of this is possibly clearest in that old-but-gold rule of 'following the money'. Who profits from this ongoing strife? Most right-headed people want peaceful solutions and resolving conflict to ensure that all can be happy, most agree that greed is not good - and money is the root of all evil. How come, if the masses 'get' this simple idea, that the 'brightest and best' in charge seem to be avoiding such ideas and pursuing their own agendas?
Bringing us back to one of my initial glib 'insights' - whilst reflecting on a separate piece of news this week.. the fact that Britain has just managed to gain second place in that coveted 'Biggest Worlds Arms Dealer' race.. due in large part I'm sure to the fact that two-thirds of UK weapons have been sold to Middle Eastern countries since 2010. War on terror = Kaa-ching!..
Now there's a real reason that our war-like status quo is being broadcast and bulwarked. Explaining too, that anyone 'with a beard' who murders, is almost immediately branded a religious zealot - rather than the phrase we perhaps should always (until proven otherwise) apply: a mentally ill criminal.