Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Charlie Hebdo Attack: Dogma and Divisions

I don't hate the Charlie Hebdo attack because people were murdered, which is a tragedy.  I also don't hate the Charlie Hebdo attack because it was perpetrated by "radical Muslim terrorists."  Rather, I hate the Charlie Hebdo attack because the division it creates between me and those who either cannot comprehend or are intolerant of my disbelief of accepted dogma.  This is what has been created by media crisis events - accepted dogma.  And if you don't accept the dogma, you're alone.  There's the dogma and there's the conspiracy theory - and I happen to be one of the people unconvinced by the immediate dogmas conjured up by the machinations of man.

Call me what you will, but there's a precedent of lies and false flag events that are constantly paraded around as definite history.  When the onion is peeled, though, layer after layer reveal a different story than the one told by it's husk.  At the core, all these events are somehow rotten.  Indeed, the real reason I hate the Charlie Hebdo attack is the divisions it creates between those who are satisfied with the patent, digestible scenarios portrayed as utter truth and those who look beyond the prima facie explanation.  Why the intolerance?  Why the outrage?  Blasphemy, that's why.  We've made something God on this earth, and it's not the truth and it's not justice.

I don't have to allude to facts and examples to prove any reason why I distrust what I'm offered as incontrovertible truth.  In fact, that, I believe that is the task of those who challenge the naysayers.  In common conversation, I do not want to undertake the task of challenging your dogmatic worldview - there simply isn't enough time in the day and I have other things to do.  If you want to understand anything, look it up for yourself.  But if you're barking up the wrong tree, it's ultimately not my responsibility to stop you.  I'm getting my food elsewhere, I guess.  But, regardless, if you insist, a police commissioner suiciding himself in his office and a brilliant ID drop in the car by one of the assassins is enough to raise questions about the veracity of the whole event.  Forget all the internet people analyzing the onslaught of other discrepancies - an investigator's death in this situation easily raises red flags.

It's a monumental task to dissect a media event consisting of outright propaganda and distortions.  Like every other manufactured crisis event that is fobbed upon us, divisions dot the social interactions of people at odds with each other over a personal battle they cannot lose.  This shit is real, we all think.  Nobody wants to lose an inch, and its easier to keep it that way.  But do we really know anything?  Maybe the astute researchers do, the government and private employees given access to deep classified information, maybe the sleuths.

But for me, all it takes is my history of challenging dogmas to initiate people's defenses from these crisis events.  I don't even have to be made very aware of any crisis event anymore before I'm attacked by the dogmatics who have been given their truths.  At this point, it's hard to figure out how to diffuse these situations when they are constantly triggered by events far afield and under no control of mine.  In a sense, it's between me and people right next to me more than anything else.  It's just a fact of existence that the crisis event managers are going to go about fucking everything up around me.  Including my relationships, including my friendships, including the fabrics of my basic community.  Then my days become long with blowhards and bloviators, and my nights long with dalliances and escapism.  Nothing towards anything, but at least I'm not standing still.  Someday, I'll be seen as someone who I actually am rather than someone somebody thinks I might be.