Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel and Micah Johnson
At what point does the deification of criminals itself become a criminal act?
With each new shocking mass murder, a story is created by
mainstream media and unleashed on public consciousness. The 'official' narrative of the event never ends up jibing with actual facts revealed by subsequent and independent investigation, and the force-fed version is never retracted or corrected to match any new or uncomfortable findings. Instead,
the narrative invariably devolves into an exposรฉ of the private life of the killer,
aiming to create a believable character, to suggest his motive, and to develop enough plausibility in the story to make the truth seem uninteresting.Within hours of each mass-murder, the supposed killer's name is revealed, sending mainstream journalists into a sensational frenzy of internet surfing for any and all morsels of gossip they can find. Social media accounts are ravaged for photos, quotes and conversations that support the official narrative and add clickable drama to front pages. Personal manifestos and haunting comments are put out on display for all to contemplate, then shared to exhaustion.
Homes are besieged for clues, and friends, family, neighbors and former employers are coaxed into speaking out about their associations with the maniacs,
all helping to construct a seductive cloud of infamy on which our collective imagination can freely project our darkest fantasies.
Within a short time, we learn exactly everything we're supposed to believe about the killer, and key images are circulated and re-cycled ad nauseam, so that we quickly learn their faces, never to be forgotten, as we will be evermore able to identify them automatically, subconsciously associating them with their crimes, always refreshing our worst nightmares.
The business model here is unashamedly formulaic and easier than ever to spot. Create an idol on an altar for which the public to direct their fury, outrage and sorrow, so that the
emotions and tensions are relieved and the need for truth dissipated. The idea is to make the simplest and most
politically useful version of the story so alluring that consideration of the role of other actors and factors is just plain dull.
Who cares if any evidence may point to a cover up when such personal intrigue is available?This voyeuristic approach to covering mass tragedies has now made any need of a contrived boogeyman like ISIS or Al Qaeda operationally unnecessary. Mass killers no longer need to have any prior affiliation or identification at all with an organized group, as this connection will be made post-mortem for them by the
mainline media.
In this way, any unsatisfied loser who wishes for their life to be relevant can instantly become ISIS just by committing suicide-by-terror. Once made famous by the media, their names and faces are commandeered to be transformed into martyrs for a cause, and their hitherto unimpressive lives are instantly made legend and they achieve immortality, posthumously rising above any of their prior forgettable deeds in life. Hopeless people know this to be true.
The media, which has long since mastered the science of creating celebrities, has created a new avenue in which to pursue fame, and since our society has been trained to so revere fame, the
psychopaths among us are able to advertently achieve it.
Can you recall a time in recent history when the mainstream news was concertedly interested in a human being of good character for any mentionable length of time? When was the last a true leader or statesman was elevated to the status of a mass murderer?At best, this is dangerously irresponsible journalism. At worst it's mind control a la
the shock doctrine. Nothing tantalizes the senses, or sells newspapers like a thumping good tale of murder and intrigue, and
nothing serves our well-being and potential like the truth.
At what point does the deification of criminals itself become a criminal act?
Objection: Compound question. It implies that deification (I'm presuming the standard usages) which would include worship of someone, who, in his time/general era, was adjudged to be guilty of x, y, or Z.
But let's go forward with your basic presumption that
a) That these scumbag characters were acting of their own free will;
b) That they were mentally competent and knew the difference of right vs. wrong.
and,
c) that, (at least in the USA and at least according to the law as it is still claimed to exist, and which legal conclusion hovers over all our newspaper reports, yielding the word alleged or allegedly) at least as regards living defendants.
Hence, they - and you/the author, use the word as if a never convicted - but now dead - person, WAS properlyy convicted, when he wasn't. Thus he's innocent. (Presumption per BASIC legal presumption.)
By your standard, since Jesus was concluded by the law of that time and place to be a rabble-rouser, and or violation of other Kafkaesque concepts, that as he was tried and sentenced, to be 'crucified'; hence, you're saying that early Christians (before it was generally accepted by the majority, or before it was tolerated by the majority) at some point, could have or DID become criminals simply because they worshiped (not just positively commented on his actions, but positively worshiped him), or to rephrase, you're saying they were heading towards and/or achieved a criminal act?
Many other points to make later. Meanwhile, you should rethink your point.
R.C.
*(Don't forget the part about having some patsies do your work there. Those of what was then considered the Jewish persuasion, AS OF THAT TIME! - argued, we have no law for capital punishment, but we want this guy tortured dead, can you do it for us? ('Also, we know the population better than you so trust our conclusion here that that particular 'end' - of Christ - will ultimately justify our means. **)
** If all that sounds familiar, try CIA, Extraordinary Rendition; Enhanced Interrogation; (including torturing folks to DEATH. etc.)
RC