The narrative of the Paris Attacks flooding the corporate media right now is rigidly controlled and firmly delineated. The atrocities were committed by ISIS, which is an evil jihadi terror group with no affiliation to western governments, and there was nothing the western security services could have done to prevent them.
No deviation from this is permitted either above or below the line. If you talk about the links between ISIS and NATO or the Saudis you will be censored. Mention the name “Gladio” in the Guardian comments and you will be Memory-Holed on the spot. The idea that such events as these or such entities as ISIS even might be state-sponsored either covertly or directly is currently not permissible in our “free society”. There is currently total lockdown on any kind of dissent.
This lockdown, this suppression of alternative narratives is ultimately more important than the question of who did or did not perpetrate the atrocity. We already know the lines between “terrorist” and “western-backed rebel” are blurred. We already know there is widespread evidence of western support for radical jihadists, so that the finer details of where on the spectrum of responsibility this particular attack lies are both hard to establish and not of foremost relevance.
What really matters is that it’s already clear this event is – at best – being exploited opportunistically to create a “second 9/11.” That very term was being rolled out in the media within minutes or hours of the attacks. We are being told “the world has changed.” That more freedom has to be sacrificed, that the French constitution needs to be “amended”. Anyone opposing a shoot-to-kill policy in the UK (where no terrorist attacks have even occurred so far) are being howled down by vocal mobs. Racism against Moslems is now – like racism against Russians – almost de rigeur, in a kind of dehumanisation campaign so often used by fascist regimes to prepare a population for conquest and destruction. The only debate currently permitted in the pages of corporate news is whether we should “appease” the bad guys or declare war upon “them” (though the location of this “them” is always troubling vague). Given these artificially narrow choices it’s too obvious what the terrorised and corralled populations are likely to pick.
To that extent this already is a “new 9/11.” And it’s up to the alternative media – right now – to do a better job of challenging this Minitrue narrative than was done in 2001 and 2003. People need to be reminded that the reality they are being offered is not the only one available. That other versions are possible and plausible.
With that in mind, over the next few days and weeks we’re going to be offering contrasting takes on the meaning behind the Paris attacks by different authors, all of which challenge not only the official version, but – just as importantly – each other. We’re calling the informal series “challenging the narrative of the ‘new 9/11′”.
If you don’t agree with what a given author says – offer up your own take in the comments, or send us your views for possible publication.
We don’t want to replace one locked down “official narrative” with another. We want to open questions that don’t necessarily have easy or available answers. Because the right and ability to question is ultimately what matters, and what we need to defend. Fluid thinking, and minds open to contrasting possibilities is our best defence against the single-narrative lockstep of authoritarianism.