08 06 2013
the end, the beginning
The recentkilling of a British soldier in Woolwich, London, was presented by the media of the UK and many other countries as a brutal inhuman act, horrible crime, etc. Various commentators have tried to interpret it as a common example of the viciousness of radical islamists.
It is clear that time has come to begin looking for a new public ideology. Before it is too late.
In my opinion, they completely failed, and the Woolwich Execution will enter history as one of the most successful public relations campaigns of the 21st century.
Generally, I do not like Islam at all and do not approve of murder and I am not going to praise the Woolwich Michaels – Adebolajo and Adebowale – for killing a British soldier.
I am just trying to watch the current war between NATO and radical islamists neutrally, without taking sides – as far as it is possible 
of course.
Everybody wants to prove his own morality. Every state, country or organisation argues that it itself is ‘good’, fair, virtuous – the opposite to its opponents, adversaries, enemies, etc.
Thus the members of NATO always state that their enemies – usually branded ‘terrorists’, ‘radicals’, ‘authoritarians’ – are evil criminals, although their own offensive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. are just and righteous, that the millions of their victims were justified by their noble ends, such as ‘non-proliferation of nuclear arms’, ‘defence of human rights,’ or ‘bringing them democracy’.
Adebolajo perfectly performed his role in front of the cameras.
Although covered with blood, by expressing his concerns even about British women, he showed himself a good-hearted man who was forced to do all that in defence of his people.
I do not feel like playing judge and deciding what is moral and justifiable and what is not, however I assume myself being sensible enough to decide which of two similar deeds is more moral or, say, less immoral.
I am morally hopeless myself, and I believe naively that everybody has a right to be treated equally. I childishly think that, at least from the moral perspective, Muslims have the same rights as Brits. For example, if a Brit has a right to kill a Muslim, then a Muslim must enjoy an equal right to kill a Brit in similar circumstances.
Regarding different circumstances, I consider that those who are in worse position have more rights against their more advantageous adversaries.
In this regard, my point of view is exactly opposite to that of NATO. They imply that their well armed and protected soldiers bear less responsibility for human casualties than fanatics who sacrifice their lives in unequal fight against the world’s most sophisticated military machinery. I feel the other way round.
That is my point of view, and I suspect that I share it with at least a couple of billions of people.
So, I do not try to judge the righteousness of the Woolwich Execution. I do not think that it bothered either of the Michaels or those people who inspired them.
The Woolwich Michaels have achieved another purpose – they have convincingly demonstrated that (at least some) Islamic fighters are much more moral than their British counterparts.
First off all, thanks to an accidental (?) video record, Michael Adebolajo presented his deed as an act of justice: ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ They killed a SOLDIER and presented it as an act of justice for the deaths of the Muslims whom Brits still continue to kill in Afghanistan and other places on a daily basis.
In fact, Adebolajo repeated what George W. Bush was declaring a dozen of years ago: ‘we’ll bring them justice’ and s.o. – which meant MILLIONS of dead or expelled peaceful Iraqis and Afghanis in retaliation for the lives of a couple of thousands Yankees in the World Trade Center.
The cheap stories about human rights, equality, missions of democracy and fight against terrorism have become counterproductive. Instead of deceiving Muslims and other victims and convincing them to give up and meekly watch how Brits destroy their countries and steal their oil, the primitive propaganda even more infuriates them.
In addition, Adebolajo even expressed his regrets that women were forced to watch the bloody view of execution: ‘I apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same.’
It is not difficult to compare the Woolwich Execution to what British troops and their NATO allies are still doing in the Muslim countries occupied by NATO. Bloody airstrikes leaving tens of dead children and mothers, violence against civilians, rapes, pissing on dead bodies, stealing oil, etc.
In this context, Adebolajo with his concerns about the psychological well-being of British women looked really knightish – like a noble man who had had no other means to defend his people from the aggressors who are obviously LESS MORAL than him.
A couple of months before the Woolwich Execution, the British prince Harry enjoyed shooting and killing Afghan Resistance fighters from an Apache helicopter.
The British prince conveyed the impression that he enjoyed hunting Afghanis from the safety of his state-of-the-art helicopter.
Harry’s helicopter was about $70-million worth flying fortress, virtually invulnerable to the primitive weapons of Afghanis. In fact, Harry was taking part in an absolutely risk-free safari (in Africa, an injured lion or elephant can theoretically pose danger to the hunter in an open car).
Of course, it is not easy to hit a man with a bullet – so Harry was shooting Hellfire missiles, rockets and a 30-millimetre gun. Anyway, according to Harry, the hunt was successful.
After his Afghan safari, Prince Harry commented that it was like a video game: ‘It’s a joy for me because I’m one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and Xbox, so with my thumbs I like to think I’m probably quite useful.’
When I saw the video with Adebolajo’s appeal for the first time, I first of all remembered Prince Harry and his joy of hunting Talibanis. And I fully understood what exactly Abedolajo did mean when he was explaining his intentions.
I can hardly say anything bad about Harry – he is one of the results of many centuries of inside-family marriages of Europe’s so-called ‘nobility’. And I appreciate his sincerity.
In fact, Harry indirectly expressed a popular unofficial opinion about pious Muslims – worse than animals, good at most for hunting and raping. Just imagine what a scandal would have arisen if Harry had hunted real lions, elephants or rhinoceros!
On the contrary, Michael spoke as a human-loving person, caring deeply about British women and demonstrating that he did his execution only because he had no other choice.
Thus, despite my disgust with Islam, I cannot force myself to sympathise with the British prince.
Iš is absolutely clear that Adebolajo was taught what exactly to say in front of the cameras. He achieved all his (not necessarily thought out by himself) objectives: attracted world’s attention and sent a message that showed radical islamists in the best possible light.
Therefore, I do not believe that it was a pure luck of the Michaels’. It reminds of a well organised setup with participation of somebody inside BBC (if not Allah’s miracle).
Anyway, it was a huge defeat for the British propaganda machinery, as it one more time forcibly undermined the image of the UK as an entity that is more moral than its Muslim adversaries. They had spent billions on various sorts of propaganda, but the two Michaels undermined their efforts with a single amateur video.
It is clear that all those Western fables about ‘equal treatment’, ‘human rights’, ‘evil terrorists’, etc. have become utterly unconvincing. Hardly anybody still believes it; the myth about Santa Claus looks much more realistic.
question
Who of them seems to you more NOBLE: Prince Harry, enjoying hunting Muslims from the safety of his state-of-the-art Apache helicopter, or Michael Adebolajo, regretting that women had to see the Woolwich Execution?
You cannot expect anybody recognise you as a human rights champion if you kill every week scores of children and unarmed women in the countries from which you steal oil or something else.
The Woolwich Michaels have just one more time proven that Brits as a nation are much less moral than their enemies and victims.
I cannot understand why Brits still pretend to be noble humanists? Only complete blockheads cannot understand that almost all the history of the British Empire presented as ‘glorious’ was in fact conquering weaker nations and stealing, looting, raping, etc. The contemporary UK is a bleak shadow of what it was earlier, but its intentions and methods still remain the same.
However, their victims have changed completely. Contemporary Muslims are not those obscure, uneducated naturally born victims they used to be. Most young Muslims perfectly understand how they are treated and why; hypocrisy and propaganda cannot deceive them anymore.
Thus, the cheap stories about human rights, equality, missions of democracy and fight against terrorism have become counterproductive. Instead of deceiving Muslims and other victims and convincing them to give up and meekly watch how Brits destroy their countries and steal their oil, the primitive propaganda even more infuriates them.
The clear deceitfulness of NATO’s propaganda makes more and more people sympathise with Muslims, even those who do not like Islam (like me, e.g. ). Some of them earlier or later even convert to Islam, as both Michaels did.
It is clear that time has come to begin looking for a new public ideology. Before it is too late.
What do you think about it?
Wednesday. The week day of Vėlinas. Also the day of Odin, Wodan, Mercury.
A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government.
Edward Abbey
Counter-Propaganda.com – en
