Dogville Revisited

[a rant by   ~burning woman~   ]

The 2003 psychological thriller Dogville depicts a bigoted community that accepts to harbour a fugitive from the mob but decides she would have to pay a price. The movie goes on to demonstrate how the price she must pay keeps going up, so high that in the end she is near death when her pursuers finally find her. Then comes the interesting twist as Grace’s terrible secret is revealed.

What is planet earth, in particular the “First World” but a Dogville? The only people who “have” are those who find the means to exploit those who have less, or have nothing except the land they live on, unless it’s their bodies that can be sold for slave labour, prostitution, whatever makes a profit. It’s no secret that we of the West are the “haves” and that the rest of the world has been paying an ever-higher price to us just to stay alive while we maintain our consumer lifestyles. So far, no exaggeration. But there is more, much more.

It isn’t enough that the poor are disenfranchised, dispossessed, persecuted and murdered in their own lands. If they manage to escape they must then become the scapegoats through which the self-righteous Dogvillians can continue to justify their enslavement, thefts of resources, rapes and open murdering rampages. After having been forced from their lands, no matter where they go, they will face resentment, hate, be ostracized, reviled, endlessly exploited and as just happened in New Zealand, massacred.

So one Dogvillian decides to be less hypocritical, more open than the rest, and turns his guns on helpless people in a mosque and all hell breaks loose. Yet two days before the massacre in Christchurch, US artillery massacred 50 civilians in the village of Baghouz, and quote: “On Monday, US warplanes attacked Baghouz, killing at least 50 people. Details on what the intended target was is unclear, but the reports suggest that the dead were mostly women and children… In the past few months, US airstrikes backing the SDF offensive have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians. With thousands of civilians still believed to be in Baghouz, the US strikes are undermining the SDF’s effort to convince them to leave, by showing that those who try to leave may be targeted.” (End quote) (https://talesfromtheloublog.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/us-airstrikes-kill-at-least-50-mostly-civilians-in-eastern-syria/

My point here is very simple: where are the screaming headlines, the heads of state standing at their podiums, the social media erupting with indignant cries against war crimes and institutionalized mass murder in Syria? All I heard was dead silence, and that happened just a few days before Christchurch. Well, that, plus it’s been happening for years, witness the refugee crisis. Where is your outcry over those murders?

So my question is simple: why is it totally acceptable to murder women and children in an undeclared hence “unofficial” war but it suddenly become opprobrious if the same or lesser crimes are committed by individuals? Who is the greatest criminal here? On one hand a malcontent, or a few of them, gun down some people in a building, or an arena. On the other hand, all members of any self-styled democracy are in agreement with the massacre of innocent civilians in places where the killer, the aggressor, has no business being. One massacre is widely and openly deplored while a greater massacre lasting years is not just tolerated but openly funded, justified, rationalized and everybody sleeps soundly knowing the bombs are falling like rain “where they should.” Western hypocrisy astounds me.

I’ll tell you this, people of the Warmongering West: Grace, the helpless dispossessed being exploited and murdered by you as willing participants and cheering spectators in these hunger games have a terrible secret. You’re all about to find out what that is. Maybe it’s time to watch the movie Dogville again. You might see many faces you recognize.

15 thoughts on “Dogville Revisited

  1. Phil Huston

    Warmongering West? Attila and the hordes were at it when buffalo roamed the West. War is hell, always has been and is not a sin of specific geography. While you’re casting stones in a glass house, ask the French about Vietnam. Ask the Bosnians, Iranians, Iraqis, Turks, Palestinians, Pakis and more how it feels to be murdered by your fellow countrymen. Jesus. Rant against the whole problem, not what is convenient, topical or popular. Go back 5,000 years and highlight the genocidal tendencies of the planet, not the CNN version of the last 200 years.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Mio buon amico, anch’io sono preoccupato per la discesa nella pazzia e le lezioni dimenticate del passato mentre torniamo ancora una volta verso il fascismo come risposta alla fine della nostra vita facile da consumare. La cosa che mi fa andare avanti è sapere che i miei anni stanno arrivando alla fine e non è triste pensarlo come una cosa buona ora? Peccato che le giovani generazioni siano partite per affrontare un mondo ingiusto, danneggiato e malato. Si sveglieranno e impareranno la cooperazione pacifica o sceglieranno il vecchio percorso di violenza provato e fallito; di guerra?

      Reply
    2. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment, Phil. This wasn’t a history lesson, just a point about what people get indignant about and what they choose to live in denial from. This week. Not 5000 years ago: aren’t we supposed to have evolved, by the way? Isn’t religion, and in our case Christianity, supposed to be a civilizing and pacifying influence? At least that is what “white” Christians would have the rest of the non Christian world believe, all evidence to the contrary.

      Reply
  2. franklparker

    All symptoms of the real problem – over-population. Until recently the losers could move on to some place not yet ravaged by humankind. These days there is nowhere left that hasn’t been over-developed or over-used. The violence can only increase until we commence the cull.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment, Frank, though I would contend that overpopulation (a real problem I would never deny) is what my topic addressed. I wanted to point out how easy it is for self-righteous people to get indignant about an event that tarnishes their image of their “good” world while totally ignoring what their own governments are doing to other helpless people in, say, Syria. I was talking about hypocrisy, pure and simple.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment, Regis. Yes, it was meant as a slap in the face to all self righteous “Christians and disappointed “whiteys” that their exceptional world is shrinking and disappearing under the waves xenophobia and bigotry; that they cannot hide it any longer. I can understand people getting indignant about the Christchurch massacre but why don’t they get even more so for the endless massacres done in the name of their own governments and their sacro-sanct militaries and arms makers? Can you tell me that?

      Reply
  3. sherazade

    Vediamo e siamo suggestionati a vedere solo quello che è comodo ai potentati, quelli che detengono a forza l’economia mondiale.
    Sono sempre più preoccupata ( e tristw).

    shera

    Reply
  4. rawgod

    Can yousupply your source for this information? I would like to trace it back to where it is firdt-hand, and provide it to some reporters I know. I think they will run with it if they believe they can rely on the source. If they dan’t, or won’t, I have a different word to describe this.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your comment, rawgod. If you tell me what information found in my rant you wish to source, sure. Please note that I have given a source link for the report on the bombing of Baghouz, Syria. If the link is opened, that leads to other links that deal with that particular story. I don’t know what else you are looking for.

      Reply
  5. stolzyblog

    After researching this a bit, my conclusion is that I have absolutely no idea whether 50 people, mostly women and children, were killed in U.S. air strikes recently in the ISIS-affiliated town in question. Nor do I see why anyone else reading this be able to draw such a conclusion, provided they were open-minded and interested in being objective. The link given, after an intermediary or two, traces back to two sources: Xinhua, a Chinese state cultural news outlet, and SANA, the official state news agency of Syria. I have personal experience with Xihnua, having been in the habit of reading some of their material after the period I spent in China in the early 90s. I know form this experience that they are a propaganda arm, which will print nothing negative about China per se, and take every opportunity to cast aspersions upon Chinese adversaries (at the moment, the U.S.) This complexion may or may not have changed by now — but the fact remains, we are dealing with a flimsily fact-checked, in fact we could say unchecked, report from a known propaganda arm. Turning to SANA, whom Xinhua relies upon, we have the state ‘news’ service of Syria, which is of course heavily anti-US and guilty of having printed numerous distortions since teh onset of teh Arab Spring about the events in Syria relating to the populsit uprising against head of state Assad, which has been brutally squashed (destroying beautiful cities such as Aleppo in the process) by forces loyal to Assad and assists from Russia. Again – no one objective would seriously ake this source at it’s word but require extensive further corroboration.

    Of course, if one wishes to dramatically make a point… all bets can be off.

    Note about analytics and logical argument: None of what I have written above signifies that I think US foreign policy is altruistically lovely and not morally murky. None of the above implies that I think bombing civilians is good and not repugnant, or that taxpaying citizens have not become numb and inured to these matters. None of the above means I disagree with the main point, I think, which seems to be that an equivalent amount of outrage should be apportioned to state-sponsored killing as to individual mass murdering in mosques.

    What I am saying, however, and would continue to stress is that truth matters, especially when one wants to preach ethics and deeper wakefulness. And truth is complicated, not convenient. It does not help matters any when rhetoric like ‘more honest and less hypocritical’ is employed to describe the psychology or motivations of the mass murderer.

    Reply
  6. Hyperion

    While I happen to be well connected with the answer for the differences between state sponsored armed conflict and the events at Christchurch, it wouldn’t matter to anyone that doesn’t want to examine the differences but are angered at the result. That anger isn’t wrong if understanding the complexities of either outcome is irrelevant. There is a great deal of accurate study with countless volumes of facts that lead the studies to factual conclusions and predictions. We are headed into a massive upheaval and we know it and pursue this horrific outcome with the gusto of a starving hound. I can only conclude that our mid term future which sees every society in the world torn apart and a return to a modern version of the dark ages is necessary and desired, otherwise, we’d do something about it other than what we are doing now. I call it the Somalia Effect. To see the world’s future, look no further than the country of Somalia. Study that conundrum and you’ll see what the breakdown of government and society looks like. The massive migrations of incompatible groups will lead to internal conflicts that cannot be solved with high tech weaponry nor can it be solved by the pleas of benevolent or altruistic voices. The madness hasn’t even gotten started yet. Consider what you see, the calm before the storm. There are a lot of responsible and non-political leaders that can’t sleep at night anymore. In every phase of human life, humanity rose to bring us to a greater purpose. We cannot divorce the insanity of the beast that we are, but in most there is the will for something better and they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to achieve the greater goal. This is our salvation from the bleak future on the horizon. As to the killing of innocence, in my opinion, conflict has never been anything else but the mass slaughter of innocence. The victory goes to the one that destroys the will and capability of the opponent and the massive destruction of the populace, the infrastructure, the finance, and government is the quickest route to peace. We no longer have the will to do this and so wars cannot be won or halted. But, they can spread. There is no defense to that in the modern world. If I was to make a recommendation, I would say forgo science and technology and return to an agrarian subsistence. Let nature be our judge, jury, and executioner. We’ll find the population will balance with the resources nature allocates and because no one lives long alone in the merciless beauty of nature, community will return to a supportive and well connected existence. That life isn’t entirely impossible, just unlikely.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.