SALLY MORRIS: THOUGHTS ON NOTRE DAME
For many, especially those of us brought up on The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the great cathedral has had a Gothic aspect perhaps out of sync with its intent and proper usage. It hearkens back to an earlier time, the medieval world, somewhat mystical perhaps, one of absolute faith.
In that time it was not the thing to question authority. Those who did became outlaws or dead; certainly ideas of dissent were not acceptable. We would say we have moved on from that time, through the “Age of Reason”, through the Industrial Revolution, through the 19th Century and into a “modern world”, the one we think we inhabit today.
A lot of “conservatives” have labored under the silly delusion that their side of things is defended by and heard through the organ of Fox News. How long this state of bliss can persist is problematic. The evidence is that we are hurtling rapidly back in time to the Dark Ages, when those voices of dissent or questioning dared not be raised in public. It is like the constricted world of Soviet Russia.
This week one of the most important landmarks of the Christian faith was all but destroyed (some will say it is beyond repair now). The circumstances of the fire which destroyed much of Notre Dame de Paris are sketchy at best. There are a lot of peculiarities about timing, etc. There have been questions about the work supposedly being done in the cathedral prior to the blaze. Who were these workers? How well qualified were they to work on a major landmark of the international importance of Notre Dame? The building has been owned by the French government since 1905 with the Catholic Church its primary “beneficiary”. Whatever that means. How much authority does the Church have with regard to maintaining the building? Is it true that Macron ordered that there be a significant Muslim presence among the workmen involved with the restoration of the building? Who oversaw the security detail? Who else was involved with security? I believe this is a Unesco World Heritage site. These are all reasonable questions.
Here are some more pertinent facts. In a recent week there have been at least 10 attacks on French churches - including St. Denis, where the Kings of France rest, St. Sulpice, known to many through the movie The Da Vinci Code. Some of these have been burnings, others have seen other types of vandalism. For reasons which we may only guess at, it is verboten to refer to these attacks. Neil Cavuto was interviewing Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. When Donohue kept returning, despite Cavuto’s efforts to deter him, to his concerns about the violent attacks on churches in France, many within a single week, Cavuto unceremoniously hung up on him. He seemed almost in a panic to prevent Donohue’s thoughts being voiced. Shepard Smith, another Fox vigilante, shut down an interview with Philippe Karsenty, (Philippe Karsenty is a French media analyst and the founder of Media-Ratings, a company monitoring the French media for bias, later described as a “conspiracy theorist”), the moment he began asking pertinent questions about the context of the event. There weren’t going to be any questions raised “on his watch”. If Karsenty were an irresponsible nutter, why was he sought for an interview on Fox News in the first place? (We seriously doubt he will be again.)
Paul Joseph Watson went on youtube to show Muslim tweets with smiley face emojis and inappropriate comments celebrating the destruction of Notre Dame. He was immediately attacked for spreading “fake news”. He showed the comments streaming with the attached video. Here Watson debunks the attempt to obliterate his information. Earlier this evening I watched a brief video by Pierre Cassen, a French anti-jihad activist, on Gates of Vienna. He was not being interviewed - this was his own youtube commentary. It focused on the broad context of the vandalism and destruction of French churches. There were 875 such attacks in 2018 alone, and, as already mentioned, at least 10 within a week last month. It was in French, of course, but with English subtitles. I went back to refresh my memory and sharpen my focus on what was said. Surprise. It was gone. In its place a black spot with the message that the video is not available. The English translation, in transcript form, is still available. Ben Shapiro, who normally unquestioningly accepts pretty much anything the “authorities” tell him, including that Tommy Robinson is a “thug”, a characterisation of the teenagers involved in the Covington incident at the Lincoln Monument as typical “high school jerks”, was attacked for simply describing Notre Dame as a monument to Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian heritage. Talia Levin fired up her blowtorch and turned it on Shapiro, calling him “alt-right”, which he definitely is not. Buzzfeed’s Jane Litvinenko has outright called for censorship, citing Shapiro. Shapiro said nothing contradicting the French government’s statement that the fire was a mere accident. His show had focused completely on the importance of the cathedral to our common heritage, not at all about the cause of its destruction. As I said, Shapiro is not a questioner. Jane Litvinenko had a busy week. She was also the one who decided to attempt to shut down Paul Joseph Watson. If you don’t sense a concerted campaign to force on the public a set conclusion about Notre Dame, then you have been well-conditioned.
I do not have a theory on the cause of this devastating fire. I don’t have sufficient information on on which to base one. I do have enough information, however, to have questions. This is what we are not supposed to have - questions. We are told in so many words that we have no business asking these questions. We are supposed to sit back like puppies and wait to be told what it is acceptable to believe . . . and then believe that.
The problem with all of this is that questions are natural, they are proper and they are constructive. There is something strange and very unnatural in the demand that we not ask questions. There are many - just about this one event, even absent all of this forbidden context. Any conflagration of this type would prompt serious questions about timing. It apparently began immediately after the last people had left and it was closed for the day. It is not surprising that it happened at a time when renovation was underway. But it is distinctly odd that a building as valued and historic as this did not merit immediate attention when a fire alarm sounded. Instead, the first alarm was ignored. About 23 minutes later the alarm sounded again. At this point, someone took their feet off the desk and decided to think about checking it out. Some reports say that it took three hours to reach Notre Dame. Rush hour. Come on. Fire trucks and emergency vehicles do not get held up in traffic. Not even in France. In any case, how much damage could be done to thousand-year-old timbers in 23 minutes? How much damage would be done if you had a stove fire that you let go for 23 minutes? Then there is a video of an unidentified man walking along outside one of the bell towers while the firefighters were spraying the blaze. He was not dressed as a firefighter but was in what would pass for street clothes. What was that about? Was the fire electrical? Was it caused by chemicals?
Was the restoration work of this world treasure entrusted to reliable people? One report has it that French president Macron ordered that the workforce include significant numbers of Muslim workers. Is that true? If so, was that appropriate? Presumably had it been a famous mosque Christian or Jewish workers would not have been involved. That is only reasonable. We don’t even know if that is true. We don’t know what is true because we aren’t even allowed to question. Why, for example, did the government state that there was not evidence of arson? Surely it is possible that it was an accident. But “no evidence”? That is not reasonable. Not reasonable because when this statement was published the embers were still smouldering. No one had gone inside because it was not deemed safe to enter yet. So what evidence was available either way? Clearly none. There could be only conjecture. And conjecture either way is reasonable. There have been thwarted bomb attacks by Muslims of Notre Dame. Is that relevant? Any normal person would say yes.
We are in a place now where there is no trust left in the press nor in government, except Shapiro, Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith, Talia Levin, Jane Litvinenko et al. It would be far wiser if the French government wants to manage our reaction to this, and our access to information about it, if they paused for a moment, timed their public statements so that there was some believability. Instead of saying, “no evidence of arson” while the fire is still burning, why not say something sensible, like “we have no evidence yet as to the cause”. But no, there is such a powerful push among these elements - the governments and the press - to stifle questioning that they rushed to the cameras with a totally absurd statement. And then proceeded to have news anchors hang up on guests when they wander into asking important questions or imparting relevant contextual information. This behavior does nothing but point to a conspiracy of silence which we could easily deduce is designed to cover up the truth.
The truth will set us free. The absence of truth will enslave us. The handling of the events surrounding and leading up to the fire at Notre Dame indicate that the press and the government of France have decided we must be slaves. We have seen this kind of thing many times before. The Kennedy assassination comes to mind. Does this ever do any good? One thing it does is keep the mystery in the public consciousness for 50 years or more. It destroys public trust. There is not much of that left today. Some of us will be good slaves as we are bidden. Others of us will not let this rest because it won’t let us rest. Better to get the truth out and deal with the consequences. If this was an accident, it was a criminal level of negligence given the importance of the structure. I hope that someone will be called to account for this, even if it is Macron himself. The buck has to stop somewhere. If not, if it was set deliberately, we need to know by whom and call them to account.
It may be true that this disaster was an accident. If, in fact, there is no evidence of arson, that will come out in a full and open investigation. The climate of silence on important issues such as this one is symptomatic of a new Dark Age.
Update: Today I read the following in Jihad Watch: “Notre Dame fire: No workers were in the cathedral, no heat sources were near the timber frame”-
You might want to draw your own conclusion. Also, there was apparently an attempt to set fire to St. Patrick’s in New York. Will we begin to see the experience of France - desecration and destruction of Christian churches - here now?
DakotaBeacon