skip to main |
skip to sidebar
by numerama, 17/1/2015
Translated by Jenny Bright for Tlaxcala
A 16 year-old teenager in France was indicted for glorifying terrorism after he published a cartoon representing a character with the Charlie Hebdo journal, hit by bullets, with an accompanying ironic comment.
The current situation is, to say the least, paradoxical. Last weekend, following the terrible attacks that took place right in the middle of Paris, large rallies were held throughout the country to denounce terrorism and to remind the world of France's commitment to the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
But since last week, it has become clear that a stiffening is taking place in France with the appearance of dozens of lawsuits based on the “defense or glorification of terrorism” offense, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros (or 7 years in prison and 100,000 euros fine if the Internet is involved, because the latter is now an aggravating circumstance).
For example, midweek, the Associated Press identified 54 legal proceedings running on that ground, sometimes with other grievances held against those arrested. In some cases, the judgment has already been made: fifteen months imprisonment for this Ardennes inhabitant, three months imprisonment for this one living in Toulon or a year imprisonment for this Nanterre inhabitant.
The number of cases has since increased. Le Monde listed 70 in an article published a few hours after that of the AP.
A CARTOON ON FACEBOOK
Lately, a young man of 16 was arrested and placed in custody. France 3 indicates that on Thursday, the teenager was presented before a juvenile judge to decide if he should be indicted for glorifying terrorism. For its part, the Public Prosecutor’s Department for minors of the city of Nantes asked the next day for his release on bail until the Court hearing.
His fault? Having published on his Facebook profile "a cartoon representing a character with the Charlie Hebdo journal, hit by bullets, accompanied by an ironic commentary" the TV channel explained.
[Here is the cartoon, as published by Norman Finkelstein, and which was widely pubished on the Net]
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ITS LIMITS
The multiplication of procedures for glorification of terrorism poses the question of the limits of freedom of expression, which seems to be getting cracked down on since the attacks. A situation that alarms many non-governmental organisations such as the League of Human Rights, which fears the reflex of drastic security measures, and Amnesty International.
“Freedom of expression does not have favourites. Now is not the time for knee-jerk prosecutions, but measured responses that protect lives and respect the rights of all” explains the NGO, which fears that some arrests made in the heat of emotion and firmness in fact violate freedom of expression.
Because although everyone may agree to defend freedom of expression when it's all plain sailing into the wind, we should not forget that it also applies to messages that may be unpleasant or revolting. “If we do not believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all[1]” explains philosopher Noam Chomsky.
Does this mean that we must stand idly by? No, of course not. Some cases likely deserve legal punishment if there is anything to punish (especially if other grievances are included in the procedure). But the emotion aroused by the attacks raises fears of a general lack of discernment that does not contribute to the administration of justice in good conditions
[1] Interview by John Pilger on BBC's The Late Show, November 25, 1992. See also : “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992.
by Mikail Khazin
translation by: Mikhael (thanks a lot Mikhael!! The Saker)
The scale of the events in France and the intensity of the ensuing panic turned out to be so massive that even the most politically unprepared people realized that the stability of EU is facing an enormous threat. And it doesn’t even matter if the French authorities are successful in neutralizing the current situation – it may repeat on a much larger scale. It is impossible to stop this process within the framework of the modern “tolerant democracy” – placing well armed professional security units in front of every building in every city is simply not an option and everything else would be ineffective. An honest assessment of risks associated with similar events, even just in terms of insurance claims, will show that the entire economy is at risk of going down the drain. And I am talking about world-wide economy. Since I have written here a forecast that, among other things, contains some information about year 2015, I am obliged to add some commentary. The first question that begs an answer is: who stands to profit?
Here I will simply list possible beneficiaries. First choice – the US. The authorities in that country realized that the influence of opposition elites (the ones I wrote about in my forecast) is increasing so much that it is not only jeopardizing the agreements around the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA), but also becoming a threat to the pro-American elites’ hold on power in Europe. Orban in Hungary, Zeman in Czech Republic, Marin Le Pen in France… All of these represent very negative processes for the US. Therefore, the situation must be blown up, “democracy” must be tucked away and a strict dictatorship must be established. A pro-American dictatorship that is, which will thoughtlessly follow orders from Washington without the need to engage in any kind of “democratic” procedures. In other words, install “pinochets” in every EU country complete with all the “bells and whistles” that always accompany these types of regimes: “death squadrons”, rollback of all social security standards, removal of state regulations – that is total liberalization. And, of course, along with these developments a free trade area with the US will be established. By the way, the refusal by French authorities to allow “Front populaire” to participate in the “unity march” fits the above scenario very neatly – what kind of “democracy” and “unity” is this when a quarter of the native French (!) population is being rudely shoved aside.
I also would like to note that within the US elite there are several groups each of them having their own channels which could be used to stimulate and organize terrorist attacks that will fit their agenda. Each group has their own partners (British Windsors, world financial elites, China and many others), as well as their own interests, and all of this requires a very detailed and thorough analysis.
Second possibility – Britain (or, to be more specific, the House of Windsor). They might be worried about a scenario where Merkel will completely give in to US pressure and push Brussels to sign the TAFTA agreement, which will put an end to the idea of creating alternative non-dollar currency zones and will force the British financial system (“rothschilds”) to lose control over interzonal transactions. Which basically means that a more or less independent British financial system will cease to exist, just as London will lose its status as a world financial center.
Third possibility – continental European elites (“black internationale”, or the Vatican - in conspirological terms). For them, TAFTA is a catastrophe, and they have already gained enough influence to try and bring nationally oriented opposition elites to power. Once the number of EU countries where this handover of power happens passes a critical threshold, pro-American elites in Brussels would be forced out and the EU as we know it will be finished. It is possible that the ideas of Franco-German-Russian domination in Europe play a certain role in this scenario. Within imperial, and not liberal-democratic framework, of course.
Fourth possibility – Germany. They could have gotten anxious that Hollande will back out (of plans previously coordinated with Merkel) under the threat of losing power and they created a situation that allows to “tighten the screws” and substantially limit the influence and capabilities of the anti-American group led by Le Pen.
Fifth possibility is the one that is currently being “fed” to the masses, which is what makes it the least probable. This version implies that islamists are behind the attack - ISIS, “Al Qaeda”, etc. It has its own intricacies because wherever we see a mention of “Al Qaeda”, we must also look for traces of CIA and British intelligence involvement. “Al Qaeda” does not have enough power and resources to carry out such an attack independently, without outside help.
Sixth possibility – Saudi Arabia. Today it is taking a serious hit and it must find a way to survive. A number of scenarios which are being developed by US imply liquidation of the Saudi state with the ultimate goal of creating a Sunni caliphate, which would subsequently be used in an attack on Israel and Iran. These scenarios must be prevented. The easiest way is to tie up US resources on as many fronts as possible, forcing them to abandon the plans to remove Saudis from power. Israel is helping Saudis in this situation, but keeping a low profile.
Seventh possibility – us (Russia). Having failed to persuade Merkel to drop sanctions and realizing that she is firmly under US control, we decided to “blow up” EU. And started with France as it appears to be the first major European country ready to leave the US confrontation scheme against Russia. This gives Hollande an alibi and support for his anti-American actions (“What can we do, - he will tell Obama, - you didn’t help, while Russia is supporting us”), and so on. It is also possible that we already have agreements with some of the parties mentioned above.
And the eights possibility, as we are moving further East – is China. This would mean that the attack was a “blowback” for Ukraine and other actions directed against the new Silk Road. In other words, it would imply China’s entry into the big political “game” on a world-wide scale.
Theoretically all of the above mentioned possibilities are still not out of the question. As time goes by, more and more information will become available and the picture will become clearer, but we need to pay close attention. Many of the mentioned parties have their own ideological agendas, which were symbolically presented to the public during the last two days. The symbols included candles (for some reason no one in EU lighted candles to commemorate victims in Donbass, Odessa or Mariupol even though all of these places are also located in Europe and there are more people dying there every day, than in France), flowers, staged “unity marches” that reeked of fakeness so badly that one must wonder why it was impossible to prepare better!
Here is Russia things are starting to move as well – just look at the bickering between Venediktov and Kadyrov! However, I still don’t see any constructive course of action being undertaken, but it is possible that it will never happen – because there is no one to implement such a course of action. By the way, I found Khodorkovsky’s statement very indicative of what is happening here right now. He was clearly used to provoke the public and this distinctly showed that he is not an independent political figure. Furthermore, those who are using him are obviously no longer considering him a valuable asset.
Over a million people - Muslims and Orthodox Christians - have taken to the streets of Grozny to protest against the caricatures of Prophet Mohammed by the Charlie Hebdo magazine:
Their slogans were:
“We love Prophet Mohammed”
“No to Mohammed cartoons”
“Islam is a religion of peace and creation”
“Violence is not the method”
Orthodox priest from Chechnia and other regions joined the demonstrations.
By Israel Shamir
The edifice of world post-1991 order is collapsing right now before our eyes. President Putin’s decision to give a miss to the Auschwitz pilgrimage, right after his absence in Paris at the Charlie festival, gave it the last shove. It was good clean fun to troll Russia, as long as it stayed the course. Not anymore. Russia broke the rules.
Until now, Russia, like a country bumpkin in Eton, tried to belong. It attended the gathering of the grandees where it was shunned, paid its dues to European bodies that condemned it, patiently suffered ceaseless hectoring of the great powers and irritating baiting of East European small-timers alike. But something broke down. The lad does not want to belong anymore; he picked up his stuff and went home - just when they needed him to knee in Auschwitz.
Auschwitz gathering is an annual Canossa of Western leaders where they bewail their historic failure to protect the Jews and swear their perennial obedience to them. This is a more important religious rite of our times, the One Ring to rule them all, established in 2001, when the Judeo-American empire had reached the pinnacle of its power. The Russian leader had duly attended the events. This year, they will have to do without him. Israeli ministers already have expressed their deep dissatisfaction for this was Russia’s Red Army that saved the Jews in Auschwitz, after all. Russia’s absence will turn the Holocaust memorial day into a parochial, West-only, event. Worse, Russia’s place will be taken by Ukraine, ruled by unrepentant heirs to Hitler’s Bandera.
This comes after the French ‘Charlie’ demo, also spurned by Russia. The West hinted that Russia’s sins would be forgiven, up to a point, if she joined, first the demo, and later, the planned anti-terrorist coalition, but Russia did not take the bait. This was a visible change, for previously, Russian leaders eagerly participated in joint events and voted for West-sponsored resolutions. In 2001, Putin fully supported George Bush’s War on Terrorism in the UN and on the ground. As recently as 2011, Russia agreed with sanctions against North Korea and Iran. As for coming for a demonstration, the Russians could always be relied upon. This time, the Russians did not come, except for the token presence of the foreign minister Mr. Lavrov. This indomitable successor of Mr. Nyet left the event almost immediately and went - to pray in the Russian church, in a counter-demonstration, of sorts, against Charlie. By going to the church, he declared that he is not Charlie.
For the Charlie Hebdo magazine was (and probably is) explicitly anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim. One finds on its pages some very obnoxious cartoons offending the Virgin and Christ, as well as the pope and the Church. (They never offend Jews, somehow).
A Russian blogger who’s been exposed to this magazine for the first time, wrote on his page: I am ashamed that the bastards were dealt with by Muslims, not by Christians. This was quite a common feeling in Moscow these days. The Russians could not believe that such smut could be published and defended as a right of free speech. People planned a demo against the Charlie, but City Hall forbade it.
Remember, a few years ago, the Pussy Riot have profaned the St Saviour of Moscow like Femen did in some great European cathedrals, from Notre Dame de Paris to Strasbourg. The Russian government did not wait for vigilante justice to be meted upon the viragos, but sent them for up to two years of prison. At the same time, the Russian criminal law has been changed to include ‘sacrilege’ among ordinary crimes, by general consent. The Russians do feel about their faith more strongly than the EC rulers prescribe.
In Charlie’s France, Hollande’s regime frogmarched the unwilling people into a quite unnecessary gay marriage law, notwithstanding one-million-strong protest demonstrations by Catholics. Femen despoiling the churches were never punished; but a church warden who tried to prevent that, was heavily fined. France has a long anti-Christian tradition, usually described as “laic”, and its grand anti-Church coalition of Atheists, Huguenots and Jews coalesced in Dreyfus Affair days. Thus Lavrov’s escape to the church was a counter-demonstration, saying: Russia is for Christ, and Russia is not against Muslims.
While the present western regime is anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, it is pro-Jewish to an extent that defies a rational explanation. France had sent thousands of soldiers and policemen to defend Jewish institutions, though this defence antagonises their neighbours. While Charlie are glorified for insulting Christians and Muslims, Dieudonné has been sent to jail (just for a day, but with great fanfare) for annoying Jews. Actually, Charlie Hebdo dismissed a journalist for one sentence allegedly disrespectful for Jews. This unfairness is a source of aggravation: Muslims were laughed out of court when they complained against particularly vile Charlie’s cartoons, but Jews almost always win when they go to the court against their denigrators. (Full disclosure: I was also sued by LICRA, the French Jewish body, while my French publisher was devastated by their legal attacks).
The Russians don’t comprehend the Western infatuation with Jews, for Russian Jews have been well assimilated and integrated in general society. The narrative of Holocaust is not popular in Russia for one simple reason: so many Russians from every ethnic background lost their lives in the war, that there is no reason to single out Jews as supreme victims. Millions died at the siege of Leningrad; Belarus lost a quarter of its population. More importantly, Russians feel no guilt regarding Jews: they treated them fairly and saved them from the Nazis. For them, the Holocaust is a Western narrative, as foreign as JeSuisCharlie. With drifting of Russia out of Western consensus, there is no reason to maintain it.
This does not mean the Jews are discriminated against. The Jews of Russia are doing very well, thank you, without Holocaust worship: they occupy the highest positions in the Forbes list of Russia’s rich, with a combined capital of $122 billion, while all rich ethnic Russians own only $165 billion, according to the Jewish-owned source. Jews run the most celebrated media shows in prime time on the state TV; they publish newspapers; they have full and unlimited access to Putin and his ministers; they usually have their way when they want to get a plot of land for their communal purposes. And anti-Semitic propaganda is punishable by law – like anti-Christian or anti-Muslim abuse, but even more severely. Still, it is impossible to imagine a Russian journalist getting sack like CNN anchor Jim Clancy or BBC’s Tim Willcox for upsetting a Jew or speaking against Israel.
Russia preserves its plurality, diversity and freedom of opinion. The pro-Western Russian media – Novaya Gazeta of oligarch Lebedev, the owner of the British newspaper Independent – carries the JeSuis slogan and speaks of the Holocaust, as well as demands to restore Crimea to the Ukraine. But the vast majority of Russians do support their President, and his civilizational choice. He expressed it when he went to midnight Christmas mass in a small village church in far-away province, together with orphans and refugees from the Ukraine. And he expressed it by refusing to go to Auschwitz.
2
Neither willingly nor easily did Russia break ranks. Putin tried to take Western baiting in his stride: be it Olympic games, Syria confrontation, gender politics, Georgian border, even Crimea-related sanctions. The open economic warfare was a game-changer. Russia felt attacked by falling oil prices, by rouble trouble, by credit downgrading. These developments are considered an act of hostility, rather than the result of “the hidden hand of the market”.
Russians love conspiracia, as James Bond used to say. They do not believe in chance, coincidence nor natural occurrences, and are likely to consider a falling meteorite or an earthquake - a result of hostile American action, let alone a fall in the rouble/dollar exchange rate. They could be right, too, though it is hard to prove.
Regarding oil price fall, the jury is out. Some say this action by Saudis is aimed at American fracking companies, or alternatively it’s a Saudi-American plot against Russia. However, the price of oil is not formed by supply-demand, but by financial instruments, futures and derivatives. This virtual demand-and-supply is much bigger than the real one. When hedge funds stopped to buy oil futures, price downturn became unavoidable, but were the funds directed by politicians, or did they act so as Quantitative Easing ended?
The steep fall of the rouble could be connected to oil price downturn, but not necessarily so. The rouble is not involved in oil price forming. It could be an action by a very big financial institution. Soros broke the back of British pound in 1991; Korean won, Thai bath and Malaysian ringgit suffered similar fate in 1998. In each case, the attacked country lost about 40% of its GDP. It is possible that Russia was attacked by financial weapons directed from New York.
The European punitive sanctions forbade long-term cheap credit to Russian companies. The Russian state does not need loans, but Russian companies do. Combination of these factors put a squeeze on Russian pockets. The rating agencies kept downgrading Russian rating to almost junk level, for political reasons, I was told. As they were deprived of credit, state companies began to hoard dollars to pay later their debts, and they refrained from converting their huge profits to roubles, as they did until now. The rouble fell drastically, probably much lower than it had to.
This is not pinpoint sanctions aimed at Putin’s friends. This is a full-blown war. If the initiators expected Russians to be mad at Putin, they miscalculated. The Russian public is angry with the American organisers of the economical warfare, not with its own government. The pro-Western opposition tried to demonstrate against Putin, but very few people joined them.
Ordinary Russians kept a stiff upper lip. They did not notice the sanctions until the rouble staggered, and even then they shopped like mad rather than protested. In the face of shrinking money, they did not buy salt and sugar, as their grandparents would have. Their battle cry against hogging was “Do not take more than two Lexus cars per family, leave something for others!”
Perhaps, the invisible financiers went too far. Instead of being cowed, the Russians are preparing for a real long war, as they and their ancestors have historically fought – and won. It is not like they have a choice: though Americans insist Russia should join their War-on-Terrorism-II, they do not intend to relinquish sanctions.
The Russians do not know how to deal with a financial attack. Without capital restrictions, Russia will be cleaned out. Russian Central bank and Treasury people are strict monetarists, capital restrictions are anathema for them. Putin, being a liberal himself, apparently trusts them. Capital flight has taken huge proportions. Unless Russia uses the measures successfully tried by Mohammad Mahathir of Malaysia, it will continue. At present, however, we do not see sign of change.
This could be the incentive for Putin to advance in Ukraine. If the Russians do not know how to shuffle futures and derivatives, they are expert in armour movements and tank battles. Kiev regime is also spoiling for a fight, apparently pushed by the American neocons. It is possible that the US will get more than what it bargained for in the Ukraine.
One can be certain that Russians will not support the Middle Eastern crusade of NATO, as this military action was prepared at the Charlie demo in Paris. It is far from clear who killed the cartoonists, but Paris and Washington intend to use it for reigniting war in the Middle East. This time, Russia will be in opposition, and probably will use it as an opportunity to change the uncomfortable standoff in the Ukraine. Thus supporters of peace in the Middle East have a good reason to back Russia.
Israel Shamir works in Moscow and Jaffa; he can be reached on adam@israelshamir.net
Language editing Ken Freeland
Many of pointed out that apparently the French and most westerners seem to be much more upset when 12 people die in Paris then when hundreds, thousand and tens of thousands die elsewhere. It appears that the 1980s slogan "don't touch my pal" which was originally supposed to denounce racism now has been "re-worked" into a, if not racist, then at least a chauvinistic mode: don't kill French leftists no matter how offensive their discourse is. I won't make that case again here, but because by now anybody still capable of critical thought "got it", but I will look at another, much less noticed case of double standards: the one about the issue of moral pain.
Here is what the official doxa tells us: Muslims have no right to whine about their Prophet being insulted, this is part of free speech. It is disingenuous for them to claim that they have been hurt by these caricatures, in reality they have not been hurt, they just had their feathers ruffled by a bit of disrespectful speech. How can you possibly compared such ruffled feathers with issues of life and death?
So is there such thing as moral pain and can it be compared to physical pain?
Let's look at the record as it stands in the West:
Any psychologist will explain to you that not only does moral pain exist, but it can be worse then physical pain. This is why some people confess to crimes (whether real or not) when they are told that their family members will be tortured next even though they themselves had found the internal courage not to yield to torture inflicted upon them. An idea can hurt more then physical pain.
The Geneva conventions specifically forbid mock executions even though all they inflict is fear (a form of moral pain).
In France, it is currently illegal to even question the official version of the so-called "Holocaust" precisely because doing so would cause moral pain to the very few actual "Holocaust survivors" still alive. This protection from moral pain even extends to the relatives and descendants of "Holocaust survivors" who were born already after the war and how never suffered from any ill-treatment themselves.
At the famous Nurenberg trial Julius Streicher was sentenced to death even though he never committed any other crime then "infecting the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism". He was, by the way, also viciously tortured before his execution. His crime? He was the founder and editor of a newspaper, Der Stürmer, a nasty racist propaganda paper whose name can be roughly translated as "The attacked" or "The stormer". Apparently, hate speech can even get you the death penalty in the West.
The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" especially if it "degrading to human dignity". Apparently, for the Founding Fathers human dignity was an extremely valuable and real thing which deserved to be protected.
Even in GITMO (hardly a bastion of civilization and human rights!) following the 2005 scandals about the desacration of the Quran, it was decided that the rules about the manipulation of the Quran (which had already existed in the past) would be strictly implemented. So even in waterboarding GITMO insulting the Prophet is considered beyond the norms of civilized behavior. Apparently not in Paris.
What about law defending against slander? Are they not here to protect people from the pain resulting from somebody else's speech? Do we not care if somebody dear to us is insulted or ridiculed?
So who are we kidding here? Do I need to bring further examples to make my point everybody in the West already knows that caricatures like the one published by Charlie Hebdo really bring on real pain to Muslims. We are not talking about ruffled feathers or irritation, we are talking about real moral and psychological distress here, the kind which normally western civilizational and legal norms try to protect people form.
The truth which others dare not speak but which I will spell out for you here is simple: western elites have the same attitude towards Muslims as Victoria Nuland has for the EU: f**k them! That is the real message not only Charlie Hebdo but the entire teary circus around the Paris massacre sends to Muslims worldwide: bleep you, your religion and your Prophet, bleep you and your victims - thousands and even millions of your dead Muslims (Iraq anybody?!) are not worth 12 of our guys, and we get to limit your speech, but don't you dare limit ours!
And if a Muslim dares to object, he is instantly reminded about "his" stonings, burkas, terrorist attacks, etc. with the inevitable punch line: Islam is in no position to give lessons to the civilized West. Sadly, Islam is vulnerable to such attack because of its support for the death penalty and its use of various frankly inhuman execution methods, but that is far from being the full picture.
First, until recently the West ALSO had plenty of execution methods which are infinitely worse then those legal in Islam (anybody doubting this better read the Wikipedia entry under Robert-Francois Damiens or remember that the French abolished the guillotine only in 1981 and against the popular will). Second, at least Islam is honest about its punishments. Compare that with the USA were people are officially sentenced to prison terms like in other civilized countries, but where it is well known, understood and accepted that your chances of being brutally assaulted or anally raped are very high, especially if you are weak, and where people are held in supermax isolation units which the UN correctly defines as torture.
Second, it is artificial to compare two (or more) civilizations by only comparing their penal codes. Why not compare other forms of violence such as warfare or genocides. Here, even the worst of the worst Muslims (the Ottomans) compare very favorably with the Europeans, I am sorry if I offend the latter, but that is a fact. Though, of course, there have been plenty of examples of Muslim atrocities (by the Ottomans and the Persians in particular), but compared to what the West did to entire continents (African, North and South America) these are truly minor incidents. Of course, folks in the West are not too knowledgeable about all this, and the comforting narrative is that Europe was civilized, a heir to the Greek and Roman civilizations (a lie - post Frankish Europe re-discovered antiquity thanks to Muslims and Jews!) whereas the Muslims are just goat herders from the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. Comforting narrative for sure, but factually wrong. Muslims, however, are very much aware of this history and don't like to be looked down by the very westerners which they see as rather brutish and always bloodthirsty.
Third, there is a feature of modern western civilization which does set it apart from pretty much all others. The quasi-total absence of the sacred. For a modern, secular and educated person in the West there is very little which is truly sacred. In the past, wives and mothers still used to be sacred, and telling an Italian or Spaniard "cornuto" or "hijo de puta" could get you knifed. Nowadays a French rap group proudly calls itself "Nique Ta Mère". Some will say this is progress, I suppose. In the USA, the flag is sacred. At least to some. And, apparently, for millions of people in France - free speech, including deliberately offending free speech, is sacred. Except when it is directed a Jews, in which case it can land you in jail. For most Muslims, the prophets are so sacred that every time they mention their name they add "sallallahu alayhi wasallam" (peace be upon him). Now, you don't have to be a Muslim yourself or to approve of the Prophet to be capable of understanding that the Prophet Mohammed is truly dear and even sacred to Muslims. The fact that there is nothing sacred left in the West does not mean that the rest of the world has slouched down to a similar degree of degeneracy or that those who hold nothing for sacred have a license to impose their lack of anything sacred or their indifference on everybody else and offend them to their (sick) heart's content.
The most disgusting kind of westerner is the kind that actually takes pride in offending the feelings of those who still do have things which are sacred to them. This is what Charlie Hebdo was all about. Theirs was not a "discourse", it was an endless quest to become the most offensive, vulgar and crude newspaper in Europe. And, by the way, before the latest Charlie Hebdo psyop, this disgusting and stupid paper printed 60'000 copies for a country of 66'000'000 people. But then, apparently, some French matter more then others (what else is new?). Double standards again.
When considering any aspects of the Charlie Hebdo psyop you will inevitably find that double standards and logical fallacies are everywhere. That some speech is freer then other, that some victims matter more then others, that some atrocities are more atrocious then others and that some pain gets more respect then other. But the worst for me is this sickening solidarity with those who made insulting others into some kind of noble feat, these "heroes" are lionized for their "courage" to generate real moral pain in others. I see nothing noble in that at all and the fact that they were brutally and viciously murdered by, apparently, a gang of Takfiri freaks does not make then anyway more respectful.
One more thing: some of you have expressed outrage at the fact that Sheikh Imran Hosein said that the biggest evil the world has ever seen will rule from Jerusalem. Clearly, the good Sheikh is a vicious anti-Semite, right?
(Sigh)
I wish that those who speak about the "Christian West" actually knew a little something of Christianity, especially of Christian eschatology. What the Sheikh was saying is in no way different from what the Church Fathers said, including that the Antichrist would rule over the world from Jerusalem. A 5min search on the Internet gave me these pretty decent sources:
http://biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm
http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/AntichristbySaints.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-christ.html
Islamic eschatology is, by the way, remarkably similar to the traditional Christian one. A quick search under the term "Dajjal" yielded these sources:
http://www.islaam.org/al_mahdi/dajjaal.htm
http://islamqa.info/en/8806
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL60F84B368D3270FF
As for Sheikh Imran Hosein's advice to the Muslims of France to leave while they can, it is fully in line with this admonition of Christ Himself who told his apostles "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart
out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15). One does not have to agree with what the Sheikh says, but that is hardly a reason to call him crazy or anti-Semitic.
Frankly, what I see taking place is mostly a lashing out against Islam and against Muslims which is first and foremost based on crass ignorance. I personally am not a Muslim and I vehemently disagree with some teachings and practices of Islam. And I am on record saying that I fully support what I call "Putin's ultimatum" to the Takfiri freaks: stop or we will exterminate you. And, when needed, Putin did exactly that: since 2000 Russia has literally executed every single leader of the Chechen insurgency, every single one. Some were killed in Russia, others in Chechnia, others even elsewhere, but they are all dead. And the Wahabi "Icherkian" insurgency has been literally exterminated too. Not only that, but Putin has fully backed Assad, the other man who has not hesitated to physically exterminate as many Takfiri freaks as possible (and Assad did such a good job of it that they had to retreat to Iraq). And I am on record supporting Assad too. And, finally, I have always fully supported Hezbollah and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, not only in their war of national liberation against Israel, but also in their struggle against the so-called "Syrian opposition" (where the freaks who murdered the Charlie Hebdo people came from!). I don't think that anybody even minimally honest can accuse me of having any sympathies for the Takfiri/Wahabi terrorists or for their actions in Paris.
But to those of you who take issue with my statement that the "West" cannot win against the Muslim world I say this: take the example of Russia and realize that the Russians can kill Wahabis, but they cannot kill Wahabism. It took a Muslim man like Akhmad Kadyrov and his son to defeat the Wahabi ideology in Chechnia. The same goes for the West: no matter how many ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorist the western security services kill (or, pretend to kill!), the ideology of Takfirism will only be defeated by other Muslims (who, by the way, are always the first and main victims of the Takfiri freaks!).
Just take one look at Hollande, Merkel or Obama and tell me that they have anything at all to say other then vapid platitudes and insipid lies? Do you really believe that they have anything to oppose to the ideas of Osama bin-Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or even Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab or Taqi ad-Din Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah?
Methinks that the western leaders are both too arrogant and too ignorant to face this reality and that they think that they can outsmart the devil on their own - hence the unleash the Takfiri demon against Muslim world and the Nazi demon against the Donbass. I say that with leaders like that the West has exactly *zero* chance to prevail. And considering that with each passing year the western leaders become even dumber, more arrogant, more pathetic and more clueless, I see no reason to believe that the West will win the "clash of civilizations" it itself created.
Now please don't shoot the messenger.
The Saker
by Jonathan Revusky
When I first saw the news about Charlie Hebdo, I concluded very quickly that it was some sort of staged event, a “false flag”. The basic story, that disgruntled Muslims had shown up in the middle of Paris with Kalashnikovs and a rocket propelled grenade launcher to settle their grievances towards some cartoonists struck me as something out of fantastical fiction. Once I saw the cheesy Hollywood B film dialogue -- "Allahu Akhabar! The Prophet is avenged!” — that nailed it for me. I said sarcastically to whoever would listen: “What is it with that B film dialogue? Were the guys who staged this on a tight budget? Couldn't they hire better scriptwriters?” I also wondered whether these were the same ones who wrote the scene in Abbottabad (later denied) in which denied) in which Osama Bin Laden had used a woman as a human shield.
Although the above considerations were enough for me to categorise this as a staged event, they might not suffice for others, and, as time went by, I started considering other aspects of the story that are glossed over by the commentariat.
It boils down to this: pretty much all the public discussion of the incident centres around a series of premises that, as far as I can see, do not withstand logical scrutiny. They are as follows:
I. The premise that Muslims were so enraged about the cartoons:
Charlie Hebdo was sold in newsstands across France. If a Muslim passerby was angry about this material because he (or she) considered it sacreligious and abominable, why would they not grab the stack of magazines from the newsstand and throw them into the nearest dumpster?
Is there any record of any reactions at this much lower level? I am not 100% sure, but I think not. If there had been such incidents, we would surely have heard about them by now. Does the lack of such lesser incidents not suggest that, in fact, by and large, Muslims didn't care that much about the cartoons?
Granted, I am sure that many did not like this material, but it also seems that nobody was upset enough to take the much lesser action I just described. There is supposedly a history which shows how upset Muslims were. However, it is quite dubious. In 2005, a Danish cartoonist received death threats over the cartoons of Mohammed. However, a death threat would be an anonymous phone call. How do we know that the people making such phone calls were really even Muslims? The 2011 fire bombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices is similar. It is an unsolved crime. Nobody knows who did it. For that matter, does anybody know the true identity of people who, under cover of night, desecrate a Jewish cemetery with swastikas? Should we not be wary of jumping to conclusions? Cui bono?
In any case, the above premise, that Muslims really were so enraged by the cartoons, appears to be false. At least, I cannot find any objective evidence that Muslims were so angry about the cartoons, certainly nowhere near enough to commit such a depraved act of violence.
II. The premise that, to the extent that people were upset by the cartoons, it was ONLY Muslims:
Actually, a bit of googling reveals that the Catholic Church had complained bitterly about material in Charlie Hebdo. In particular, I found mention of a Charlie Hebdo cartoon which portrayed a spread-eagled naked Mary with the infant Jesus flying out of her vagina.
Well, guess what. Traditional, conservative, Christian elements of French society, doubtless comprising millions of people, probably more people in absolute numbers than the Muslims, ALSO do not like this kind of garbage! Quelle surprise!
I wonder, how would Buddhists react to a graphic cartoon portraying the Buddha and the Five Acolytes engaging in a gay sex orgy? I would make the tentative guess that this would not make them happy.
So why do the "Je suis Charlie" crowd believe (or more likely, affect to believe) that it is only Muslims who don't like this crap?
Well, the simplest explanation seems that it is because that is the designated meme of this staged event, that this is about Islam. Again, we have a key premise of the dominant discourse that does not withstand much scrutiny.
III. The premise that some angry, alienated Muslim youth from the Parisian banlieue are capable of these acts:
Now, I will grant that this point is a bit more subjective than the previous two, but here goes:
My sense of things is that an average religious person (Muslim or not), even taking into account his deep outrage over the cartoons, would not be capable of carrying out the acts described. We are talking about showing up and systematically executing a dozen people who were, I assume, sobbing and pleading for their lives. (I assume the victims were doing that since it’s what I would be doing…) Could a dead end kid from a rough neighbourhood be relied on, at the moment of truth, to go through with this? I think not. My intuition, the feeling in my bones is that this is more or less impossible. At the outer limit, I can imagine him using his fists, and even then, such an event is so rare that, to all intents and purposes, it never happens.
The above considerations lead me to conclude that this kind of killing with these kinds of weapons is the work of professional assassins. This leads us to some further considerations that have been discussed elsewhere, such as: do professional assassins leave their ID in the getaway car? Are professional assassins such sensitive, thin-skinned people that they would take such mortal offence at cartoons? Regardless, since the shooters in the video wore masks, there does not seem to be any hard evidence that the brothers later blamed for the crime (and who are no longer with us) actually were the killers. The above considerations reinforce such legitimate doubts.
IV. The premise that it is some kind of "core western value" to insult other people's religious beliefs.
If the "Je suis Charlie" crowd is to be believed, my right to draw a cartoon portraying the Virgin Mary as a street whore and her son Jesus pimping her, is of paramount importance, no matter how offensive other people find it. However, it is not important to be able to:
(i) have a public discussion of the implausibilities of the official story of 9/11
(ii) have intellectually honest discussion of the events of WW2, in particularly the atrocities in which Jews were the victims, i.e. the “Holocaust”.
(iii) even mention the power or organized world Jewry (and I mean, even mention it without bothering to say whether you think it is a good or bad thing, it is simply taboo to mention it.)
(iv) have serious discussion of issues like gender, ethnicity, race outside the imposed straightjacket of "political correctness”.
Why are the above topics of discussion taboo? Apparently, it is because such speech offends people. It is hurtful to them!!!???
This is a bizarre paradox and it baffled me for the longest while. Finally, I did resolve the conundrum. Apparently, in France, and in the West generally, unrestricted free speech is only important in the case of people, who, like the ageing hipster cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, actually have nothing to say!
Okay, now, in conclusion, we can ponder all the absurdities that I have outlined above, get indignant and so on, but the question is: what is the constructive line of thinking about this?
Back to basic principles: I make no bones about the fact that I believe this to be a staged event. This is a psychological operation (psy op) par excellence. Surely it is obvious that whoever is really behind this is quite intent on engineering a certain psychological atmosphere. And they do that because they believe that such an atmosphere will further their agenda. So, for starters, this means that we should dispense with this bogeyman of the “conspiracy theory” since any proper analysis of the event is *necessarily* of a conspiratorial nature, no?
So who is behind this staged psy op and what is their agenda? This, I am confident, is the correct question to focus on, not contrived nonsense about the incompatibility of Islam or the sacred nature of free speech.
Jonathan Revusky can be reached at revusky (at) gmail (dot) com.
