Why I am not ‘Charlie’

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

When I first read about the horrific terrorist attacks in France earlier this month, firstly on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and then on a kosher supermarket, I felt appalled, then somewhat numb. After all, there have been so many of these ‘death squad’-style terrorist attacks over the last two years that my second thought was along the lines of… “Really? Again? Already?”

Despite my feelings of despair and anger, I began to collate data on the event. One of the things I noticed almost immediately was the rapidity of the social media response, complete with rallying cry, “Je suis Charlie!”, a response that has grown into a massive worldwide movement to espouse freedom of speech. Although feeling extremely tempted to write a quick statement about this attack, posting up the ubiquitous statement and pencil-in-gun logo in solidarity with the victims, something about the phrase, “Je suis Charlie” did not sit well with me.

Now, call me paranoid if you wish, but whenever such ‘united’ responses appear virtually immediately after tragic and shocking events, I tend to have immediate suspicions. To process horrific and tragic events on a large scale is not a momentary thing for human beings – I would have expected something like the “Je suis Charlie” campaign to have grown more organically over the course of weeks, with many other sayings and banners waved alongside it in the meantime.

But no – “Boom!” – there it was… almost as if it had been pre-formulated and rolled out on cue. And the grieving, shocked masses in France immediately grasped it as a rallying cry, something to focus their despair and anger with, to replace the burning, horrid, feeling of helplessness and sadness with ACTION! They appear to have almost unanimously agreed that “They are Charlie”, and then commenced demonstrations against the violence, the largest demonstrations in France’s history.

But what does such a statement really imply? It implies more than solidarity. It implies a transformation… a metaphysical ‘becoming-ness’… a merging of the ‘essence’ of “Charlie Hebdo” into one’s ‘being’, and vice versa. A person making that identification is psychologically no longer just a person… they are a ‘person-Charlie Hebdo’… a merging of two identities that parallels in some ways a marriage between two lovers.

Is Charlie Hebdo really a ‘person’ worth ‘marrying’ though?

Like many people I suppose, I did not even know of the existence of Charlie Hebdo before this attack. Okay, so something terrible happened to them – I empathise. Does that mean one should ‘marry’ them out of ‘solidarity’?!? Of course not.

And when one pauses for a second; takes just one brief moment to THINK… one can discover all kinds of things about the situation – things that might not necessarily fit with the picture of ‘100%-completely-innocent victim’. For instance, Glenn Greenwald writes in an excellent article:

Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens […]. Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery […], and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.

To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech – fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?

Harrison Koehli writes, in an excellent summary of the Charlie Hebdo situation for sott.net:

They’re also taking to the streets defending the holy mantra ‘freedom of speech’. ‘Je suis Charlie’, the world is chanting. I’m sorry, but do these people even know what they’re doing by making such an identification? I think they’re making utter fools of themselves. It’s somewhat akin to defending free speech by saying “I am Goebbels”. Have all these people even looked at the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo? Google them and prepare to vomit: they are vulgar, insulting, juvenile, and hate speech.

And Chris Hedges writes at TruthDig.com:

The cartoons of the Prophet in the Paris-based satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo are offensive and juvenile. None of them are funny. And they expose a grotesque double standard when it comes to Muslims. In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam. French high school students must be taught about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but these same students read almost nothing in their textbooks about the widespread French atrocities, including a death toll among Algerians that some sources set at more than 1 million, in the Algerian war for independence against colonial France. French law bans the public wearing of the burqa, a body covering for women that includes a mesh over the face, as well as the niqab, a full veil that has a small slit for the eyes. Women who wear these in public can be arrested, fined the equivalent of about $200 and forced to carry out community service. France banned rallies in support of the Palestinians last summer when Israel was carrying out daily airstrikes in Gaza that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. The message to Muslims is clear: Your traditions, history and suffering do not matter. Your story will not be heard.

Still want to ‘marry’ Charlie Hebdo? Didn’t think so.

Regardless of a person’s identification (or not) with Charlie Hebdo, it seems clear enough that those people did not deserve what happened to them, and so are certainly victims in some sense. Victims of what, exactly, though?

As Harrison Koehli makes clear in his article:

The Charlie Hebdo attacks check almost every point in the false-flag handbook: early conflicting reports (2 shooters, 3 shooters), convenient evidence (ID in the getaway car), patsies with prior run-ins with police and counterintelligence (making them perfect CIs or victims of entrapment), convenient deaths (dead men tell no tales, leaving the government all too willing to fill in the blanks with their own version of events), contradictions (professional behavior vs. bungled last stand; third suspect with a perfect alibi), and of course, affiliation with known intelligence fronts. Of course, that doesn’t prove it was a false flag. These guys may have been acting on their own initiative, or that of their ‘cleric handlers’ (but more on that in a moment). Either way – convenient blow-back or malevolent false flag – the result is the same, and equally helpful to Israel and the U.S.’s agenda around the world.

And as Jason Martin also writes:

These barbarous attacks are not only personal, but are a full frontal assault on freedom in general, and freedom of speech specifically. This terror attack has been specially designed to terrorize people into self-censoring, and that we cannot allow! No person should ever have to live in fear of speaking out against evil. Especially religious and nationalistic evil. […]

How can we, as a nation, as a people, as a civilization ever recover from the loss of innocence? There is something about this attack that is perhaps more horrifying than even 9/11, though that attack on freedom was horrible enough. We thought it couldn’t get any worse. We were wrong. Now we know how bad it can be. The personal nature, armed gun toting terrorists running into a quiet office where cartoonists are busily readying their next edition; these masked weapons of hate moving from room to room, cubicle to cubicle, mercilessly killing our freedom. What monsters! What horrific demons could do such a thing? What men could do it?

We should all pause to give that some thought. The irrational hatred of the radical terrorist, his unquestioning belief in his doctrine of terror, his poise and calm as he murders our heart and soul, our freedom.

These here are now the shots heard round the world, here are the anguished cries of a dying era.

Perhaps one of the clearest clues to the goals of the attacks comes from the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu:

“The terror of […] ISIL and Al-Qaeda will not stop unless the West fights it physically”

Umm… what exactly does Netanyahu think the whole ‘war on terror’ has been about, exactly? After US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention all the related airstrikes, NATO bombing campaigns and innumerable covert operations, how exactly is the West NOT ‘fighting it physically’?!?

Clearly, Netanyahu and the ‘people’ behind him think that the West is only ‘fighting terror’ when THEY deem it to be so. And thus, it seems pretty obvious what Israel’s agenda is for the West: By hook or by crook, manipulate them into waging another war upon targets of Israel’s choosing.

And if the West doesn’t oblige to follow ‘instructions’? Well… perhaps more “Charlie Hebdo”-style attacks could occur… all perpetrated by “radical Islamic terrorists” of course – the same “terrorists” that simply cannot seem to help shooting themselves in the foot by conducting attacks that only provide the bloodthirsty West with even more of an ‘excuse’ to exterminate them. I guess the Mossad has no shortage of ‘useful idiots’ willing to allow themselves to be manipulated if they think they can strike a blow against the West in a ‘holy war’.

So, if the Charlie Hebdo attacks were a false-flag psychological operation (PSYOP) first and foremost, then why was Charlie Hebdo chosen as a target? Undoubtably their organisation fit some kind of target ‘psychological profile’, but perhaps the critical issue – the thing that made them most vulnerable – was their anti-Muslim messaging. After all, what better way to demonstrate that ‘Muslims have no respect for free speech’ and to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment than by having ‘Muslims’ kill a public and vocal proponent of anti-Islamic ‘satire’?

As Glenn Greenwald documents in his article, there have been a number of media voices calling to increase the amount of ‘blasphemous’ satire in the media as a way to show extremists that those who hold free speech dear will not be intimidated by such violence, and that religion should be ‘fair game’ for satire as much as anything else. I think that anyone who takes such advice is putting themselves in extraordinary danger, especially if they already have a history of satirizing political and power structures. As I wrote previously, the pathocratic goal regarding religion is its annihilation – not just of one religion, but all religions. If I needed any further proof of the correctness of my assessment in this regard, I got it when I read the following statement by Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister:

French PM Manuel Valls stressed that his country is “at war against terrorism, not against religion.”

As such, prominent free-speech advocates who take an anti-religious stance against any one particular religion (even if they claim to criticise all religions equally) will no doubt incur the wrath of that religion’s followers, and also make themselves a target for those seeking to demonise that religion by underhanded means.

After all, you cannot have free speech without also allowing people to proselytize, even if you do not agree with the particular religious views in question.

Of course, as Jason Martin wrote, free speech itself is the main target of these attacks. After all, if people can say anything they choose to without fear of negative repercussions, they might choose to speak out against the psychopaths in power, and that is something that pathocracy cannot abide.

And if the whole Charlie Hebdo attack was a PSYOP, doesn’t it make sense that a pre-planned attack would have a coordinated post-attack propaganda campaign? Even perhaps, on social media? If so, then who is it who is REALLY saying, “Je suis Charlie”… the people, or the pathocracy?


So, for those reasons, that is why I am not ‘Charlie’. And I hope you aren’t either.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.