The “message” of Paris massacre: “Islam hates us”

by Enrico Galoppini

charlie-hebdoForeword: “terrorism” has a fixed and unchangeable pattern. After the Italian ‘laboratory’ of the Seventies and Eighties, the terrorist machine became perfected to be used anywhere in a similar manner.

The flyer of the “Red Brigades ” is delivered and the massacre is “red”. There is the call of “fascists” and the massacre is “black”. There is heard a loud scream out “God is greatest” and the attack is definitely “Islamic”.

Then, once the “service” has been carried out, when in practice the bitter truth (repeated from the beginning by the usual “conspirators”) bothers no longer anybody, it turns out that all these “terrorist” circles have been infiltrated and even directed from outside, but it does not matter… what remains and must remain in the collective memory is the terroristic “matrix”, in order once and forever to stigmatize a certain ideology and its followers with the brand of infamy.

The important thing is that it feeds up the idea of an eternal “plot against the West” and its “freedom”. Islamonazicomunistic plot!

And so here we go again, this time in France.

The victims of an attack that has all the hallmarks of a targeted execution are the director, editors and cartoonists of a French satirical newspaper, which had become particularly odious in the eyes of the Muslims because of the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam published in 2012 and an incessant anti-Islamic satire. Probably, if it had not embarked on this kind of satire, no one, outside of France, would have known of the existence of Charlie Hebdo, editorial rib of Rothschild group, as unscrupulous against Islam and Muslims as careful not to be too ironic about the superpower of stateless finances.

I insist on the particular of the targeted execution, because there is still a difference between this case and a bomb to make an indiscriminate massacre placed at a station or in a train. The fact is that “terrorism” is always “false flag” and aims at the objectives that the mass (which also includes the average politician) is not suspicious of even remotely. But we will return late to this argument, revealing some really “incredible” details.

They were not late in coming the stream of alarmist and terrifying comments, just to reduce them back to their lowest common denominator: “Islam is a danger”, “the problem of problems”! Islam attacks the most sacred values of the West… “freedom of expression”!

A very easy way to earn approval and applause, is it not? So we will see again just another media pillory ritual of ”Islamic” under investigation of its “moderation”. All Muslims become suspicious of moral complicity, of intelligence with the “enemy”.

But does there really exist this famous “freedom of expression”? Anyone with ideas that do not fit at all with the prevailing trend, knows that or one must be equipped with a website otherwise one will never express them on a TV channel or in a “big newspaper”. There is freedom of thought, in the sense that as long as there is no law for the ‘psychofelony’, one can think what he wants, but there is definitely no chance to spread in the same way all the ideas, provided that the only limit should be represented by a hypothetical “public danger”, the will to actually bring damage to goods and persons (for which the law already exists).

Is there then the “freedom of research”? Yes, as long as you publish the books by yourself or by the unobtainable publishers, otherwise the “big publishing houses” they ignore you. The history and the ideas go hand in hand, for fear that they can do to the system.

We also come to the “freedom of satire”, a variant of that of “expression”: can you be ironic, in the so-called “free world”, heavily and without inhibitions, on everything and everyone? Absolutely not, and we all know of who and what you cannot joke in the least, even when it would be very easy and exhilarating. Some so-called “history” and some “ideas” offer practically the trails on which is rolling an avalanche of jokes, that would overthrow a requital of counterfeit and gossip, if only they were not defended by a conventio ad excludendum aimed to maintain a monopoly over “public discourse” (including historical disclosure).

The same satirical magazine in the middle of this bloody affair, is a great example of what we are arguing, because exactly its famous cartoonist, Maurice Sinet (aka, Sine), in 2008, at the height of the power of Nicolas Sarkozy, was fired for… “anti-Semitism”! With subsequent media-political lynching, which is queued up by the entire so-called “free information” …

varelaAmong the exclusions, and anathemas – in more than one case – “legal” measures to prevent the “sacred” freedom of expression and research, Europe is not at all alien to censorship and persecution, even fierce. To remain in France, one should think of the recent case of Dieudonné, prosecuted and fined, who was even denied by the Ministry of the Interior (!) a theater when this would be filled with spectators eager to listen to him (therefore, the argument of “share” does not even count); or the famous case of Professor Robert Faurisson, expelled from universities and subjected to several attempts of murder or at least permanently disfigure him after he has published his famous revisionist articles (translated into Italian, incredibly enough, by the magazine “Storia Illustrata” {“Illustrated History”}). There is also the case of Serge Thion, moved away from the French CNR because of his anti-Zionist position; but also that case of the publishing house La Vieille Taupe, destroyed several times because of its commitment of the same direction. And these are people and circles of the “left”… The “right”, it is useless to talk about them, there is total repression across Europe: think for example, about the publisher Pedro Varela, in Spain, who would also be “Nazi”, but who other than publishing books and magazines of historical subject did no other “evil”! Yet the machinery of “justice” and “unidentified” vandalism was unleashed against his person and his cultural activities. And these are only the tips of the iceberg that includes victims murdered for their militancy (we’re still talking about ideas) pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian (think about François Duprat, exploded together with his car most likely at the hands of the Mossad).

Only that ordinary people know nothing about all these “cases”. And something comes out about it, no TV news opens programme by crying out the scandal and ignominy. Rather if they even hint at something like that, it is to subsequently blacken it in the counterpunch.

This is what regards the famous “freedom of expression” that does not exist.

We come now to the subject of “violence.” That is, supposing that it regards what it seems (an “Islamist attack”), the other issue at the center of the “debate” is that “you should not” use force against those who think “differently”.

Also in this case, from the theoretical point of view, it would seem perfect. Woe to him who raises his hands! No to violence, no ifs or buts!

palest_journalist_killedIt’s a pity though that a lot of Palestinian newsrooms and photojournalists are made objects, deliberately, of the target shooting, and no western medium has ever cried the scandal out. So much for the vaunted “class solidarity”. And what of the Aljazeera journalists killed by “Western fire” while they were at work in their office? One would say that this is a different context, where one is at a big risk and has to take his responsibilities, but the reasoning must apply to everyone.

That is even a satirical newspaper that it engages in a reckless humor of the most sacred for many people and political and religious circles, should realize which scrape it has gotten into and the risks he runs.

Some people say that language (or pen) kills more than the sword, and this is terribly true. If you wage “war” against something or someone, than you should not be shocked if he gives you a slap or even gun you down. Today, however, one goes in front of a “gypsy camp” to provoke them and we’re surprised that those actually do not come out with bouquets of flowers. Here one rises on a “sentinel” against the pro-homosexual propaganda and one becomes scandalized when activists of the attacked cause insult us or lay their hands on us. In short, when you go to “war” you take everything to consideration, and then it will be on the competent bodies to investigate and catch those who have become the protagonists of a crime provided by the law in force.

It is hypocritical to become awestruck by the received injuries after blowing on the fire, because it is literally “irresponsible”, in the sense that one does not take responsibility of what he has said or done. Think of Jesus, who was not at all tender with none of those whom he had to bring back into line, who in fact nailed him to a cross after being subjected to unspeakable torture (or at least that is what we are told by the Christian version of the story and / or the Christian myth) and he had not complain at all while he was crucified!

The modern West, then, boasts much of its supposed ability to “understand” everything and everyone better than anyone has before. Anthropology has helped to strengthen this feeling: but if it has left it a lesson, it is that there are “cultures” for which not all can be a subject to “critique” or, even worse, to blasphemy. In other words, if for some “culture” of a few “wild” or a billion or more people, there are concepts and values that are not negotiable and not amenable by any form of mockery, the modern West should not take this reality as a “folly”, but, thanks to its (alleged) ability to “understand” even “the Other”, should realize that some forms of “critique” are perceived by the other party only as an unbearable insult.

So “the Other”, after being praised and placed on the pedestal for decades (because there used to be the Third Worldism), now must make an effort to “modernize” even in the sense that for it there does not exist anything “sacrosanct” it all needs to be discuss. And, indeed, in an era of a perfect desert produced by relativism at all costs, beyond the horror that can provoke a massacre, it makes at least reflect the fact that on this planet there are people for whom there is a hierarchy of principles and values in the front of which they are not willing to compromise.

On the other hand, even the West, in the middle of the smokescreen of “relativism”, has its untouchable fetishes, which are called “tolerance”, “equality”, “freedom”. All variable geometry, but this is another matter, because the important thing is that we believe in them firmly, although in practice they are not applied (neither it is possible to do it). Does not the one-sided propaganda about the “gender ideology” draw its sap from actually absolutization of an idea, in addition “independent” because distorted, of “freedom”?

That said, to reflect in everything around this sort of ” French September 11 ” (v. M. Blondet on site without restraining hypocrisy and moralizing, we must add one more thing.

Still assuming that it is an action of an “Islamist” commando that responds to a chain of commandos not polluted by “unexpected” and “shameful” elements, I wonder – as I’ve already done commenting on the destruction of the tombs of the saints at the hands of “Muslims” and the particular approach of the latter, which is “literalist” and prone to anathema and “excommunication” – how it is possible to attract sympathy toward Islam by behaving in this way.

The behavior, of those who feel “offended” by a cartoon to an extremewhere they take up the gun, which indicates a problem of “ego”, or identification with something which, although heard as “intimate” because “sacred” , cannot be traded in any way, without falling into the sin of “ego”, with your authentic self. From here to brandish the Qur’an like the Little Red Book of Mao, the distance is short. So sacred words become political slogans, and even if it had its own “why”, for these “Islamists” the jihad – the supreme effort against their passions – is reduced to a commitment to “political” task in the strictest sense of the term, so as conceived by modern people at all latitudes after the “modernity” has been swarmed everywhere.

dhikr1If they would want to attract to Islam, or voluntary acceptance of the divine decree to comply with it (and not the trivial “submission” of a Houellebecq), how many followers could make the calls for meetings (majlis) of dhikr, during which there are mentioned the “most beautiful names” of God! Instead, for the “jihadists” of all sorts, these activities that soften the hearts and attract them, are nothing more than “idolatry,” and that’s why their first concern, wherever they take power, is to strictly prohibit this kind of religious practice, including that of ziyara (visit) to the tombs of saints. Not to mention the traditional sacred music, while that of the various fashionable singers, braying like donkeys, is permitted and encouraged through the same satellite channels that introduce into homes the various televangelists.

Moreover, the Truth with a capital T does not need to be defended in this ramshackle and brutal way. And the least by the first comer, who more than to defend it, without the risk of “personalistic” and “egoic” identifications, will think about the genuine “realized” … which is very difficult to find in the circles that at most can churn “revolutionaries “in the confused sense that this term took on in the modern world.

One point must be clear: one can fall into the marshes and in the deception of one’s own nafs (ego) even while believing to defend the Truth.

All this must be said, otherwise only a part of the question can be comprehended, which in summary, includes two problems: the first concerns the hypocritical insistence on a “freedom of expression” which does not exist (and never will, because each power structure defends itself as it can); the second is the attitude of “Muslims” who, far from being actually muslim (i.e. “surrendered” to the divine decree, or “made” and therefore “resolved”), are on the contrary beings “unresolved” and so reduce Islam, which is essentially and primarily an initiatory doctrine, to anything that resembles in all respects an ideology, although of religious inspiration.

terrorism-243x300Having ascertained this, still we must remember that once you are placed in a position of conflict with an “enemy” (for some “Islam” tout court, for others, “the West”), there is anything and everything in it, including the massacre and more filthy actions as beheadings alive (which, incidentally, make us shudder just because we are cowards who only know how to kill with phosphorus bombs and drones). Gruesome actions that on the other hand we see not for the first time going on stage, if only you consider how many innocents were recently massacred in the Gaza Strip in a carnage-way that no “free” source of information considered to condemn. Because if a massacre “should not be done” at a newspaper editorial, one has to say that the same thing “should not be done” on a beach or at a private house, as we have seen too many times (certainly not through the “free” press ).

This is to say that – as long as it is what it appears – there is also nothing to be astonished of that after thousands of entire families have been massacred, one day there comes an “Islamist” commando and guns down those who, rightly or wrongly, are associated with serious wrongs (in some Arab-Muslim countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine, almost everyone has loved ones murdered by Western armies).

But this argument would be valid if everything was as it seems. Instead, as we wrote at the beginning, there are reasonable grounds for thinking that it is not. Also because often the nationality of the “terrorists” is Tunisian, Moroccan and so on: the countries that have not been invaded by Westerners.

commando_parigiAs Maurizio Blondet has already noted in his latest article, one of the most amazing things is the “identity card” of one of the two “masked executioners” found on board of the a car used for escape.

Then there’s the cold determination and the “professionalism” of the two, in stark contrast to the approximation of the training of certain “jihadists”, who even against the Syrian National Army are literally slaughtered as soon as the latter attacks seriously (just watch on YouTube).

Finally, the question of the identity of the members of the armed group: a State that intends to establish the truth of the facts and their background, should catch them alive, otherwise never these “foreign jihadists” will be seized and then made to sing. Better to kill them, then, in the classic shootout with intervention of “SWAT” which will reduce the “terrorists” to tatters.

Just think that we have not had the pleasure of seeing bin Laden arrested when there was the opportunity to do so, and indeed even the corpse was made to disappear in a hurry, thus there is a clear measure of how little the governments that “fight with terrorism” are interested to bring out the unspeakable truth.

But it does not finish here. Because everything that here on will be activated, will be nothing more than a development, pursued methodically, of that “Clash of civilizations” that for almost twenty years we have been imposed on.

Now we must tremble at the thought that “ISIS fighters” have returned home, but where were all these thoughtful “analysts” with a chair and stipend (public) when a sovereign state that had not attacked anyone and with whom we had excellent relationship, at least commercial, was attacked by the mercenaries of NATO under the pretext of combating “Syrian spring”?

Those same mercenaries, or at least useful idiots, as if the rest was not enough, are chanting, careful to be heard well (as if the “signature” was too important), the ritual Allahu Akbar (“God is the greatest”) before each committed absurdity in the name of Islam.

Obviously, in such a situation, misleading because manipulated beyond imagination, the journalist on duty, instigated by those who hold the purse strings of these mercenaries, is unscrupulous to stuff his informational cram with as many Allahu Akbar, so that the poor lobotomized viewer would not introjected the message: “Islamic Massacre against the West and its values.”

It is, of course, a one-way hate, in an auto- exculpatory delirium typical of someone who thinks he is always right and just. Even when one explicitly hates no more nor less as “others” do (and maybe even more) or they pretend to, and acts accordingly with all the technologically available destructive power. The difference is that there is always an excuse for hatred of others: “why they hate us” … “because Islam hates us!”.

Gli articoli de Il Discrimine possono essere ripubblicati, integralmente e senza modifiche (compreso il titolo), citando la fonte originale.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *