BLOG
Charlie Hebdo: A Lesson in Blood
15 January, 2015
When I condemned the ideology behind the Madrid bombings in 2004, people laughed and called me a loon. When I warned that it is only going to get worse after bombs went off in London a year later, people laughed and called me paranoid. When I repeated those same words after suicide bombings in Stockholm, people laughed and called me obsessed. When I commented on Lee Rigby’s murder, people laughed and called me a racist. Whenever I denounced radical Islam
and its followers for actions they commit, people laughed and chastised me with the latest semantic trend of political correctness.


Well, they aren’t laughing anymore. No one is.
In many ways, the Charlie Hebdo attack and its aftermath is a lesson for France and all of Europe. Painful and cruel – sure, but a lesson nevertheless; the kind of lesson that cannot be unlearned. In several minutes, two Muslims achieved with bullets what hundreds of political scientists, historians and scholars have failed to achieve with reasoning and logic for decades. This attack has brought to light ugly truths that almost everyone in Europe was either too afraid to discuss or the existence of which they outright denied. The question now is whether students of this horrific lesson will learn or require more classes, their tuition paid in blood.

"Criticize a wrong person, mock a wrong group, or hurt someone’s fragile feelings (this one’s becoming quite popular as of late) and you will quickly find yourself ostracized, fired, exiled, fined, sued and possibly imprisoned – all in the name of the freedom of speech, of course."

Almost every single publication that covered the shooting played hot potato with the phrase “freedom of speech,” so let us start with this. As a person who holds many unpopular opinions, I value that freedom greatly, and do not want to see it gone. Unfortunately, I cannot help but notice that freedom of speech in the West has become quite selective. Apparently, you can have it only if you follow a certain narrative and do not cross certain lines. Even if you nod your head and go through all the proper motions, it only takes one misstep to get the hammer brought down on you. Criticize a wrong person, mock a wrong group, or hurt someone’s fragile feelings (this one’s becoming quite popular as of late) and you will quickly find yourself ostracized, fired, exiled, fined, sued and possibly imprisoned – all in the name of the freedom of speech, of course.
geotv.geSo let me ask you this: where were proponents of freedom of speech when Simon Sheppard was arrested for giving out books? Where were they when Edgar Steele was sent to prison on trumped-up charges? I didn’t see any million-strong marches or people holding signs “Ik ben Theo” in 2007 when Theo van Gogh was murdered in the street by a Muslim. Why didn’t anyone as much as squeak when state-funded media began a slander campaign against Udo Ulfkotte for publishing some very uncomfortable facts about them? Where was the outrage when British MP Luciana Berger got a regular citizen Garron Helm jailed for a month for a tweet she deemed “offensive”? Finally, why didn’t anyone care when Charlie Hebdo’s own cartoonist Maurice Sinet got unlawfully fired several years ago because of one particularly sensitive person decided that his cartoon was hurting his feelings?

"Today, freedom of speech is not an inalienable right but rather a privilege awarded to those who dutifully lick the boots of the state, recite the narrative it pushes and fawn over the groups who create and control it".

In short, the hypocrisy is astounding. Today, freedom of speech is not an inalienable right but rather a privilege awarded to those who dutifully lick the boots of the state, recite the narrative it pushes and fawn over the groups who create and control it. And these boots are far from clean – many politicians who now toot the horn of “freedom of speech” are corrupt and immoral at best and murderers by association at worst. Those who passed the so-called hate speech laws, imprisoned people for having wrong opinions and made historical revisionism a crime, the very people who censored, silenced, lied and misled, now lead the “solidarity march” and hold “Je suis Charlie” signs. Those who covered up Rotherham rapes, criminalized criticism of mass immigration to Sweden, and created databases to profile and track people guilty of “hate speech” now talk about how important freedom of speech is for society.
It just so happens that the people who keep getting the short end of the stick are almost invariably either on the other (i.e. wrong) end of the political spectrum or do not share the media-pushed narrative, which apparently makes them “bad guys” and gives a green light to persecute them – violently, if needed. If you ask me, the magnitude of international response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting is mainly owed to the fact that some of the victims were well connected and the publication more or less tried not to go against the media narrative. The attack was also an extremely useful political hitch. However, if the office of an “improper” media outlet, such as Avpixlat or Deutsche Stimme got shot up instead, there would be no marches, memorial services or vigils, only gloating snickers and snide comments.

"For me, it is impossible to swallow the “No True Muslim” excuse, especially because now we have third-generation Muslim immigrants along with their indoctrinated European counterparts leaving for Syria to fight and die for ISIS."

Since we have arrived at the topic of violence, it is impossible not to mention the perpetrators of the shooting. It seems to me that some Muslims who live in Europe are under a kind of collective delusion that they are owed something. Many demand that Europeans conform to their culture, adopt their traditions and follow their laws. Like everyone else, they demand respect for themselves, their religion and their feelings. However, they forget that respect must be earned, not given.
But for me, it is impossible to swallow the “No True Muslim” excuse, especially because now we have third-generation Muslim immigrants along with their indoctrinated European counterparts leaving for Syria to fight and die for ISIS. Because it was “upstanding Muslim citizens” who trafficked underage British girls in Rotherham. And because it was “integrated, peaceful Muslims” in Sweden who cheered and prayed for more victims as two brothers in Paris mowed down Charlie Hebdo journalists and cartoonists, calling them out by name before taking each life and chanting “Allah is great.” But don’t worry, because as François Hollande said, this attack had nothing to do with Islam, just like all the others.
Anger and indignation at recent events and their perpetrators are perfectly fine and understandable, especially considering overly insolent and ungrateful attitude of many immigrants living in the West. Still, I urge everyone not to get carried away by emotions and keep in mind that the radical Islamic threat is a symptom, not a disease. The blood of Charlie Hebdo victims, and hundreds of others murdered and violated by third world hordes, is now on the hands of the enablers of “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” terrorist apologists, media stooges, academia indoctrinators and traitorous politicians. It is they who kicked open the doors to your homes and exposed you to the very threat that they deny exists.

Author: Zura Amiranashvili

Print