Since the brutal attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo there have been vigils throughout the world simply stating ‘I AM CHARLIE’.

That one of those murdered happened to be a Jewish ‘cartoonist’ gave call to the zionists to pull their anti-Semite card and raise the false flag to the top of the pole as can be seen HERE.

Satire is meant to be funny, not hateful. Mad Magazine has kept us laughing for decades and never has there been an attack at their offices. Charlie Hebdo has a history of offending people, especially Muslims. There is definitely nothing funny about hatred or racism.

I am one of many that state without hesitation that I AM NOT CHARLIE!

What happened was wrong. There is no argument that could convince me otherwise,   BUT

(Continue reading this post after the image)

Cartoon by Sudanese artist Khalid Albaih, from Aljazeera.com

Cartoon by Sudanese artist Khalid Albaih, from Aljazeera.com

There is no “but” about what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed them for it.  Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence, whether you want to call that plane spirit or imagination or culture, and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity. There will be time to analyze why the killers did it, time to parse their backgrounds, their ideologies, their beliefs, time for sociologists and psychologists to add to understanding. There will be explanations, and the explanations will be important, but explanations aren’t the same as excuses. Words don’t kill, they must not be met by killing, and they will not make the killers’ culpability go away.

To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else’s selfhood, share someone else’s death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience, and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn’t be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie overwhelms distinctions and elides the point. “We must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day,” the New Yorker pontificates. What the hell does that mean? In real life, solidarity takes many forms, almost all of them hard. This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same. If people who are feeling concrete loss or abstract shock or indignation take comfort in proclaiming a oneness that seems to fill the void, then it serves an emotional end. But these Cartesian credos on Facebook and Twitter — I am Charlie, therefore I am — shouldn’t be mistaken for political acts.

Among the dead at Charlie Hebdo: Deputy chief editor Bernard Maris and cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut (aka Cabu), Stephane Charbonnier, who was also editor-in-chief, and Bernard Verlhac (aka Tignous)

Among the dead at Charlie Hebdo: Deputy chief editor Bernard Maris and cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut (aka Cabu), Stephane Charbonnier, who was also editor-in-chief, and Bernard Verlhac (aka Tignous)

Continue reading this at Mondowiess


  1. Michael Santomauro said,

    January 10, 2015 at 18:10

    Everything is religious, everything is political.

    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Sending me this about “The Fucking Jews”
    Mr. Santomauro: No, actually, it was the opposite of that. It was “Fuck the Arabs” in the essay.
    Sandra Schpoont (Attorney for my 11 year old son): Oh, that’s better.
    Madelyn Jaye:: (Attorney for my ex-wife): Oh, that’s better.
    Steven Mandel (Attorney for my ex-wife): That’s better.
    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Oh, that’s better.

    Letter from The Mandel Law Firm (Steven J. Mandel) 12-9-13

    Dr. Susan E. Budney Reply Affirmation 2012.11.20.pdf -https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_3LWwhcI51ZbllWY3RJdEZKaDN4YUdLSXllZklfXzREWkRB/edit?usp=sharing

    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: “Is that [Jewish] agenda to dilute the Aryan race?” On page 20:

    Click to access Newsletter%20727.pdf

  2. JKC said,

    January 10, 2015 at 22:50

    The debate about free speech concerning Charlie Hebdo is a red herring. It’s a divide and conquer tactic of the powers elites by creating fear for promoting war and getting our attention away from economic gangsterism. Charlie Hebdo, though racist, was a sacrificial goat.

    By debating the topic of ‘free speech’ is assuming Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons caused the shootings, there by giving credence to the propaganda story told by the corporate press.

  3. Info said,

    January 11, 2015 at 00:21

    Some of us are of the opinion that the massacre was a Mossad false-flag op and that some patsies have been shot dead by police.

  4. joekano76 said,

    January 11, 2015 at 00:42

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

  5. mikael said,

    January 11, 2015 at 10:31

    You know the agenda, the machiavelian speaces and the game of dobble talk, and so on.
    And to highlight what WE all are up against, regading everything, even Jews, is this;

    The best minutes served on the tube, sayes it all.


%d bloggers like this: