Je ne suis pas Charlie

[Owledge]

http://dowlphin.blogspot.de/2015/01/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie.html

(Please share if you like it.)

 

 

I am not a seditionist.

I am not a chauvinist.

I am not a self-righteous crusader.

I am not a troll playing with life.

I am not a political media spectacle.

 

We are all victim and offender.

 

This is a war of beliefs, and we can only win if we don't fight.

 

Feeling hurt by "I am not Charlie"?

Let's just call it satire then, shall we?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Owledge

[soaring crane]

I actually feel just that way. I don't have to show allegiance with that horrible publication to demonstrate my position on mass murder. I think that 99% of the je suis crowd aren't even aware of the content they publish. I'd of course never heard of it before this, but I looked into it.

[joeblast]

The entire narrative is destroyed since this is simply another instance of government sponsored false flag terrorism.

[dust]

freedom of expression (party 1) + freedom of expression (party 2) = enmity, war

 

freedom of expression (party 1) + freedom of belief (party 2) = enmity, war

 

freedom of belief (party 1) + freedom of belief (party 2) = enmity, war

 

no freedom of expression or belief = oppression, war

[Owledge]

I actually feel just that way. I don't have to show allegiance with that horrible publication to demonstrate my position on mass murder. I think that 99% of the je suis crowd aren't even aware of the content they publish. I'd of course never heard of it before this, but I looked into it.

Commendable. Thanks for sharing your findings.

 

 

The entire narrative is destroyed since this is simply another instance of government sponsored false flag terrorism.

What I've heard so far seemed relatively unconvincing; just probabilities.

[C T]

Nietzsche: Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.

 

 

Stalin: The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamour for such laws if their personal security is threatened.

 

 

 

 

False flags are becoming more and more obvious.

Edited January 15, 2015 by C T

[joeblast]

What I've heard so far seemed relatively unconvincing; just probabilities.

Like what, the cop not being shot? (go watch what an AK round does to a watermelon) Or the superlatively tight group of AK rounds? (go watch how hard an AK jerks off target when trigger is held down, and these were supposedly novices? go watch the trained marksman barely be able to keep the AK on a brick wall over in the world at war thread.) Or the "he just so happened to leave his ID behind!" (laughable, if they were to martyr themselves, why did they even bother leaving the site in the first place?) Or the place they supposedly came from fighting is backed and created by USNATOIsrael to begin with? Or the fact that a couple major pieces of psychoglobalism were spoken against by france recently?

[nickyro]

In France, freedom of speech is not the primary issue in Charlie Hebdo massacre.

The main issue is the terror in the very hearth of our country and culture.

French don't accept interference from fundamentalist Islamic world which is at the very opposite of what was gained during the Age of Enlightenment.

 

As for "99% of people don't know the content", that is not true in Paris. Indeed few people actually read it but this is central to our culture since the events of 1968.

 

Charlie Hebdo team and their publication are faaaaaaaar from "horrible" as said here,they actually have big hearths, and are beautiful human beings.

Edited January 15, 2015 by nickyro

[gatito]

The separation between church and state is at the heart of the issue - whether it is the Catholic church or the Islamic church (or indeed any other church).

The meddling of any religion in secular matters will simply not be tolerated. Conversely, religion is considered to be a private matter with which the state should not interfere, unless it chooses to attempt to interfere with the state....

Furthermore, since the revolution, there is a culture of questioning all authority and holding it accountable.

You would probably have to live in France for quite a long time to understand the complexities and subtleties. Certainly, no-ones going to be able to explain it fully on an internet forum.

 

As for the OP, speaking for myself, I couldn't care less.

[Owledge]

 

Charlie Hebdo team and their publication are faaaaaaaar from "horrible" as said here,they actually have big hearths, and are beautiful human beings.

Yet they are involved in a business that manages to systematically trample on people's sensitivities. Righteousness is not a desirable level of spiritual evolution, because we have been there for a long time already.

(I kinda have already expressed all that in my OP. The rest is history.)

[soaring crane]

As for "99% of people don't know the content", that is not true in Paris. Indeed few people actually read it but this is central to our culture since the events of 1968.

 

 

Charlie Hebdo team and their publication are faaaaaaaar from "horrible" as said here,they actually have big hearths, and are beautiful human beings.

 

I was referring to the people outside of Paris, and even France. For sure, this is far more personal for you and your countrymen and I'm very sorry :-(

 

As far as them having big hearts, it could well be a cultural thing. I've looked into a lot of their material in the meantime and see a lot of puerile, juvenile ca-ca jokes aimed predominantly at minorites. But of course there are comics here in Germany that would look totally absurd to outsiders. So, I'll qualify my previous comment with a "in my opinion".

 

Regardless of all that, I still don't need a reason to oppose mass murder and the really ugly truth is, there are far, far worse attacks happening, worldwide, every day, every hour, as we speak, on people who never provoked anybody in any way other than simply being born the wrong sex, or to the wrong family, in the wrong place, at the wrong time :-(

[Apech]

Yet they are involved in a business that manages to systematically trample on people's sensitivities. Righteousness is not a desirable level of spiritual evolution, because we have been there for a long time already.

(I kinda have already expressed all that in my OP. The rest is history.)

 

 

So they should be shot?

 

The issue of the nature of the cartoons and how offensive they might be is not the issue surely. How self righteous were the shooters? (supposing the false flag business is not true ... and although I accept such things happen not all acts of terrorism can be false flags can they?)

[Owledge]

So they should be shot?

 

The issue of the nature of the cartoons and how offensive they might be is not the issue surely. How self righteous were the shooters? (supposing the false flag business is not true ... and although I accept such things happen not all acts of terrorism can be false flags can they?)

The term "false flag" taken as-is is quite clear, yet in praxis this is a fuzzy matter. Where do you draw the line? Willful acceptance of an event occuring? Provocation? Helping along indirectly? Staging it?

How self-righteous the shooters are we might not know (at least I don't). That the works of Charlie Hebdo were a factor in the events is clear. You seem to still try and weigh blame here. Try to transcend the virtue of justice. The idea of justice seems dominant in our world. If we don't aspire to move up, we will tend to move down. And that's happening. The memory of justice remains, while the reality hosts righteousness and fanaticism.

Just look at what factors are at hand, what they caused, how they came to be, and then seek to apply the most virtuous approach possible to allay the fears that led to it, ideally practicing humility, because that can help you to find challenges small enough to yield success. If your inner crusader is allowed to set the pace, then you would take on greater tasks with higher likeliness for failure, and that could become a self-amplifying fanaticism. The fears that drive you want to be validated. Don't give them that satisfaction.

And it is also a valuable luxury to not be personally affected by the events, because when one is, it is naturally very emotionally overwhelming, in most cases (yet not all) rendering such a person unable to practice high virtue. That, too, should just be accepted as a fact of nature. This is the basis of healthy friendship, too: When one person is weak, the other person needs to be strong for them ... not join the opera of pain in order to gain sympathies, which would lead to issue-pamper circles.

If one of my relatives had been killed in the incident, I wouldn't be able to be this calm. But this pain was not mine. I got some of my own, so I'll definitely not become a vehicle for yet another one. Fear clouds the mind and prevents skillful action.

[thelerner]

Owledge, you seem to be bending over backwards linguistically and morally to defend people (their sensitivities) who'd rape, murder and enslave you. ie such as ISIS, one of the groups who took credit.

[Owledge]

Owledge, you seem to be bending over backwards linguistically and morally to defend people (their sensitivities) who'd rape, murder and enslave you. ie such as ISIS, one of the groups who took credit.

We can only see in others what we allow into ourselves. If you don't seek for higher virtue, you will not be ready to see or understand it, but instead subject it to your set of moral codes (=beliefs).

This is very nicely reflected in the fact that your comment was not at all inquisitive, but a pure statement of your preferred perception.

And because I won't chew people's food for them, I won't engage in disclaimer orgies and keep explaining what I don't mean. That would be fear-based behavior. If I had an agenda of playing wise guy and having people believe me to boost my ego, I'd not have Pinkie Pie jump around up there ↑ and down there ↙.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Owledge

[thelerner]

 

We are all victim and offender.

 

This is a war of beliefs, and we can only win if we don't fight.

Yet we are not all murderers, those who are need to be named and brought to justice.

We lose the fight when we give up on justice and protecting the innocent.

[Owledge]

Yet we are not all murderers, those who are need to be named and brought to justice.

We lose the fight when we give up on justice and protecting the innocent.

Only if Hitler wasn't a murderer if he never shot someone with a gun in his hands. It gets even funnier if you stop applying current norms to the past, because Hitler decided the laws, so if he shot someone, it wasn't even murder. Only by current standards. (Which seem to be dissolving again.)

As you see, "murderer" is quite a problematic concept. It is a mere legal definition, based on laws that tend to change and be disobeyed by those who can afford to do so.

 

And being able to give up justice is crucial if you want to practice higher virtues. Higher virtues don't depend on lower ones. They replace them.

 

The war of beliefs is not about preserving justice. It is about preserving what is unjustifiedly called justice, when people know damn well it's more like a rotten corpse. People are clinging to ideas, are in denial because they want to believe everything is alright. They accomplish that by finding something else to look down on. It is so easy to forget the horrible stench of what we call justice these days when you can counter it with the taste of blood.

[thelerner]

 

As you see, "murderer" is quite a problematic concept. It is a mere legal definition, based on laws that tend to change and be disobeyed by those who can afford to do so.

 

And being able to give up justice is crucial if you want to practice higher virtues. Higher virtues don't depend on lower ones. They replace them.

No, its not. The fact you have to reach for an extreme like Hitler ("Only if Hitler wasn't a murderer") to try to prove your contention shows such ivory tower thinking that you've moved away from the real world.

 

Do you think what the people did who used machine guns in that french office were wrong? Maybe I'm a simpleton, not able to comprehend how Hitler's definition of justice enters into it, but by god, I'm got my head on straight enough to know that was wrong and attempts to philosophize it away may be wonderful intellectual gamenship but its morally bankrupt.

 

In the ability to compare apples to apples makes it possible to think of offending people sensibilities to be on par with murdering people in an office. Without some common sense definitions (not Hitlers) it makes it easy to compare the actions of say ISIS which is okay with murder, rape and slavery with say a police departments. You can do it intellectually, but hopefully in real life we know better.

[shunka]

Few of us can see into another's heart, mind, spirit, memories or intentions. Thus for third parties to attempt to discuss them is folly, in my humble opinion.

 

We can hear another's words, we can witness their actions.

Did this person actually do this thing ? Simple question, simple answer.

We can, very simply, judge their actions as right or wrong .

 

I think It is important not to get caught up in the whirlwind of artificial complexity.

 

yhs

shunka

Edited January 16, 2015 by shunka

[Seeker of Wisdom]

OK, let's see the two main positions here (note and bold mine):

 

...If you don't seek for higher virtue [than justice], you will not be ready to see or understand it, but instead subject it to your set of moral codes...

...We lose the fight when we give up on justice and protecting the innocent.

The issue now becomes what exactly we mean by 'justice'.

 

If we simply mean punishing people, as righteous retribution, this is part of an endless cycle of conflict which chews up the avengers, the guilty, and the innocent. It doesn't undo what the guilty did to the innocent, but only seeds society as a whole with the potential for more hate and fear. Owledge is coming from a POV of there being no value in hating even the guilty, as hate is poisonous.

 

But thelerner presents another POV on justice. The judicial system provides a deterrent to harming the innocent. Without any visible consequences for violence to the perpetrators, those ignorant enough to be likely to carry it out could confidently roam the streets killing - what're ya gonna do, hug these people? Terrorists aren't secretly just really desperate for a hug. It's necessary to be harsh to the guilty to protect the public.

 

I would find the middle way here. Punish where deterrence is necessary to protect the public, aim for rehabilitation as much as possible, be motivated only by protecting the public, without any vengeful motive.

[dust]

That the works of Charlie Hebdo were a factor in the events is clear.

 

Frankly, I don't know that either Hebdo or the gunmen have very much to do with the larger picture. It wasn't just the Hebdo offices, but people at a Jewish market and a random civilian (park jogger) who were attacked. Seems to me like they're attacking based on what they believe will most easily cause both radicalization among the young French/European Muslim population and fear and hate-mongering among everyone else. It's a divide-and-conquer tactic, not purely an attack on freedom of expression.

 

Clearly, if freedom of expression were really the issue, dozens of people wouldn't have been arrested in recent days for simply saying things the French government didn't like.

 

 

 

On another note, I can't believe that, on an ostensibly Taoist forum, your general POV isn't getting more support. Seems like everyone just wants to kill Muslims.

[Owledge]

Do you think what the people did who used machine guns in that french office were wrong?

Wrong or right is a moral judgment. It is not skillful and it is designed to ignore the causes for things and only deal with the reaction. It is a tool for social control and preventing empowerment of the individual through enlightenment.

What the gunmen did caused fear/pain. Pretty much all humans agree that that is undesirable. Fearful action causes more fear. The wise course of action is so obvious, yet requires the will to follow it, to abandon lower virtues, at least occasionally. That is something internal, something personal; a task that cannot be offloaded to others. If you want to change the world for the better, you have to better yourself first. Establishing justice isn't problem-solving as much as it is problem management.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Owledge

[joeblast]

The issue of the nature of the cartoons and how offensive they might be is not the issue surely. How self righteous were the shooters? (supposing the false flag business is not true ... and although I accept such things happen not all acts of terrorism can be false flags can they?)

Bingo. It is most assuredly not the issue, aside from the fact that the situation was set up so that someone would have been goaded into doing this even if it wasnt charlie hebdo. Because free speech, right? And just like that muslim guy in Canada said yesterday, is this really about free speech? (Well no, Canada apparently doesnt have free speech, because he had the authorities knocking at his door for it. Really? I lost a bunch of respect for Canada.)

 

This big picture only makes sense in the framework of geopolitical f#kery. Why else would one be sitting here wondering just why and how his country has turned into an amalgam of 1984 and brave new world. The people who control our government are playing a real live version of Risk, and its no big deal to have to brush a few pieces off the board.

 

One cant even say "our government" because it is neither ours nor much of a government at this point, it no longer follows its own laws, rules, regulations; the legislature no longer writes bills and what it does "pass" are written by the highest paying constituencies; the executive makes up the rest of the laws as they see fit - and perchance none of that works, the judiciary is quite ready to rewrite laws as they see fit so that the controllers can get the rules they want in place, law be damned. Anyone watching Citizens United or Obamacare saw that plain as day, but did it register behind the eyes?

 

There is simply no way the dysfunction is just happenstance. Not when one can point back to so many historical items and provide a ton of motive et al.

 

The cocaine importing agency is the arms, legs, and fists of the operation, and its fingerprints are all over damn near all of this - so the only "conspiracy theory" here is that the corrupt insane assholes are NOT that.

[GrandmasterP]

How is what happened in France connected to the cocaine industry please?

Not a challenge, I'm genuinely intrigued.

[joeblast]

I guess you missed the acronym done two ways that aspect is tangential but certainly related to the undercurrent of methods of ill gotten gains. why else would hsbc have been allowed to launder hundreds of millions of drug money from the cartels if not for the explicit blessing of the "authorities"