Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Primitive logic cannot deal with Charlie Hebdo incident
Text by Sergey E. Kurginyan
Charlie Hebdo march

What happened in France deserves a detailed analysis. However, such an analysis can be done only after we have cleared up the nature of these, sadly increasingly ordinary, events, which makes them the biggest political challenge.

By ‘ordinary’ I mean terrorist attacks as such. Regrettably, the world is growing used to such horrific attacks and, given their increased incidence, we may perceive such attacks as an appalling reality. No point in listing all the attacks which took far greater number of lives than the most recent one in Paris, they are too numerous and remain too sore in our memory, including those in other European capitals, London and Madrid.

However, what makes the Paris event stand out of this appalling reality I mentioned above is first and foremost the abhorrent statement by Mikhail Khodorkovsky saying that from now on every self-respecting news outlet must publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed; and secondly, the fact that certain groups called for rallying around Charlie Hebdo - a victim in this terrorist attack; and thirdly, the upcoming Republican march in Paris, commemorating victims of January attacks and involving high profile government officials from a number of countries.

Let’s leave aside Khodorkovsky’s statement: it could be explained either by specific oligarchic cretinism or by his highly developed instinct for provocation. But where did this idea of such a rally involving high foreign officials come from? After all, there have been no such ‘marches’ ever before. Even in New York after 9/11 no president, prime minister or foreign ministers went beyond offering condolences and taking other official appropriate measures but no ‘marches’ took place. Why? This question proves not that hard if you know what the deal is with any demonstration.

1. Any demonstration sends a strong message. Even more so, if coupled with high profile attendance.

2. Attuned to a certain message, people must consolidate around either in favor or against factions, turning some into proponents of Charlie Hebdo and the others into its bashers.

3. Those consolidated around Charlism are desperate to act. For example, to publish cartoons, as Mr. Khodorkovsky called for. Or to challenge the "savages" in other forms (for example, stating that they are not human beings and therefore they cannot be offended, as yet another provocateur did). The range of options is enormous. Once in Charlie’s ranks you have to come up something provocative, and then to realize it.

4. Anti-charlists will be eager to face up the challenge. Even if the moderate Muslim majority will not do so there will be radicals, for whom this will be a way to discredit moderate Muslims and strip them of support of the Muslim population.

5. Anti-charlists reaction will encourage charlists to pursue even more radical actions. And here you will see "civilizations clashing" in just France alone. Or more precisely at first just in France alone.

6. The reality is that French right-wing parties will split into two groups, Islamophobes, who joined charlists considering that Islamophobia is much more important than Anti-Liberalism, and radical anti-liberals for whom the main thing in any case is to say that the punishment serves Charlie Hebdo right with other European right-wing forces joining the strife later on.

7. How might the situation develop further? Suppose – as an extreme case - that it came to the deportation of the part of Muslim population out of Europe. Who is going to handle it? Charlist-liberals? I doubt that, because they have no guts for this. It will be anti-liberals who will take charge of deportations coming to the political fore in Europe.

8. No chance, the Muslim population around the world will stand aside, and, hence, Islamic leaders will react accordingly.No need to develop this model further, since everything was already described in the notorious "clash of civilizations" model. Those who seek to implement this model seem over-zealous to do so. That is not, obviously, Huntington I have in mind, but rather powers that be seeking to bring about changes on the global scale. Neocons, to put it simply.

No way it is a conspiracy theory. One could argue otherwise, if not for the weird idea of high profile officials going on a demonstration. Even in 2001, Bush had some sense not to go down this road, because the consequences were all too clear. Bush, however, sought a clash of civilizations. Yet, something still kept him from doing so at that time. Now all constraints have been loosened. By whom and to what end?

In order to prevent the process from developing according to the model I presented above, there is a need to caution all charlists – at least in Russia- that any, even the slightest, "quasi-charlist" stunt will be severely suppressed by the Russian authorities. Especially, since Russia has laws to stop Charlism as it is an obvious incitement of interfaith strife. The same should apply to anti-charlists, as well.

Neither pro-Charlie nor anti-Charlie rallies must take place in Russia. All Charlie and anti-Charlie demonstration in Russia must be prohibited, people participating in such rallies must be dispersed. Any Charlie and anti-Charlie media campaigns must be interrupted up to the closure of the outlet (what measures to take against terrorist is a common knowledge).

The important is that all figures of authority make all the necessary efforts to clarify the true meaning of the campaign to those social groups who might buy into Charlism or anti-Charlism.



Log in

No account? Create an account