This article comes in the aftermath of the massive demonstration by 1.7 million people in Paris, ostensibly in protest of the assassinations of staff members of the so-called “satire cartoonist” of the publication Charlie Hebdo and in support of so-called “free-speech” , while in reality, with the exception of some of the few VIP world leaders which were prominently displayed on the front row of the demonstrators, the message of the 1.7 million was in effect a timely huge peace clamor for an end to all violence by individual, groups of individuals, and nation states, period.

The following comments are complementary to the most recently published article by this writer on the violence  which occurred in Paris on January 7th and 8th in Paris.

Said article was titled ” In the Paris Tragedy Neither are the Criminals Practitioners of Qur’anic Islam Nor are the Publishers of Charlie Hebdo Practitioners of “Free Speech ” which was published on January 10, 2015.

The massive demonstrations in Paris took place Sunday, January 11, 2015.

This massive demonstration by people of the most varied backgrounds of the diverse French society, was meant as a show of unity not only in protest against brutal, senseless, armed violence in all of its forms and by all kinds of groups of people and/or state entities, but also a show of solidarity to the victims of said violence, not only in Paris, but globally.

It was a clamor for a return to civil discourse, and peaceful/diplomatic resolution of conflict, and it goes without saying, it was a yearning for freedom from fear of violence, constructive freedom of expression, and most certainly not included in said freedom of expression, was the freedom to offend provocatively.

As it turned out though, the apparently orchestrated synergy of the massive use of message “I am Charlie” , purporting the deceptive notion that the march’s objective was narrowly focused on  the victimization of the producers of those offending cartoons in that the publication called “Charlie Hebdo”, coupled to the depiction of the Kouachi brothers (inter alia) as the purported Moslem assassins of some of the producers of “Charlie Hebdo”,  resulted in a totally  erroneously reductionist appearance that this march was simplistically about protecting the “freedom of speech” of “Charlie” against (Moslem) “terrorist“, period.

The effect of this synergistic disorienting conflation in fact brought to the surface a myriad of contradictions, confusions, and exposures of hypocrisy and of hidden political agendas which interfered with the content of the fundamental message and  revealed a deeper troubling image of how corporatized and/or politically corrupted media and manipulative subliminal use of narratives by agenda driven politicians’ attempts to channel and divert the energy and content and authenticity of the clamor of the 1.7 million Paris marchers.

The 1.7 million Paris marchers also represent the concerns of people globally in this era of suppression of speech, suppression of the truth, suppression of the due judicial system in trials of “suspects” or “militants”, coupled to the widespread lethal use of torture, drones, invasions of entire nations on fraudulent grounds, and zero accountability for the elite right-wing, neocon, robber barons who literally get away with a war on truth, frivolous and cynical imposition of the “secrecy” tag in order to plunder, exploit, and murder people worldwide.

This state of affairs in more primitive forms has been going on for centuries, but at the present stage it has become more sophisticated, as a result of the advent of technology, concentration of capital by social stratification and inequitable globalization of capital, which has allowed billionaire elites which represent at most 0.1% of the world population to dictate and manage so-called “democracies” whose qualifier “participative” has been largely eroded to the bare minimum at mostly local and parochial affairs levels.

So, the following brief points are added to the foregoing few examples of how the last few paragraphs reflect how the massive Paris demonstration of people power and indignation can be prevented from having their objective  hijacked by the masters of narrative spin who are attempting to profit from every massive event of violence and the inevitable counter-violence which ensues in this dangerous spiral.

Only “we the people” strengthened by being harmoniously united, can stop the usurpation of our rights to be heard loud and clearly without minimizations and distractions by not allowing the extremist right-wing elites to continue to impose their “might makes right“, socially Darwinist, techniques to sidetrack us, by teaching them that it is ” right which makes might“.

The concluding points therefore are as follows.

(a) The attack on Charlie Hebdo’s staff was a criminal targeted assassination.  It was not a typical random attack.  It was specifically directed at Charlie Hebdo for a specific and obvious reason.

(b) By generating its venue through the publication of cartoons which depict the deliberately targeted top messengers of the Moslem, Christian, and Judaic religions in pornographically egregiously blasphemous, and repulsive , potentially violence provoking forms which not only hurt and offend peoples of faith, but offend as well people, such as this writer, who are non believers in the supra natural but are believers in humanity and hence guide themselves by secular humanistic values,  Charlie Hebdo is not entitled, in a civilized society of laws, to claim it is a practitioner of “free speech” when the sole object of the cartoons is to offend and, yes perhaps “entertain” some who deem these specifically targeted offenses to be “funny”.

Also, by particularly, although admittedly not exclusively targeting the fragilized, marginalized, discriminated, French citizen community of Moslems, many of who are descendants of Algerian Moslems, and hence, as Jews whose parents witnessed the atrocities of the Nazis and were sensitized thereby, some of their parents witnessed the horrific atrocities the French colonialist committed in the French war on Algeria and likewise were thereby sensitized as a result of their people as they began to exercise their prerogative to liberate themselves from the yoke of French colonialism,   Charlie Hebdo generated knowingly, and continues to this day – January 14, 2015, to inflict pain, provoke anger, and attempts to humiliate this community of French citizens, thereby recklessly and irresponsibly expecting to generate more anger and resentment on their part.   This is an intolerable mindset to assume when so much suffering and so much irreparable damage has been done in the last few days.

(c) “Free Speech” in a civilized society does have limitations.    These limitations  are  of a common sense ethical nature, and in many countries these limitations are also legally codified, or they certainly should have.   In the United States, as this writer has illustrated in his previous article published on January 10, 2015, a 1942 Supreme Court decision made it clear that what it defines as “fighting words” is not speech which is entitled to the free speech protection which the Constitution of the United States provides.

The following is a reproduction of the relevant portion of said 1942 Supreme Court decision referred to as the “Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire” decision by Justice Frank Murphy.

The Court, in a unanimous decision, established that ” Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well-defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. (emphasis added).    Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the slanderous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.^[2]

Murphy further wrote:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

(d) Hence, the preponderant majority of the 1.7 million Paris marchers were not and could not be “Charlie” since their message was much broader as explained supra.  To those who need to be someone else other than themselves, they could assume the names of those victims of free speech suppression who have contributed constructively to the use of their free speech and should have been protected rather than prosecuted for it.

To name a very well-known few, in the United States it would be Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, James Risen (who was harassed and almost was jailed for his book “Pay Any Price : Greed, Power, and Endless War”), the names of the al Jazeera journalists killed when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the al Jazeera office in Baghdad bombed,  in Britain it would be Julian Assange who has been forced to ask asylum and has therefore been locked up inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London for two years now, in Saudi Arabia  it would be women who recently arrested and to be tried by the  court for terrorists for their crime of “driving” as well as the liberal blogger Raif Badawi who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for being constructively critical of the U.S. supported government there, in Egypt it would be the names of the al Jazeera Arab and foreign journalists who have been sentenced for criticizing the U.S. supported authoritarian military leader As Sissi, and in Israel-Implanted-in Palestine, just about any name of any of the millions of oppressed Palestinians living either under the occupation or living as refugees abroad after their violent expulsions by that entity of a religion which was bizarrely nationalized and thus morphed into a “state” within Palestine, and one could go on and on.  One might additionally use the names of Israeli soldiers in prison for their refusal to serve in post 1967 occupied Palestinian territory.

(e)The preponderant majority of the 1.7 million marchers as well as the world at large did not expect to see in their midst a misleader who has ordered the massacre of 2,600 Palestinians including 500 children, some of them hiding in United Nations school which did not escape the cowardly bombardments by the Israeli bombers.

The sight of Benjamin Netanyahu, according to price winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, one of the worst war criminals of the 21st century,  as one on that front row of VIP heads of state leaders was shockingly surreal and repulsive, and even more repulsive was his agenda when he publicly called for French citizens of the Jewish faith to go “home”, i.e. home to the territory the Zionists violently took over in 1948 by literally using gangs of terrorists led my men who became Prime Ministers of Israel, e.g. Menachen Begin (leader of the Irgun gang), and Yitzahk Shamir (leader of the Stern gang).   Netanyahu outrageously, dishonestly,  and insanely suggested that the French were equivalent to the Nazis and that Jews were not safe in France.  The U.S. taxpayer is forced to contribute about $ 20 million dollars daily to this outlaw “state” implanted by violence in Palestine.

(f) The clamor of the 1.7 million Paris marchers is in direct opposition to the agenda of most of the VIP front row leaders.  The clamor of the 1.7 million Paris marchers and of those of the rest of the world who support them cannot be altered by the machinations and transliterations, and manipulations of those who have in the past and continue in the present to propagandize and adulterate the meaning of characterizations of such terms as “terrorism” and “free speech”, while all along not hesitating to carry out terrorizing acts along with practicing deceit and suppression of free speech wherever it suits them and their selfish interests.

Even though the attacks in France were targeted assassinations, regardless of semantics, the only effective way to end the violence-generating-violence spiral which can and will end in a wider conflagration which has the potential to result in catastrophic violence among nations, is to eliminate the incentive, and thereby the political support, for armed groups of desperate reprisal violence perpetrators in the Middle East and elsewhere, by a comprehensive addressing of the legitimate grievances of those who for decades have had their humanity denied to them, have been oppressed, and have been dispossessed of their properties, and have been marginalized.  Additionally the Western colonialist leaders owe comprehensive apologies to all lands colonized in Africa and Asia and finally all of the yet unindicted leaders who led, particularly the United States into war on fraudulent grounds and who ordered torture of “suspects”, and “militants”, for the objective of forcing them to confess to crimes they did not commit, must be held accountable by indictments, trials and sentences commensurate with their horrific crimes against foreigners and against American veterans of wars.  Most prominently among them is Richard Cheney, who to this day declares he would order torture any time and who also declared that he is not much worried about some of those who were innocently  tortured…

The most important and first step in this direction is for the United States to abandon the irrational and unjustifiable opposition to the internationalization of the legitimate case of Palestine against its occupier and aggressor Israel at the United Nations and at the International Criminal Court.   This win-win approach to all  sincerely hearing for peace is at hand with the huge support of the all nations on earth, while the U.S. continues to isolate itself by opposing it.

The contagion effect of the solution of this case will spread to other tormented regions of the Middle East as peace dividends will start to evolve.

Never in the history of this conflict between equals was a solution more at hand and needed more urgently an innovative approach.   The expecionatlist approach to our policy to Israel has done decent Israelis and decent Jews world-wide damage, not to mention the damage to all decent Americans.   It must and will be abandoned successfully and without bloodshed.  The extremist right-wing Zionist policy of the present power structure of Israel has arrived at a dead-end and Netanyahu, who bragged having scuttled the Oslo Peace accords is now politically, intellectually, and ethically finished.