Everything as  expected. The wave of indignation and emotion raised by the attack  against the newsroom of Charlie Hebdo is ready to be used as a  psychological weapon to be thrown against the people, and especially  against those who keep advocating the reasons of an interpretation of  Parisian events in terms of class struggle instead of civilization. On  this front, mainstream media outlets are the main vehicle of security  psychoses, aiming at a brand-new social pacification, capable  of coopting the widespread distrust towards current political élites  into a new array opposing a free “us” to a threatening “other”.

Let’s just take a look to these days’ Italian newspapers. On Repubblica,  Ezio Mauro is glorifying those two millions chanting in chorus the  Marsellaise, whilst “50 heads of State and government yesterday (Sunday 11) did really make Paris the capital city of a world rejecting violence and  hatred because it wants to live defending to any cost everyone’s and  every individual’s right, along with the idea of freedom which is at the  foundation of the European project”. On the Fatto Quotidiano there is the narration of the banlieue screaming “Merci” to the police, and the amazement of witnessing a scene where Netanyahu and Abu Mazen  were marching together, overcoming their divisions in the name of  something greater, capable of moving the unperturbed Lavrov, as well  present in the most powerful cordon in the world…

Last  week march was surreal, in a Paris where, according to the words of  many witnesses, subway stops looked like the set of Full Metal Jacket,  where the huge mass of people demonstrating with rage and rejection  against what happened (probably in many cases genuinely, even though  it’s worth noticing how there are no statements – for instance through  banners or signposts – against the responsibilities of global powers in  what happened, as well as no a clear cut in that demonstration from  the cordon walking in front of it) was joined by jackal institutional  presences: Merkel, Renzi, Davutoglu,  Lavrov, Netanyahu, Juncker,   Samaras, Rajoy, Sarkozy, Keita, just to mention some of them, who are  not for sure symbols of democracies and respect – even liberally meant-  of human rights and freedom of speech.

A  first row that, even if forerunning it, was marching oriented against  the same human river marching behind its back, ready to further compress  freedom in the name of a unity useful only to strengthen the  powerfulness of its domination and exploitation projects. A march aimed  at breaking the widespread opposition towards that massacres caused by  the failure of Bush’s war on terror, and already celebrating for  re-gaining a political legitimation as the one assured by Paris’ demo  last week, where Earth’s power have competed for becoming Charlie,  so to overcome out of the blue the crisis of representativeness they  were suffering, due to the effects of global economic crisis.

But  how are those who approved laws against abortion like the Gallardon one  in Spain supposed to be Charlie? How is who have the record of jailed  journalist in 2014 like Turkey is supposed to be Charlie? How is the  Sarkozy of the banlieue dwelled by “the racaille” (scum) supposed to be  Charlie? How is a social butcher like Samaras supposed to be Charlie?  And can be Charlie Lavrov and Poroshenko, engaging in the Ukrainian  slaughter? We have some doubts that being Charlie is something positive  at the moment!

Going  back to our media outlets, last week narration has been centred upon  the West raised to champion of freedom, which is a deliberation that  clashes with many articles inside the same newspapers, narrating for  instance the willingness to review Schengen agreement about free  circulation in Europe, obviously in a restrictive fashion; it is also  ironic that Alfano is looking like a “moderate”, whilst his  fellow-ministers Fernandez Diaz and Cazeneuve are pushing for  reconsidering the 1985 treaty on free circulation in the EU. Meanwhile,  there are measures being discussed ranging from a strictest scrutiny on  the web to the immediate accessibility for governments to the PNR (which  is the flying companies’ passengers’ identification system), as well as  the engagement in developing an obscure “counter-rethoric” capable of  damming Jihadism’s communication successes.

Even  more worrying, since directly acting on more slippery grounds, is  Panebianco’s column on Corriere della Sera. It re-proposes, after the  same old paranoia on the risks connected to IS’ expansion (where he  never deals with a genealogy and, even more, a deliberation upon the  support of US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to it), a toxic narration on  civilization clashes, of which we report this extract as an example:

“[…] we ought to believe that many Muslims that have been living for a  long time in Europe have found a way of making pragmatically co-exist  their faith with Western freedoms. [..] [..] these are Muslims «contaminated»  by our lifestyle, but that don’t give up praying in the religion of  their fathers because of this. Yet the trouble is that they have to deal  with a big, numerous part, and even quite well-financed by  oil-monarchies and other Muslim regimes: the «uncontaminated», the  speakers of a pure Islam, hyper-traditionalist, anti-Western, in the  Wahabi and Muslim Brothers’ variants (antagonists amongst them) [..]

 
Yet  overlooking the analysis about who is financially supporting those  oil-monarchies mentioned by Panebianco, we are asking ourselves which is  the rationale of such a comment: probably, on the one hand, going back  to elevating the Western against a Muslim world seen like barbarian and  inferior, and as such needy for that contamination that reminds so much  the French policy of assimilation, which has proved in these days its  outmost failure.

But Panebianco doesn’t stop here:

“The  distinction between contaminated/uncontaminated that I use here has  nothing to do with the fake one between moderate and non-moderate Islam.  Those who are using the latter distinction, actually, are falling in  the conceptual trap in which the extremists want them to fall. Indeed,  you almost always end up calling a Wahabi or a Muslim Brother «moderate»  just because they are dissociating themselves from the Jihadist bloody  act of that moment. So you lose the cultural continuities, the common  hyper-traditionalist reading of holy texts”.

 
Islam  would then be all the same thing, with only one background, and an  obliged lined guiding every observant from reading the Qu’ran to  Jihadism: unless they don’t get in contact with the West and free world  that, despite being the land of Crusade and Nazi-fascist regimes, along  with the place where we have witnessed even more cruel massacres (do you  remember Breivik), keep enjoying a moral superiority that apparently,  if we broaden our gaze to everything has happened in the world after the  9/11, exists only in the malicious and warmongering thoughts of local  journalists.

Meanwhile,  the most refined techniques of “security alarm”, typical of US war on  terror, are once again fashionable. Hence we get to know from CIA and  Mossad that Vatical will be next IS’ target, even though the situation  at the moment “is not presenting concrete elements of risk”. Bu then, is  there a risk or not? Or there is only the willingness to raise panic  around what happened and justifying eventual new, real limitations of  freedom of speech?

Never  like today there is the need to reject the enrolment we have mentioned  in a previous statement of ours, awar of the fact that the yell #JeSuisCharlie – as  we would hope – will not reverse into a stance against the vileness of  global leaders. We ought to keep fighting everywhere, as far as we can,  an harsh battle to target the real culprits for the tragedy at Hebdo,  and to avoid that the murder rethoric of civilization clash gets  inforced by these crucial days.