By Gilad Atzmon

In a BBC interview following the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch advised those who do not approve of ‘freedom of speech’ to ‘move to Pakistan.’ It is not surprising to find a Zionist Jew advocating voluntary cleansing; after all, expulsion is a Jewish nationalist favourite adventure. Judging by Aaronovitch’s endorsement of elementary liberty, I am happy to announce that the appeal for freedom of expression is the immediate and very positive outcome of the disastrous events in Paris.

Video: http://youtu.be/fopMx5A3L5A

But I am not convinced that those protesters who call themselves ‘Charlie’ are genuinely advocating the notion of universal freedom. Are they willing to accept Muslim clerics exploring that freedom? And what about Dieudonne challenging the Holocaust religion? And if Israel defines itself as ‘the Jewish State,’ can we, once and for all, put Jewishness under scrutiny? Does Aaronivitch, himself an arch Neocon Zionist and prime advocate of the Iraq War, willing to accept that some may consider the Holocaust an historical chapter, not a religion? This would be a revolutionary shift because Aaronovitch has gone out of his way to silence any discussion of historical revisionism, Jewishness or the powerful Jewish lobby.

Freedom of Speech and the West

The first question is whether Freedom of Speech is a universal western value. The answer is, of course, in the affirmative. Freedom of Speech is embedded in Athenian thought. The idea is well illustrated by Greek orator Demosthenes who states that in ‘Athens one is free to praise the Spartan constitution, whereas in Sparta it is only the Spartan constitution that one is allowed to praise.’ Unlike Athens that stands for pluralism, ethics and a relentless search for the truth: Jerusalem represents the suppression of freedom and a dismissal of ethical and universal thinking. Jerusalem is guided by ‘commandments’ and legalism. The ‘legal’ replaces the ethical mode by setting boundaries to speech.

Such a reading may help us to grasp the role of political correctness within the wider notion of freedom of expression: if freedom was born in Athens, the tyranny of correctness has been imported from Jerusalem and it is, by far, the bitterest enemy of Athens, of freedom and the West.

Political correctness should be understood as a political view that doesn’t allow political opposition. Bizarrely enough, the same definition could be applied to dictatorship. Yet, in reality, political correctness is far more repressive than dictatorship. While dictatorship entails a form of negation between a subject and an authority, political correctness is driven by self-suppression. It is a vicious instrument that defeats authenticity. It teaches you to ‘think before you say,’ instead of simply ‘saying what you think.’

If freedom of speech is an Athenians cultural asset, then correctness is the Guardian; it is a crude attempt to set the boundaries of integrity, ethics and the human experience in general.

Spitting On Crosses, Spitting On Churches and Spitting in General.

Charlie Hebdo, as we are learning, wasn’t a publication that specialized in free speech. It was a neocon, philo-Semitic magazine that supported Zionist wars, and was dedicated to otherize minorities and Muslims in particular, while at the same time silencing criticism of Jewish power and the American war machine. Charlie Hebdo went about acting as the Israeli cultural attaché in Paris. At least ideologically, it was the French ‘Guardian of Judea.’ But unlike its ideological sister across the channel, the former was uniquely tasteless and extreme, apparently on a suicidal scale.

Supporters of ‘Charlie’ such as Aaronovitch may rightly argue that if Freedom is a Western value, then spiting on other people’s prophets should also be considered a Western adventure. After all, freedom of speech is the liberty to express whatever crosses your mind.

Aaronivitch and the Charlies are wrong on this point. While tolerance and loving one’s neighbor are embedded within the Western Christian ethos, spitting on the cross, spitting on churches and spitting in general are not necessarily Western values. They are, once again, a product of Jerusalem.

In 2009, The Jerusalem Post published an exposé of the growing tendency of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to spit on their Christian neighbours. (‘Mouths Filled with Hatred’, By Larry Derfner The JPost, Nov. 26, 2009). Israel Shahak also commented on Jewish hatred of Christianity and its symbols, suggesting, “Dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism.” According to Shahak, “spitting on the cross, and especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews.”

Interestingly, Jewish spitting has had an impact on the urban landscape of Europe. The following can be read in a ‘Travel Guide for Jewish Europe.’

-###-

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/12/spitting-on-other-peoples-prophets-is-not-a-western-value

Gilad Atzmon is a British Jazz artist and author. Gilad was born in Israel in 1963 and trained at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem (Composition and Jazz). A multi-instrumentalist he plays saxophones, clarinet and ethnic woodwind instruments. His album Exile was the BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. Gilad writes on political matters, social issues, Jewish identity and culture. His papers are published on very many press outlets around the world. Gilad is a popular political analyst and is often guesting on Television and Radio stations around the world such as RT, Press TV, BBC and many more. Atzmon's novels 'Guide to the Perplexed' and 'My One and Only Love' have been translated into 24 languages. Gilad's latest book, The Wandering Who?, is a study of Jewish Identity politics. It was published in English in October 2011 and has since been translated into ten languages and has been a best seller. Gilad's web site: http://www.gilad.co.uk/