Direct Link to Latest News


Charlie Hebdo Fits Zionist Template

June 3, 2015

Charlie Hebdo has come to represent "free speech" for Zionists and Islamophobes. All others need not apply. The book's editor, Kevin Barrett last week was denied entry into Canada to deliver a speech.

Whether its Paris, Ottawa, Melbourne or Copenhagen, state-sponsored terrorism follows
a well-established pattern. In this excerpt, Laurent Guyenot shows how the Hebdo false flag was previewed by another French "terror" event in 2012 which bears an uncanny resemblance. 
Both incidents were pretexts to enact repressive pro Zionist legislation.

Makow Comment- As with Sandy Hook, there are no pictures of bullet ridden  cartoonists. I suspect no one died at Charlie Hebdo. The "victims"are enjoying a comfortable retirement under new identities in Herzliya, a posh suburb north of Tel Aviv. This article is from the book We are NOT Charlie Hebdo,  a collection of essays by experts who deconstruct the event and its implications.  


by Laurent Guyenot (translated by Kevin Barrett)

"The important thing to understand is that the trauma of Montauban and Toulouse struck deep in our country, a little--I do not want to compare the horrors--a little like the trauma that followed the events in the US and New York in September 2001 . . . September 11th."
-Nicolas Sarkozy, 23 March 2012, broadcast on Europe 1189

The Charlie Hebdo affair comes three years after the Mohamed Merah case. The two incidents have extremely disturbing similarities, as if they employed the same script, the same staging and the same troupe of actors. 

First, consider the many factual similarities: the suspects' profiles, the two dubiously-connected episodes of each tragedy, the all-night sieges keeping the audience riveted to their television screens, the implausible executions of the suspects, and a whole series of inconsistencies in the official story. 

(French patsy Mohammed Merah supposedly killed some Jewish 
children and French soldiers in 2012)

Additionally, in both cases, the authorities have produced no convincing evidence that the executed suspects were actually involved in the crimes. Another connection: the four Jewish victims of the grocery store hostage episode "are buried in the same cemetery as the Jewish victims of Mohammed Merah."

But the most striking similarities are in the repercussions of the two cases--especially the virtually-identical government/media response. Two days after the killings in a Jewish school March 19, 2012, Foreign Minister Alain Juppé went to Jerusalem for the funeral of the victims.

 There he met Shimon Peres in the presidential palace, where Juppé assured Peres of his support in the war on terror and anti-Semitism (both implicitly skillfully combined in this scene). 

Then the next day, Juppé met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pledge his support. In a public tribute to the victims (and implicitly to Zionism) Alain Juppé, wearing the kippa, spoke of "a national tragedy, a catastrophe that has struck France. ( . . . ) When a Jew is targeted in France, the whole of France is affected. The attack on Jews in France is the business of 65 million French people. Your grief, your pain is ours ( . . . ) Anti-Semitism is unbearable for us. France will not yield to terrorism." Note the subtle equation that makes "terrorism" and "anti-Semitism" two interchangeable terms.

A similar swiftly-orchestrated response followed the deaths of Jewish hostages in the Hyper-Kosher grocery store in 2015, following the supposedly related shootings at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took charge of France's officially- sanctioned nationwide demonstration, before going to the Great Synagogue of Paris where, before a cheering crowd, he gave a speech about his favorite topic: the fight against terrorism and anti-Semitism.

Each of the two cases took place shortly after brutal Israeli attacks against the Gaza Strip, and each was used to consign those atrocities to the memory hole--or at least to drown out the chorus of disapproval. Each also allowed Israel to remind the Jews of France (the largest Jewish community in Europe) that they live in a hostile land and would do well to emigrate to Israel. 

Both affairs also gave Israel a pretext to oppress the Palestinians and attack unfriendly Arab and Muslim countries. In March 2012, Israel was seeking to launch a war against Iran, and the Merah affair drummed up French support. Likewise in 2015, Israel was trying to stop a G5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, and the Charlie Hebdo and supermarket shootings once again helped the Zionist cause.

Additionally, each of the two affairs helped terrorize French Jews (the largest Jewish community in Europe) to encourage them to emigrate to Israel. When, on October 31st 2012, Netanyahu made an official visit to France, he said at a press conference with Hollande (who would accompany him the next day to Toulouse for a ceremony honoring the victims): "In my role as Prime Minister of Israel, I always say to Jews everywhere: Come to Israel and make Israel your home."

Finally, in both cases, immediately after the event, a PATRIOT Act type of law censoring free speech and focusing on anti-Semitism-- equated with criticism of Israel--was imposed on the French public. In the days following the killings in 2012, President Sarkozy announced his plan to create a new criminal offense and place internet users under surveillance: "Any person who habitually visits websites that justify terrorism or incite hatred or violence shall be prosecuted and penalized."

 Apparently the concept of "condoning terrorism" is almost limitless.

The new anti-terrorism acts were presented by Sarkozy to his Cabinet on April 11th, 2012, but were eventually rejected by Parliament. So, it seems, we had to start all over again in 2015.
And indeed, a few days after the killing of Charlie Hebdo, taking advantage of public emotion, François Hollande proposed a new law: to censor the Internet. 

"To fight an enemy, you must first know and name it. Anti-Semitism has changed its face. It has not lost its ancient roots. Some of these springs have not changed since the dawn of time: conspiracy, suspicion, falsification. But today, it also feeds on hatred of Israel. It imports conflict from the Middle East. It claims that Jews are somehow responsible for people's misfortunes. It keeps alive conspiracy theories that spread without limits, even those that have led to the worst of horrors."

(Paris was considering recognizing Palestine.)

Hollande stressed the need to "be aware that conspiracy theories are propagated through the internet and social networks. But we must remember that it is words that prepare the way for mass extermination . . . We need to act at the European and even international levels to define a legal framework, so that the internet platforms running social networks face their responsibilities and are penalized for violations," he emphasized. 

Hollande said his government will support the call of several Jewish organizations "against Holocaust denial on the Internet." It seems that the concept of negation or "denial," usually associated with Holocaust denial, has been curiously extended to include negation of the official account of the Charlie Hebdo case.

To underline the similarities between the two affairs, and gain a better perspective on the Charlie Hebdo incident, here is a reminder of the facts in the Merah case, highlighting anomalies and advancing a plausible hypothesis.

This excerpt was intended to inform you of this new book and provide a sample. Copies are available here.

Related- Merah Busted as Mossad Mole

First Comment from Dan:

There's an analytical tools that everyone in the world can and must apply to any media hyped shooting, bombing, riot, scandal, market crash, controversial court decision and all the rest of it.

'Cui bono' - who profits?  who benefits?

Thinking back to the sequence of events that ensued, what actually happened?  A couple of deranged young losers venting anger at magazine they'd seen plastered on magazine racks all over Paris, insulting Islam and God.

Deranged people fly off the handle and murder other toxic people every week.   It was a senseless killing spree by a couple of lunatics.

Within a few days, World Media turned it into a grand standing photo op for the Prime Minister of Israel to declare himself the spokesman and defender of 'World Jewry' - during a CLOSE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. The French / UN referendum on the recognition of the State of Palestine wasn't the only thing at stake.

My jaw dropped to the floor in Disney cartoon fashion at the speed the thing was blown out of proportion - not merely to 'World Sympathy' for the French, for whom World Media said it was the 'French 911' (but with a lot less property damage and loss of life), to being about 'Antisemitism' and Netanyahu.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Charlie Hebdo Fits Zionist Template"

Jim Perloff said (June 4, 2015):

Robert K makes an excellent point about 1,000 police surrounding Merah, and not being able to take him alive. (Reminds me of John Wilkes Booth, who was alone in a barn with a busted leg, yet the 16th U.S. Cavalry just couldn’t take him alive either.)

Apparently part of the paradigm now is that no patsy survives. In all the recent attacks (Ottawa, Paris, Copenhagen and Garland, Texas), all the alleged terrorists were killed by security forces. In Garland they were dead within 15 seconds of the incident beginning.

Just yesterday in Boston, an alleged terrorist named Usaamah Abdullah Rahim was shot dead by the police and FBI after allegedly approaching them with a knife in order to perform an ISIS beheading.

I gather that someone at the top was really ticked off that one of the Tsarnaev brothers survived, necessitating a trial. As rigged as that trial was, the approach now seems to be one of KILL INSTANTLY. No tear gas, no wounding in the leg, no fuss, no muss. In the grave, the accused has no chance to present his side of the story.

Are we supposed to believe that, with all the technologies at its disposal today, law enforcement has no means of restraining a terrorist except killing? “Shoot first and ask questions later” has been replaced by “Shoot dead and NEVER ask questions later.”

Robert K said (June 3, 2015):

ome further detail, probably forgotten, on the Merah case: The siege of his apartment lasted some 32 hours, with around a thousand police on the scene. Around 300 bullets were fired at him in the final assault (apparently starving him out was not considered as a possibility); two were judged to have been fatal. The founder and former commander of an elite French special forces unit, Christian Prouteau, asked, "How can it be that the top police unit didn't manage to arrest a man alone? They had to fill his place with a large dose of tear gas; he wouldn't have lasted five minutes." He also expressed astonishment that Merah's building was not evacuated before the assault. (source: Wikipedia)

Nicholas Sarkozy personally appeared on the scene during the siege. Coincidentally, he was campaigning for the presidency at the time.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at