Charlie Hebdo and terrorism

In connection with the tragedy in Paris at the Eiffel tower were turned off evening lighting. The modern understanding of the principle of freedom of speech, and indeed freedom in General, was mildly childlike, one might even say kindergarten. Especially among young people, who forget that the flipside of freedom is responsibility, not as a moral requirement, but as a causal logic as the law of the universe.

The tragedy of journalists of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was the result of stupidity and infantilism. Adult children got involved in the game, the rules of which they neither knew nor understood. But the responsibility still comes.

The story is not over, but continues. Now the game involved all of society. And opposition only increases. A few stupid pictures for a few days completely disorganized the life of France. And you can only guess how it will end.

The reaction of other media, who in solidarity decided to reprint the controversial cartoons. Clean children’s reaction, they say we fear nothing and we have the right to freedom of speech. Right, but each reason generates a consequence. Not random, but logical.

But if such reaction media is expected, if that is what it was planned? If the real purpose of the attack was not revenge for past publications (this is just an excuse), and to provoke public outcry, to incite hatred and fear in society. To distract people from pressing problems or to prepare public opinion for new laws. And in the light of international politics, this event can also be a significant reason.

Then it turns out that the fourth power is just used. And declared and defended by journalists and society in freedom of speech only camellia. Not run by those who consider themselves the most intelligent, but the one who knows the logic of cause and effect. From this logic there is no freedom, but there are laws of social psychology, Economics, politics.

What guided the journalists, when they published cartoons of religious properties? What was the purpose of those publications, did not have any art or other valuables? Is this not the children’s desire to “tease the dog”, “show off”, to get cheap popularity in the society is shocking, provoking and working on the brink of a foul. But the dog could tear. And it’s common knowledge.

Behaved in a similar way the heroine of the famous band Pussy Riot, believing that they have freedom of expression. Freedom is, but there are consequences, not only legal, but also social and psychological.

In Europe it is accepted to speak about multiculturalism, tolerance, religious tolerance, however, even the journalists don’t understand the psychology of the believer. These young guys believe that their freedom of religious treatment of the topic is justified by their cultural superiority, education, freedom of thought. But this is only their point of view. How is it different from faith?

And if important the group values in the public field, it is not tolerance but a provocation.

Multiculturalism involves consideration and acceptance of cultural differences, other points of view, each can have their own truth. Besides, these other cultural groups sometimes have greater force in other moral framework.

And if important the group values in the public field, it is not tolerance but a provocation. And the result is a hatred and thirst for vengeance. It’s not an excuse, but only the laws of social psychology.

You would think today in Europe, there are more important topics to discuss. More important because they lie at the base of existential issues which affect the lives of everyone, particularly young Europeans. These are questions of Economics, employment, education. How is it that journalists are people with University degrees don’t understand social laws? What to do then from an uneducated youth who shot at mosques or carry out the bombings as retaliation? Will the professional to go burn cars, or rather will do it unemployed?

Then the question is, whose is the purpose of the unions? Who benefits from that in Europe economic crisis? What is more important, religious dogma, or the ability for man to realize himself as a professional? Will the professional to go burn cars, or rather will do it unemployed?

Here relevant topics for journalists and all intellectuals in Europe and in our country, if we want to carry the benefit of society and not just to play on the nerves.