1

The Pre-Fabrication of Morality as it Relates to the Charlie Hebdo

Incident
Omar Alansari-Kreger

The Charlie Hebdo incident is a pristine example of selective morality in some of

its most repugnant forms. War criminals, occupiers, and exploiters participate in
solidarity marches in Paris while a critically thinking public fails to observe the duality of
that standard in its own act! How is it permissible to allow someone like Benjamin
Netanyahu to participate while his own government launched a campaign of wanton
terror against the entire Gaza Strip just last year? Maybe the French should follow his
model of retributive resolve? Then again that suggestion is a rather dangerous
proposition to entertain because those objecting to the moral hypocrisy of the Charlie
Hebdo incident would find themselves in undisclosed detention centers.
When an atrocity happens it must be treated as an atrocity; no more no less.
That describes something of common sense, but people do not always react to
atrocities in sensual ways even though outcries are almost always common. Cynics that
feed off of the sardonic overtures of the human condition love to find fault with our
inability to jointly condemn atrocities as they happen all in a uniform manner.
Fortunately for our collective exoneration, trends and events deriving from them dont
unfold uniformly as much as we want them to. Pessimism is something that is all too
easy for us to embrace because when in states of panic and confusion it is much easier
to find and spell out woes, worries, and frustrations instead of doing the exact opposite.
People naturally react to what is closest to home and the atrocious incident in question
becomes part of a greater problem that will influence the fluctuation of the human
condition.
The victims of war crimes, the people of military occupation, and the targets of
exploitation all have one thing in common; they form an underclass of a diversified
perspective that is cautiously overlooked by the establishment. Interestingly enough,
any critical observer is able to realize that those that devise edicts and edifices of
politically correct morality are also the same war criminals, occupiers, and exploiters
that are guilty of that crime. It cannot be stressed enough, selective morality does not
refer to the sufferers that are bequeathed by it, but to those that practice it as the
leaders of the free world. The face of the free world has folded into a beacon of neoliberalism where morality is manufactured through the consent of a politically correct
institutional majority.

Free speech has been prefabricated as the accessory that made the atrocity in
question possible. Those that went on that murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdos
offices are naturally painted black for their actions. That particular view is simple; the
perpetrators and their assailants cant tolerate anything that attacks their worldview. All
the while, have we been prompted to seriously reconsider the way in which free speech
should be used and expressed in and around a free society? Should the idea of free
speech tolerate things that hurt, destroy, and undermine the overarching morality of the
human condition? It seems that weve dug ourselves into some kind of grave that has
brought us to the doorstep of subjective duality all in its quintessence; we cant escape
a select passage of morality without a clause of speech freedom to defend it. Yet should
we abandon freedom of speech?
Absolutely not, but if we cant civilize ourselves with balanced critical austerity we will
mutually destroy ourselves beneath complexes of selective institutional morality leaving
each one as politically correct in its own way. That is why speech freedom, as it is
practiced under clauses that ensure the freedom of speech, test every aspect of our
morality as a species. With the freedom of speech we shouldnt become artistic
masterminds of exceptionalism.