Charlie Hebdo: They're Not Racist Just Because You're Offended

(Autora: Lliana Bird)
Texto retirado daqui: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lliana-bird/charlie-hebdo_b_6461030.html

*******
«
Charlie Hedbo were leftists, some may even anarchists and punks. They printed numerous cartoons which were anti racism/xenophobia; that mocked and satirised the far right as bigots and racists. As long time reader and Frenchman, Olivier Tonneau pointed out in his excellent article, The National Front and the Le Pen family were in fact their primary targets above all others. Next came bosses, politicians and the corrupt. Finally they opposed organised religion. ALL organised religion. They didn't hate or abuse or target any one group or religion. They did however mock ALL systems and organisations and individuals of power - from political to religious to everything in between. They were satirists, and all people, systems and organisations should be open to criticism and mockery (so long as it sticks within the laws of the land). They were democratic in their ridicule and satirisation. No one was exempt. To do otherwise would have been the hypocritical. Equal rights also means equal treatment.
Accusations of Islamophobia alone seem to ignore the fact that the Pope, Jesus, Orthodox Jews (amongst many others) were targeted in equal measure. As the publication's lawyer Richard Malka said this week "In each edition for the past 22 years there has not been one where there have not been caricatures of the pope, jesus, priests, rabbis, immans or Mohammed." Although of course... perhaps you still believe they were Islamophobic, Christian-phobic, and anti-Semitic... but it seems it was not the every day believer they were intentionally targeting.
"We want to laugh at extremists - every extremist," surviving staff member Laurent Leger stated. "They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept".
Much has been made of the fact (and accusations of hypocrisy bandied around) over the fact that a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked in 2009 over an alleged anti-Semitic cartoon (although its rarely noted this decision was taken by a long-since departed editor; that the sacked journalist ultimately won his unfair dismissal suit; and that this cartoon targeted a specific individual as opposed to an entire religion or idea), and many have asked why Muslims should expect to put up with things that Jews don't. Which would be a fair point, if it was true.
Judaism was frequently lampooned (a simple Google search will verify that). The Charlie Hebdo team were also very much pro-Gaza, and often fiercely critical of Israel's actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. One series entitled 'One Commandment A Day: The Torah Illustrated by Charb' coarsely depicts Jews as contradicting their religious values in their interactions with Palestinians."Ne pas opprimer les faibles" ("Don't oppress the weak") is the title of a cartoon of a Jewish man firing an assault weapon into the back of a Palestinian woman. "Here, take that Goliath!," he shouts.
More in-depth research and conversations with those who were regular readers of the magazine reveal that Charlie Hebdo also strongly and regularly denounced the plight of minorities, they wrote in support of the Kurds, and they campaigned relentlessly for all illegal immigrants to be given permanent right of stay.  One of Cabu's most famous creations was Mon Beauf, which caricaturised an ignorant, racist and bigoted Frenchman, and Bernard Velhac, also known as Tignous (and a member of Cartoonists for Peace) once said, "I would love to think that every time I make a drawing it prevents a kidnapping, a murder, or removes a land mine. What joy it would be! If I had that power I would stop sleeping and would make drawings non-stop."»
(...)
«The comments section underneath this article will no doubt be full of remarks and examples of cartoons which appear to defy this and which seem to to scream "racism!" and honestly, it would take a far longer article than I could write here (or you would care to read of mine) to go through every single cartoon, analyse it, explain the context, the news item behind it, the cultural context, the nuances and history of French humour, satire and cartoons (which were used up to 400 years ago to mock religion, royalty and other powerful and oppressive institutions in a time when many people couldn't read and cartoons were essential in the fight against monarchy and the church).»
(...)
«And we may appreciate that the very controversial cartoon of Mohammed being filmed naked titled "The film that embraces the Muslim world:" wasn't merely for the sake of putting him in a lewd position - it is a parody of a Brigitte Bardot scene in Jean-Luc Goddard's film Contempt thus satirising the outrage following the release of a controversial film about Islam.
Perhaps knowing all this and more you (or even I) may still find these and other cartoons extremely offensive (or worse) .
It's your right to feel that way, and to say as much as loudly as you like (and in doing so even to offend others). Freedom of speech means that some things people say and do are bound to offend you and vice versa. That's ok. As (a personal hero of mine) Majid Nawaz says you have every right to be offended, you do not have the right to not be offended.»
(...)
«Incitement of violence against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc is not ok (or legal). But criticism and mockery of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or atheism and the ideas they represent is. People have rights. Ideas do not. And the law is there to punish those who cross that line.
If anyone genuinely felt that the Charlie Hebdo crossed that very line then they had the option to start legal proceedings (as the Catholic church did many times). Fear of being prosecuted is a valid one that journalists, comedians and even cartoonists consider. Fear of losing one's life shouldn't be. The law is there to guide us in what we say, and punish us when we go too far. If you don't feel that the law adequately represents the rights of muslims or anyone else for that matter, or that certain depictions of religious figures in cartoons shouldn't be permissable, you're free to say so, write about it, protest and campaign to change the law. You aren't however free to take the law into your own hands.
The thought that a religion, a set of beliefs, or an idea, could be above criticism or ridicule is, to me, a scary one which could lead us into very dangerous ground. »
(...)
«As we all argue about what's right to say and what's wrong, what's offensive, and what's hypocritical, it might do us good to remember that 17 people died last week in the cruelest of ways. Each was their own person, no doubt differing in their morals, ethics, ideas and thoughts. Let's not call many of them names before they are even cold in the ground, although... of course, it's your right to do so if you like because most of you, like them, have similar freedom of expression. I may not like you insulting them, and you may not like anything that i've said in this article, but as you write your comment in section underneath (perhaps about what a stupid idiot you think I am) just remember that Charlie Hebdo's staff died standing up for your right to do so.»

João Pereira Coutinho: A Loucura é Contagiosa

(Texto escrito pelo autor na Folha de São Paulo, retirado daqui: http://rota2014.blogspot.pt/2015/01/a-loucura-e-contagiosa-por-joao-pereira.html)

«Os terroristas franceses já devem estar com as suas 72 virgens no paraíso —e o leitor, no conforto do seu lar, sente que existe uma pergunta lógica, porém desconfortável, que ocupa espaço no seu crânio ecumênico. A saber: se o jornal satírico "Charlie Hebdo" nunca tivesse publicado cartuns ofensivos para a religião muçulmana, será que o massacre teria ocorrido?

Melhor ainda: por que motivo insistimos em "blasfemar" contra a fé dos radicais? Ganhamos alguma coisa com isso?

Para o leitor benemérito, se o Ocidente apagar o mundo islâmico dos seus radares, obedecendo caninamente aos preceitos da sharia, o mundo islâmico também apagará o Ocidente das suas armas. A Deus o que é de Deus, a César o que é de César –e a Alá o que é de Alá. Cada um no seu canto. Em paz e sossego.

Existem várias formas de lidar com essas perguntas ingênuas. A mais óbvia seria lembrar que o terrorismo islamita não precisa de nenhum pretexto para atacar um "modo de vida" que abomina no seu todo. Se não fossem os cartuns, seria outra coisa qualquer: aos olhos do fanatismo, os "infiéis" não pisam o risco apenas quando usam o lápis.

E, claro, silenciar a liberdade de expressão seria um suicídio civilizacional –e uma vitória para os assassinos.

Mas existe outra forma de responder às inquietações do leitor —e a história do século 20 continua sendo a melhor escola.

Daqui a uns dias, passarão 50 anos desde a morte de Winston Churchill. E um livro recente tem ocupado os meus dias: "The Literary Churchill", de Jonathan Rose (Yale University Press, US$ 25, 528 págs.), uma biografia do velho Winston lançada em 2014 que procura explicar o seu percurso político por meio dos textos que ele leu, escreveu e, naturalmente, representou como grande ator que era.

Um capítulo da obra, porém, merece atenção especial à luz do terrorismo na França: na década de 1930, com a memória da Primeira Guerra Mundial ainda fresca, a elite política (e conservadora) britânica tentava desesperadamente não embarcar em novo conflito contra a Alemanha.

E Lord Halifax, secretário de Relações Exteriores, era apenas um dos rostos dos "appeasers" (pacifistas, em português) que acreditou na possibilidade de manter a fera na sua jaula.

Halifax conheceu pessoalmente Hitler em 1937 e notou que o Führer nutria um ódio insano por dois temas em especial: o comunismo soviético (lógico) e, atenção leitor, a liberdade de expressão da imprensa britânica (ilógico?).

Para Hitler, e para o ministro da Propaganda alemã Goebbels, a imprensa britânica era o grande obstáculo para a paz. Por quê?

Ora, porque bastava ler a prosa antigermânica do "News Chronicle" ou do "Manchester Guardian" para concluir que os jornalistas britânicos não respeitavam a figura sagrada de Hitler, o "profeta" da raça ariana.

E quem diz "ler", diz "ver": no "Daily Herald" ou no "Evening Standard", Hitler não apenas era severamente criticado (por Churchill, por exemplo). Ele era igualmente ridicularizado nos cartuns de Will Dyson ou David Low (os Wolinskis da época).

Halifax, que nunca se notabilizou pela coragem, regressou à Inglaterra com a mesma ideia que o leitor ecumênico tem na cabeça: se ao menos a imprensa se comportasse"¦ Quem sabe? Talvez Hitler ficasse sossegadamente em Berlim, desenhando nas horas livres e constituindo família com Eva Braun.

Aliás, Halifax não ficou nas ideias: ele convenceu mesmo David Low a moderar os seus desenhos, coisa que o artista fez, mas só até Hitler invadir a Áustria em 1938.

Depois disso, regressaram os cartuns antinazistas (que os "appeasers" continuavam a considerar "gratuitos" e de "mau gosto").

Curioso: Hitler devorava a Europa, pedaço a pedaço, em busca do seu "espaço vital". Mas as avestruzes britânicas acreditavam que tudo seria diferente se o lunático Adolfo tivesse sido tratado com "respeito" pelos jornais.

Churchill nunca mostrou respeito. E, quando finalmente assumiu o governo, em 1940, tratou Hitler com a dureza de sempre. A besta nazista foi derrotada em 1945.

Existe uma moral na história dessa história?

Existe, leitor ecumênico: não somos nós os culpados pela loucura dos outros.

Imaginar o contrário, por medo ou ignorância, é simplesmente partilhar a loucura em que eles vivem.»

João Pereira Coutinho: As Leis da Selva

Texto de João Pereira Coutinho na Folha de S. Paulo 

(Retirado daqui:  http://filosofoincorrecto.blogspot.pt/2015/01/as-leis-da-selva-texto-de-joao-pereira.html)

«Terroristas encapuzados atacam um jornal satírico francês. Matam dez jornalistas e dois policiais. Nos minutos seguintes, nas horas seguintes, nos dias seguintes, os sábios mentecaptos que ajudaram a criar o caldo relativista em que os fanáticos cresceram e prosperaram cumprem essas cinco leis (sem exceção):
1ª lei - Não importa se o sábio mentecapto é ateu, agnóstico ou crente. De joelhos, ele reza a todos os santos para que os autores da chacina não sejam muçulmanos. O ideal era que fossem judeus (de preferência israelenses) ou, vá lá, cristãos. Alguns dos sábios, apesar de praticarem ioga, não se importariam que o terrorismo fosse budista, só para variar: dois monges com os ensinamentos do Dalai Lama debaixo do braço matando toda a gente com um "mantra" assassino.
2ª lei - É oficial: os terroristas professam a religião islâmica e afirmam, orgulhosos, que mataram em nome do profeta. Os sábios mentecaptos sofrem um leve desmaio.
3ª lei - Reanimados com teses de doutorado instantâneas sobre "islamismo", os sábios mentecaptos começam a disparar que não é legítimo fazer qualquer identificação entre "islã" e "terrorismo". O fato de os terroristas terem expressamente usado o Corão e o nome do profeta para realizarem os seus massacres nem sequer deve ser mencionado. Somos nós, ocidentais, que confundimos as coisas, nunca eles.
4ª lei - Procurar causas exteriores para explicar o massacre. Pode ser o defunto George W. Bush. Ou então é a "islamofobia" que "marginaliza" os marginais. Alguns dos sábios mentecaptos chegam mesmo a comparar a situação de exclusão dos muçulmanos que hoje vivem na Europa com os judeus do gueto em plena 2ª Guerra Mundial. Compreende-se: os judeus eram enfiados em guetos pelos nazistas porque, como todos sabemos, alguns deles tinham por hábito plantar bombas ou matar civis em nome de uma interpretação radical da Torá.
5ª lei - Culpar as vítimas. No caso do jornal "Charlie Hebdo", as vítimas eram jornalistas, cartunistas e policiais. Todas elas têm culpas repartidas. Os policiais porque representam a face visível da repressão (aqui, o sábio mentecapto cita Zizek). Os jornalistas e os cartunistas porque excederam os "limites" e não mostraram "deferência" pela sensibilidade dos fanáticos.
Daqui a uns dias, daqui a uns meses, daqui a uns anos, quando surge novo massacre, o sábio mentecapto regressa à lei nº 1 e repete todos os passos com igual coerência.
Perante isso, qual deveriam ser as cinco leis que uma pessoa racional deveria exibir perante a chacina de Paris? Arrisquemos:
1ª lei - Reconhecer que existe uma desproporção entre atentados terroristas com caução islâmica e atentados terroristas motivados por outras questões (nacionalistas, étnicas etc.). Quando existe um atentado com os contornos do parisiense, é legítimo presumir que o terrorismo islamita está de volta.
2ª lei - Não desmaiar com o fato. Procurar entendê-lo: saber como e onde se radicalizaram os assassinos –na França ou no exterior? E, dependendo das respostas, saber como foi possível o florescimento de uma indústria de ódio dentro das portas ou como se permitiu a entrada nas fronteiras de quem aprendeu a lição fora delas.
3ª lei - Existe uma relação entre "islã" e "terrorismo" que é estabelecida pelos próprios terroristas. Isso cria um problema à religião muçulmana e obriga os líderes religiosos a condenar enfaticamente quem comete tais "heresias". O xeque da mesquita de Lisboa, por exemplo, disse sobre o assunto: "Se eles não estão satisfeitos em viver num país liberal, podem emigrar e deixar-nos em paz". É a resposta de um homem corajoso e bom.
4ª lei - Não procurar causas exteriores ao massacre. Elas não existem. O que existe é um fanatismo semelhante aos totalitarismos do século 20: o mesmo ódio à liberdade e a mesma pretensão em submeter a sociedade a uma utopia de trevas.
5ª lei - As vítimas são vitimas. Se o islã ainda não teve a sua Reforma (e o seu Iluminismo), problema dele. O "Charlie Hebdo" usava ácido sulfúrico sobre cristãos, judeus, muçulmanos, hindus, animistas ou druídas. Se isso fere a "sensibilidade" dos crentes, eis o preço a pagar para quem deseja viver no século 21 –e não na Idade Média.»

Próximo "Charlie Hebdo" incluirá caricaturas de Maomé

Gajos Com Colhões!

O advogado da publicação, Richard Malka, garantiu à rádio France Info que a revista vai incluir outras sátiras sobre políticos e religiosos, pois "esse é o espírito de 'Eu sou Charlie'". 

"Nunca vamos ceder. Se não, nada disto teria sentido", frisou o advogado e colaborador do semanário, onde dois homens armados mataram na passada quarta-feira 12 pessoas, alegadamente numa represália pela publicação de caricaturas do profeta do Islão.
Este atentado, e outros dois cometidos, na quinta e na sexta-feira, por outro fundamentalista islâmico mataram mais cinco pessoas.
No domingo, 3,7 milhões de pessoas manifestaram-se em França contra o terrorismo.
A revista Charlie Hebdo costuma pôr à venda 60 mil exemplares, mas a edição de quarta-feira vai ter um milhão e será traduzida em 16 idiomas, explicou um dos caricaturistas, Patrick Pelloux.
"Terá uma difusão excecional como gesto de vida e sobrevivência", disse o advogado. Outro redator, Gérard Biard, explicou à rádio que não pretendem fazer um obituário. 

Para Malka, o lema tornado popular depois dos atentados "Eu sou Charlie" é um "estado de espírito, que também quer dizer o direito à blasfémia" e, por isso, a nova edição vai incluir caricaturas de Maomé.
O atentado de quarta-feira matou oito jornalistas do "Charlie Hebdo", entre os quais o diretor, Charb, e quatro dos mais conhecidos caricaturistas de França.
Os restantes elementos da redação refugiaram-se nos escritórios do diário "Libération" para continuarem a trabalhar, protegidos por um considerável dispositivo policial.
O jornal "Le Monde" contribuiu com cinco computadores e material informático para que o "Charlie Hebdo" possa voltar às bancas.

Link: http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Mundo/interior.aspx?content_id=4337367&page=1

CHARLIE HEBDO: ASTROLOGICAL ANALYSIS

It seems apparent that satire, parody and laughter is something which the western society is quite used to - and other types of societies, outside the western world norm, either do not share a similar sense of humour or, quite disturbingly, have no concept of humour and hilarity at all. Why? Anthropologists, philosophers, sociologists and psychologists are more suited to answer that. I have no idea.

On to the astrology. 

I’ll use the chart of July, 2nd, 1992, Paris, 12 noon, because Charlie Hebdo was relaunched at this date ("The publication of the new Charlie Hebdo began in July 1992"// Search results.)

We can see the Sun and Venus in the sign of Cancer (at first one would think a weird sign to see connected with a satirical magazine, but one also might argue that the ultimate Goal is to defend Patriotic and National Values - Cancer - using  wit, mockery and ridicule). Also Cancer is a highly artistic and imaginative sign. Many writers have planets on this sign. But if we keep examining the chart, we can see that Sun and Venus are opposing Uranus and Neptune in Capricorn. This seems to show a very strong, ongoing, opposition from volatile (Uranus/Neptune) organizations, either governmental ones (Cancer opposes Capricorn) or other types of groups, outside the governmental and constitutional norm. The hostility could also be from very conservative (Capricorn), foreign (Uranus), religious (Neptune) groups. In other words: everyone in power or with power would pretty much be against them.

But where can we locate, in the chart, the humour, the satire? The MC is in Gemini (Medium Coeli. Shows our position in the world, the way the world views us, in this case, the way the magazine is seen - a humours and funny weekly journal). Gemini is (along with Sagittarius) the funny one. Also in this chart the Rising Sign is Virgo. Both Virgo and Gemini are ruled by Mercury. Mercury is in Leo, and in Leo there is always a propensity to express its beliefs in a very outwardly and passionate way. There is exalted idealism expressed in words and, in this case, in images (cartoons). Jupiter (connected with foreign countries) is currently transiting the sign of Leo, expanding the already grand speech and expression of this natal Mercury, making it even more fervent and zealous. (I am not criticizing in any way, only showing the nature of the planets involved). Jupiter, I would say, probably brought Charlie Hebdo again to the attention of the terrorists. Mercury in Leo has a tendency to boast its opinions in a very forceful and dramatic manner. It will never shut up and one can never accuse it of being diplomatic or prudent.

In this chart the Moon (represents instinct, emotion) connects with Mercury in a conjunction. So personality (and not true nature and individuality, which is better represented by the Sun) and thought processes are intensely joined. "What I think is Me; I am what I think"; and thoughts and emotions must be, immediately, dramatically and theatrically conveyed to the outside world, in a very proud fashion (Leo). Others must Admire (Leo) our ideas! (Mercury.)

(Again, I reiterate, this is neither disapproval nor reproach, only a chart analysis.)

The magazine has an emotional imperative (and I understand that this is not a person) - correcting myself: the magazine owners and those who work for it all possess an emotional imperative  to speak their thoughts, to speak their Truth, and do it in a funny way (Leo can be funny, it’s a fire sign, plus it wants to be admired. This Mercury wants its wit and creative side to be admired and cherished and also respected). Basically, they’ll do whatever it takes to get an audience. And this is what eventually got them hurt - Chiron, the planet connected with pain and sorrow, a sorrow that can never be extinguished, a never ending pain, Chiron is associated with the Moon and Mercury. Opinions bringing agony. 

The natal Saturn is retrograde in Aquarius (so, strong, even though is retrograde) and is tangled in a T-Square (difficult formation) with Pluto and Mars. These three planets have a strong association with aggression and violence.  So, in Charlie Hebdo’s chart there already was a possibility for a strong, horrific and violent act to occur.

But what was the astrological trigger for this ferocious attack? I would say the recent Full Moon at 14º31’ Cancer (occurred January, 5th, 2015). Full Moons mean culminations, finalities, and can hint at some sort of finalization. They are not “bad”. They mostly represent a conclusion (like getting a check, finalizing a deal, signing a contract, etc). This Full Moon impacted the Heart and Soul of Charlie Hebdo: Sun and Venus in Cancer, more specifically, Venus in Cancer, which is in the natal chart opposite Uranus and Neptune (at 16º and 17º Capricorn) and quincunx Saturn (a 150 degree aspect, showing difficulty in finding equilibrium and consensus between Art - Venus - and Authority - Saturn - particularly Traditional and Conservator Organization. This Saturn wants to repress this Venus for it feels Art has no respect for Authority nor Tradition). The quincunx is a tension aspect in no planet involved in it is ever satisfied because they both have to sacrifice something of value in order to form some sort of “dialogue” and viable relationship. 

Venus represents, astrologically, among other things, Art and the Artist.

And with Venus in Cancer, France’s National Culture and Choice of Artistic Expression was under fire. This Venus, being in Cancer, truly believes that it’s being Patriotic (Cancer) by expressing itself the way it does.

So, in France, Art itself was targeted, because Charlie Hebdo’s creative manifestation (Venus) was in conflict (impossible ever to resolve) with foreign (Aquarius) repressive (Saturn) groups, and was being opposed and fought by, again, a “foreigner” (Uranus) spirituality (Neptune), holding extremely conservative wold views (Uranus and Neptune and Capricorn). Repeating myself, the Art of France itself (Venus in Cancer) was/is targeted (which suddenly makes me think of the Louvre and other monuments of great importance to France - I assume many of such sites might be targets as well and are probably being protected and closely surveyed by French Police Forces). 

Dates that can bring Charlie Hebdo again into the news:

- February 3rd: Full Moon at 14º48’ Leo opposes natal Saturn in Aquarius (17º33’). I would say news about the attackers will come to light. And whatever they may be there’s also a risk of more aggression and violence since this Full Moon also triggers the natal Mars in Taurus and natal Pluto in Scorpio. So, perhaps, the French (or other authorities) might bring to light more information concerning the attack. Or some other attack (copycat) might be derailed.

During this Full Moon:

- transit Mercury at 6º Aquarius (opposing natal Mercury in Leo): perhaps a communication from a terrorist organization that did this (or connected with the terrorists in some way)?

- transit Venus at 7º55’ Pisces, opposing natal Jupiter in Virgo (9º57’): again Religion! Deadly opposing Art! (Venus in Pisces.) Venus in Pisces sacrifices itself for love and for it holds dear. Charlie Hebdo’s natal chart has a very Critical and possibly even Atheist Jupiter in Virgo. Criticizing theirs and others societies Faith, Beliefs and World Views (Jupiter) IS at the centre of their faith! I don’t like this transit in particular. Venus is Pisces likes to be a martyr...

- transit Mars at 16º Pisces: conjoining this chart 7th house (the house of “Open Enemies”). The enemies reveal themselves. Again I’m thinking “martyr” (Pisces). Again: I don’t like this.

- transit Jupiter at 18º Leo opposing natal Saturn in Aquarius: laughter and joy being opposed by conservative and repressive foreign, fixed, world views.

- transit Saturn at 3º Sagittarius: currently transits the 3rd house (impacting the weekly journal's daily activities and routine and also their Freedom of Speech), squaring natal Jupiter in Virgo (this is going to be around for at least a year). Charlie Hebdo sees its Beliefs (of ferocious critic) being fiercely repressed.

- plus the Uranus/Pluto square (in transit), magnifying the extreme violence and triggering/hitting natal Venus/Uranus/Neptune.

Radicals (Uranus) destroying, killing (Pluto) Art (Venus) due to religious and spiritual (Neptune) differences.

- the North Node in transit at 11º Libra hitting the Sun. A group of radicals (north node) wanting to destroy the magazine itself (Sun at 10º Cancer).

All of this probably signals a very dramatic transformation of Charlie Hebdo, but I hope that the journal will carry on.

In March, 2015, there will be last Pluto/Uranus square at 15º Capricorn/Aries - hitting again critical degrees and elements of Charlie Hebdo’s natal chart. I hope there is no violence or, if there is, that it is immediately deterred.

5th of March: Full Moon at 14º50 Virgo. I would say the beginning of the magazine’s reconstruction (internal, inner, I mean).   

Another lunation that we must pay close attention to is the Lunar Eclipse at 14º24’ Libra, April 4th, 2015. It hits the same degrees already mentioned. The problem is it is an eclipse, therefore, much more powerful.

I don’t want to say “another attack” but I hope the French authorities do their best to protect the journalists and cartoonists (Venus is being hit - again) and also their families (Venus in Cancer). Hopefully they will be protecting them.

Transits during this lunar eclipse:

- transit Mercury trines natal Moon/Mercury. The public will be buying the magazine as a way to act according to their beliefs (Freedom of Expression!). Some sort of news, hopefully, good news.

- transit Venus at 22º Taurus opposes natal Scorpio Pluto: again Art and Culture being targeted.

- transit Jupiter at 12º Leo squares natal Mars at 12º Taurus - more religious, fanatical, violence.

- transit Saturn squares more closely natal Jupiter (religious differences not allowing laughter), but this Saturn also squares transiting Neptune. All these planets are involved in a T-Square. More religious intolerance.

- North Node squares exactly the natal Sun: the group targets the magazine itself. Seems like another attack, even worse than the first one. I hope not. I really hope the French Authorities move the journalists and their families to a secluded, undisclosed, location.

May 4th, 2015: Full Moon at 13º Scorpio. Opposes natal Mars: more threats of violence? But it sits in a wide square no natal Saturn - so the violence is stopped? It positively aspects natal Sun/Venus. Charlie Hebdo will be asserting itself? Maybe with a special issue?

Another possibility of some sort of aggression: July, 2nd, 2015, Full Moon at 9º55 Capricorn (also, I believe, Charlie Hebdo’s anniversary).

The Solar Return of 2015/2016 hints at a possible reconstruction of the weekly journal’s identity. Something radical and extreme (not necessarily violent). Maybe even a relocation of its office? Even to some secret place?

However, that year (2015/16), they will be passionately reaffirming even more their truth and cultural identity. These guys will not be shut up. More opponents, maybe, yes; even extreme danger during this year. But will they be quiet? NOP. They will speak, write and draw even more! (Pissing everyone off.) Some elements also hint that their secret enemies will be outed. Probably some other attacks are uncovered and detained. 

Killing Charlie Hebdo? Not fucking likely.                    

/Dunya_out