Idiots draw guns, for the worst reasons, geniuses draw the world, for the best reasons.
All too many in the Anglosphere condemns Freedom of Expression, though. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber judged that the massacre of famous French cartoonists, writers and thinkers was well deserved. He found « stupid» and « irresponsible » some of the covers of Charlie Hebdo.
(There were so many protests from readers, that the FT withdrew the passage later; notice that, from my point of view, the Financial Times has been a great apostle for the destruction of civilization, so it’s coherent that it would editorialize that assassinating thinkers is justified. For more on some of the despicable opinions of Mr. Barber, see below.)
Ahmed Mebaret, Heroic Police Officer, Muslim, Assassinated While Defending Freedom of Expression
The wounded police officer who was deliberately assassinated, ran to the rescue of Freedom of Expression. He was Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim of Tunisian descent.
Father of two, he had just qualified to become a detective. He rushed to Charlie Hebdo and pulled his weapon, but was shot before he could use it.
THING AFRESH HURTS ALWAYS:
The Delphi Oracle, followed by Socrates, enjoined to: “Know Thyself!” . An ebullient Socrates insisted that: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living.”
However, man is a social animal. Society is how Homo thinks. To know oneself is to know ourselves. Socrates is always presented by Plato in a social context, debating.
Examining oneself, is examining the society one belongs to. Criticizing oneself ferociously, is criticizing one’s society ferociously.
The central point of thinking anew is that it hurts. Islam is aware of that point: Jihadism is first an effort upon oneself, to improve oneself. (Jihadism such as attacking others, and chopping people’s heads off is only fourth on a list of five type of Jihadism!)
Why does it hurt? Because it requires lots of energy to change one’s neurological networks. PPP
As Homo is a social animal, thinking anew will hurt socially. The majority of French people has been hurt, at one point or another, has been hurt by French satirical newspapers. There are several, and the satirical mood extends throughout out French newspaper and French society. There was long a virulent streak of critique in French society. A law of 1881 strictly protects freedom of press and caricature.
Violent French caricature was centuries old, by the time that the Marquis de Sade depicted with relish the leaders of the West as sadistic torturers and killers.
Actually I have tracked ferocious satire and critique down to at least the Sixteenth Century. Not just Rabelais, but, when an attempt was made to kill Henri IV, one of many, a writer immediately published a book lauding the would-be assassin (who had been executed already) and calling for a repeat, ASAP. Nowadays this sort of Freedom of Expression would be viewed as going to far. Anywhere in the West. But the Enlightenment was made of it.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal presented the terror attack in Paris as front page, with several articles. With main picture of the assassination of the police officer (a second or so before the picture I put).
However the San Francisco Chronicle (Silicon Valley) mentioned it only in a very small corner of its “Top of the News”. The main stories were about a judge allowing Foie Gras back (after a ten year ban), and the Golden Gate closed for the repairs during weekend.
The New York Times reproduced a few very mild Charlie Hebdo cartoons, adding that others, more famous, could not be reproduced as: “The New York Times has chosen not to reprint examples of the magazine’s most controversial work because of its intentionally offensive content.”
How does the New York Times knows it’s “controversial”, and “offensive”? Is that the opinion of the Islamist State?
Simply put, this is censorship. This is the New York Times crowing about censorship. But not just that. It is much worse than that. It goes down two circles of horror, as Dante would say.
The New York Times pontificates that the victim, Freedom of Expression, is “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”.
If the victim was from rape, the New York Times, thanks to its saurian brain, would know it’s not “cool” (“cool” is the ultimate expression in Silicon Valley) to accuse the victim to be “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”. It would not be “Politically Correct”.
That’s what “Political Correctness” is all about: faking thinking. Actually attacking Freedom of Expression is worse than rape or simple murder, even mass murder, as it enables ALL forms of violence, lethal or not.
Attacking Freedom of Expression is a direct attack against civilization. Indeed, civilization is all about minds meeting and debating: there is both its attraction and its advantage.
Neither meeting, nor debating, can be without Free Expression.
Censorship is why the New York Times has put me officially on a watch list, for years and blocks so many of my comments, that I am reading the paper less and less. [Although a NYT subscriber for decades] I am officially ”not trusted”. If the New York Times officially does not trust me, why should I trust it?
A dictator dictates. This is exactly what the New York Times does. It dictates what it thinks its commenters should say. I said recently something technical about Stoic Philosophy, following an ignorant article in the New York Times. I was censored. Because it’s an outrage to roll out information showing the NYT does not know what it is talking about.
And there is a difference between my comments and the NYT propaganda: when I said, for example in 2003, that the New York Times was lying about Iraq, I had detailed arguments (later proven right, as the NYT invented facts about Iraq, repeating just what Bush wanted it to say). The New York Times has never told me ONCE why any of my comments was blocked. I actually believe that such a behavior violates one the foundations of democracy, equal speech, and ought to be illegal.
After all, the New York Times is officially recognized, as all newspapers are. This makes it, to some extent, as all employees of newspapers and magazines, officially recognized agents of the state.
As such, it, and all newspapers and magazines, as state sanctioned professional organizations, ought to enforce democracy. In particular, not violate it.
All the work of Charlie Hebdo, and other satirical media was, and is, meant to be controversial and offensive.
Socrates was controversial and offensive. He died from it. He died, for it.
Self-satisfied censorship is exactly why the USA is intellectually second rate, and always will be, as long as this attitude persists.
A FEW MORE REFLEXIONS:
The next day a French born policewoman was killed deliberately in a terrorist incident involving a similar, heavily armed terrorist (she was hit three times, in the back).
Bernard Maris, also assassinated at Charlie Hebdo, was long a member of the group “Attaque”, and was stridently anti-liberal. He wrote columns in the press, including CH. A prominent shareholder of Charlie Hebdo, Maris was also a member of the Banque de France board (since 2011). So progressive, anti-plutocratic forces lost a strong advocate.
Recent attacks in the West by Qur’an inspired terrorists were from individuals who had been actively prevented to go to join the war in Syria. One may therefore wonder if that is a good strategy. Instead Denmark helps to recondition those who have been there illegally.
Recently Daesh/Islamic State executed more than 100 of its own foreign fighters. They had committed the crime of wanting to return home. So obviously, they had come to disagree with the whole Islamist terror thing.
One can deduce from this that it may be better to not be so strident, and effective at preventing disgruntled youth to go fight there. Or just to go there.
Instead, why not let them examine the situation for themselves? Those who go help the like of the Islamist State ought to be seriously prosecuted, but only if they commit serious crimes. They should also be supported if they want to be re-instated in the West. (Some of the most experienced Secret Service types share this opinion.)
Here some more of the Financial Times prose on Charlie Hebdo: “Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.”
Editorial foolishness!
Financial Times’ Barber pursued: “This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”
At least two of the people assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were “Muslim”: the police officer who rushed to the rescue of Freedom of Expression, and one of the authors and journalists of Charlie Hebdo. Apparently those two did not feel threatened by Charlie Hebdo, but, instead, collaborated with it so bravely that they risked their lives.
Claiming, as the Financial Times does, that provoking dangerous fanatics is provoking all Muslims, means that the Financial Times view all Muslims as dangerous fanatics. That’s sheer racism.
OBAMA IS NOT CHARLIE:
This is from a speech the president delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2012:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Notice the totally obscene confusion: the Holocaust was the deliberate assassination of more than a dozen million people for so-called “racial” reasons (it’s not just the so-called “Jews” who were killed). Destruction of property, or desecration and slander, especially of people dead for more than a millennium, do not compare.
By pontificating that saying something not kosher, in the eyes of some beholder, about the so-called “Prophet” is in the same category as the killing of millions, Obama has clearly gone to the Dark Side. Or maybe his speechwriters, and he had no idea, or comprehension about what he was reading like a parrot.
Obama is supposed to defend Freedom of Expression. Instead he defended fanaticism of the worst type. So Charlie slandered, in the eyes of some beholders, and in the eyes of Obama, a guy long dead. And the president of the USA insinuates that the slandering of one long dead, is like being an accomplice to the killing of millions. So now the bullets fly.
Who is culprit? These ignorant youth, who were orphans, seized by a giant propaganda machine, or the much respected Nobel Peace Prize, much adulated throughout the West, supposedly defending civilization while talking like a fanatic from the Middle Ages? Who caused what? Who is the most despicable?
Patrice Ayme’
Tags: Ahmed Merabet, Censorship, Charlie Hebdo, Financial Times, New York Times, Obama
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
January 9, 2015 at 3:33 am |
like substance addiction, religious extremism is a mental disease. Its even more potent and dangerous addiction, sheeple willingly give up their lives.
In 50-100yrs i believe this will be medically labelled as such, by medical experts (with science aid). May be then, we can commit all these idiots to mental hospitals.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 12:15 am |
Well, they just believe what’s in a book, supposedly communicated through Gabriel, and then the “Messenger”… We have to make them read other books… Unfortunately, I do not believe that’s insanity. The orders apparently came from Al Qaeda in Yemen (one of the terrorists was heard saying, and that’s confirmed by USA Secret Services).
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 3:24 am |
its not insanity, but a deadly variant of addiction. Some kind of mental affliction.
“make them” ? did you ever try talking to a hardcore religious nut(s) ? At least for substance addiction we can do some sort of intervention. Its much worse, as big as god. logic doesn’t work with them.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 3:38 am |
I talked with a middle age, an attractive USA implanted European blonde over the Solstice. My daughter had befriended hers. I was intrigued by her faith, which she had loudly advertised at the outset. She bluntly told me in French that Satan was everywhere, ready to pounce. She believed it. I had a strange impression to be back to the time of First Crusade… I made such a strange face, involuntarily, that was the last I saw of her.
Weirdly, in all my years in Africa and the Sahara, I met people of faith, driven by their humanistic practice, but never fanatics. I met fanatics in the USA, and they have appeared in Europe, both Muslims, and Jews… And even now Catholics. Methinks they need to all go back in the burrows they come from.
I have a feeling it’s all driven by an intellectual fashion which deems honorable to be a religious fanatic (and some are Buddhist… Not just Zen, but say Tibetan, of which there are variants that are pretty satanic, to put it bluntly).
So yes, hard to talk to them. But I believe they are all liars. They all know, deep down, that their faith is hogwash. What drives them is murder rage. That’s what truly drives them.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 4:22 am
“deep down” they believe it 100%, i dont think they think its hogwash. Infact, I think they are probably the most honest, no hypocrisy, they do what they believe…no two ways about it.
Like everything this is not black/white, but there are some who really believe the 72 virgins, as real as their life.
As for buddhist or zen, there is no “god” in their writings, and they are encouraged, actively, to not believe in anything. It is part of the teachings, direct from horse mouth (budha, that is).
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 4:30 am
Replied on independent thread. Why we know they are lying.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 3:55 pm |
What book do they believe in? DSDM5? Yes, the compulsion to medicalise all human states is definitely an epidemic among psychologists and psychoatrists. Soon, “Intellectual Self-Righteousness” will be listed as a mental disorder in the book too and then what we all do? 🙂
Or maybe you were talking about another book that people live their lives by?
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 6:42 pm |
Political Correctness is, indeed, a mental disease. It’s up there with the related “Turn-The-Other-Cheek”. Both are subsets of BAD FAITH.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Yes, although the point I was making was that we have people too whose whole lives are ruled by words from a book. When diagnosing mental disorders psychiatrists use the DSM, a book containing the words of lore that they follow to the letter (or get booted out).
Similarly, lawyers and accountants refer to books of words for their guidance. Never mind common sense, never mind humanity, if the Book of Rules says you transgressed, then you have and will be punished. Most (all?) professions have their “Bible”, practicioners will even call it that – only half jokingly.
Laws are words, when a book of law states the rules are that a certain person is not entitled to state help and that person starves to death (as has happened in the UK) then they all say “but we were only following what the book says”.
The compulsion to cast agency and responsibility for ones actions onto a higher agency (including magical books of laws) is endemic in all cultures, not just Islam.
It is good that there are people such as yourself and those who comment here, who at least strive to get beyond that!
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 12:27 am
Yes, it’s the difference between intellectual fascism (“following the Book”), and intellectual creativity (writing tomorrow’s Book). We are forced to come up with better books. Right now, PM Cameron is crowing with his book, and the GDP growth supporting it. And he has got half a point…
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 9:47 am |
The mumbo-jumbo about “offensive” cartoonists bringing their fate upon themselves reminds me of the creepy old judges declaring that a woman had been deserving rape because of the way she dressed.
These fools are not only offensive, they are evil. And in the same league, in many many ways, as the terrorists.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 12:13 am |
I view them as causative, thus, more culprit. There was NO Salafist madness in, say, 1950. By inventing the very concept of “Islamophobia”, and implementing countless similar propaganda strategies, the present situation was created.
But, as I hinted in today’s essay, the attack against the REPUBLIC was led by the plutocrats… Salafists are just coming into the breach…
BTW, the little war against Marine Le Pen is perfectly idiotic (as a former bomb target and victim from “Ordre Nouveau”, I cannot be suspected to be in love with the FN extremists…) The FN ought to be invited on Sunday.
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm |
Dear Patrice, i have to tell you a joke about political correctness;
A famous politician dies and reaches the desk of angel Gabriel. Gabriel says to him, since you, as most of the politicians were corrupt, you are intended for hell, to a place specially built for politicians. But since you reached such a celebrity statues, i will do to you an exception, and you can choose between three alternative chambers. In the first one you will be torched in eternal fire, in the second you will be frozen naked in an eternally ice, and in the third room you will be in a mildly tempered smelly liquid. So which option you choose?
The famous politician, who was used to make decisions without to much thinking has chosen immediately the third room. So he was mediately escorted to a room with a big pool full of people standing up to their chin in a yellow-brownish, horrible smelling dens liquid with brown unformed solids floating on the surface, which the people in the pool try to blow away.
As our politician is forced to enter the pool, all the people in the pool as one man cry out, “Don’t make waves”.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 12:05 am |
Seems to me, that, after living in rot all their lives, most politicians cleanse themselves just that way…;-)
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm |
FWIW :
Not to mention all-too many interesting reactions in/from “social media”, ranging from plain approval to milder “yes, but they deserved it/they’ve learned their lesson/…”
with the end of the hostage situations, the shooting has stopped; May 1968 has been put down like a dog by the “new France”, literally speaking; now, what?
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm |
Even a non-trivial part of run-of-the-mill “liberals” or “progressives” commenting online seems to have some difficulties “getting” France, the French, Charlie-Hebdo,… and are stuck in their paradigm (France is racist against its Muslims, France discriminates, France is antisemitic, CH was homophobic,…); then again, they are from the supposed “Anglosphere”, and the swellest trick the “Anglosphere” managed to perform since the 60’s, was to largely swap labor struggle, class issues, living issues,… for “identity politics”, “minorities right”,.. as you noted in a recent essay. And the French “left” is not far behind that.
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 11:48 pm |
Yes, a paradox is that the Anglosphere has rolled the French left in flour, and then fried it. Starting in the 1950s. Same with Arendt, by the way (“Banality of Evil”).
Most French have (some) Jewish ancestors, and many French have (some) North African ancestors. “Racial”, “religious” and “ethnic” tolerance was invented by the Romans, and the Franks, once given military command in 400 CE, and political command by 486 CE, pursued that global tolerance:
By 600 CE all inhabitants of Francia (that covered Gallia and much of the Germanias) were “Franks” (including Pagans and Jews).
France has a very strong multicultural deep mix, and racism there, in France, cannot exist significantly. I was listening to a German expert saying just this on German TV, and comparing favorably France to the not-very-well-integrated situation in Deutschland…
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 5:11 pm |
So, 2017 = Marine vs. Sarkocu, with security issues and all at the center of the stage, and all the rest forgotten, with the candidate of the US deep state victorious pour se goinfrer a little more?
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 11:38 pm |
Looks like Jeb Bush may well receive Marine at the WH… I am shocked with equating Le Pen with Allah knows what. Same thing with Lafargues of UKIP in Britain. After all, they are Euro MPs…
Seriously, in the case of Bush, there is no proof, whatsoever, that he would be to the right of Clinton, or Obama. Alas. Far from it. I would be ready to bet that, just as Bush Senior (who nationalized thousands of banks), he would prove to the left (even W Bush is to the left of Obama, astoundingly).
And the witch hunt after Marine/Jehanne of Arc, can only backfire: she is a lawyer, after all (besides sitting in the Euro Parliament for years).
LikeLike
January 9, 2015 at 11:36 pm |
If we have “free speech”, surely The Times shouldn’t have removed comments by Tony Barber just because they offended people?
This highlights the paradox about free speech and censorship. We still have taboos and boundaries about what can and can’t be said. There is not really free speech and the fact that Tony Barbers comments were withdrawn shows this.
Now our prime minister and Jesus have become safe targets in the UK. Albeit in relatively recent times, we do not have a long history of free speech and democracy in the UK. The people were only given votes and rights we had when our rulers realised they had so much power, our votes and most of what we said could not possibly change anything.
Political correctness means it is impossible in mainstream media to say anything even remotely negative about a variety of subjects – such as homosexuality, women, the disabled and race.
The irony about Charlie Hebdo, is that if you asked your typical Daily Mail reading, Tory English people about it just one week ago, you’d find more than a few keen to close it down because they *hate* left wing satire. Yet as a result of these past 2 days, right now, the same people would willingly nuke the entire muslim world. Don’t tell them the editor was a communist…
Free speech is actually largely irrelevant. In one hour today, I could find half a dozen fascinating articles on the Middle East over the past 100 years, many by scholars, diplomats (not New World Order conspiracy loons!). All filling in the all important “Errors of Omission” that our media engages in. The masses have memories shorter than goldfishes, forget to tell them of any thing prior to the last episode of X Factor and they will never know.
For example, in online comments, I read several times people saying that it’s “nothing to do with the west” as these Muslims have been killing each other in civil wars for hundreds of years. In contrast to Christians who, despite a dubious beginning, left all that long behind at he enlightenment hundreds of years ago. As if the troubles in Ireland in the 1970’s and 1980’s where Protestants and Catholics murdered and bombed each other weekly never happened! (and it hasn’t really gone away, the slightest trigger could start it again).
And wasn’t both WW1 and WW2 predominantly various Christians killing each other by the million? Christianity, the religion of peace!
So we have free speech, but you have to actively search for it, because only half the story will ever be on TV, on the BBC or in The Times (UK or NY). And with only that half, you get people totally mystified as to “why would they do such a thing?” As you’ve written Patrice, the roots of the current surge of violence go way back to the US and Russian involvement in Afghanistan… before the dawn of time for most people.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 1:28 am |
Dear Hazxan: 1) On Charlie Hebdo: the people who were assassinated were all very nice guys, pacifists. The most extreme of them all was the economist Maris, and he was on the Banque de France board (certainly pushing for easing). Maris was a more important economist than Piketty.
2) On Britain: after Williame I of Normandy invaded in 1066 CE, having freed the slaves, he built a democratic system, with a direct oath between king and People. The democratization was pursued when Montford tried to be elected king, and endowed the Parliament with increased powers.
3) However, during the “Glorious Revolution” a solid plutocracy took power, and has had it ever since. As it held firmly power, it escaped the revolutions of the late 18C. The “House of Lords” is a living shame…
4) Christianism was pretty much killed as a political force by the Enlightenment… Although one of its death spasms was the Spanish Civil War… And the somewhat grotesque situation in Ireland (the long term consequence of a badly done, to put it mildly…
colonization…)
5) So what was Nazism about? Pretty much pieces of old systems of thoughts and moods, many imprinted, indeed, by Christianity. But, by then, the brain of the snake had been pretty much crushed… The hydra was still active, with its poisonous tentacles, and venomous mouths. But it had lost bodily integrity.
6) The main victims of the Muhammad cult and fanaticism are its perpetrators and participants. As killing in the name of “slander” and “insults” against it is kosher, fashionable, PC, those accusations are hurled one way and another, and viewed justifying mayhem, killing. This MOOD has to be killed. Thus, Charlie Hebdo was the main defender of Muslims, as it tried to weaken, through satire, this LETHAL mood which kills Muslims… First.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 4:19 pm |
Thanks Patrice, I admit to never having heard of Charlie Hebdo till 2 days ago. I guess most in the UK and USA would be the same. I do not hold CHarlie Hebdo at fault in any way. One thing that continually baffles me about the psychopathic bad-guys of all creeds – that they always seem to hurt the innocent and good. Why don’t they attack those more directly responsible for their plight?
I don’t doubt that some similar psycopaths in the west have not been up to dirty tricks in the Middle East – but the majority of the population never did support that (so much for our pale imitation of real democracy). Why don’t the terrorists go for those directly responsible? Politicians and military targets who made those bad decisions against the will of their people.
Right now, the general public mood, driven by emotion rather than reason, is nasty, support for military action has dramatically increased., They forget that this current wave started with the reaction to 9/11 in the first place.
People were becoming more aware of Saudi Arabia and Wahhibism as the real medieval poison. More aware that our governments have ordered atrocities and almost certainly war crimes. My worry is that all that will be forgetting and once again we have been told to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, instead mindlessly declaring war on over 2 billion muslims.
Agreed on the Spanish Civil War and Ireland. However, I think humans have a vacuum waiting to be filled by some belief system. Many thinkers suggest that money, or perhaps even science fill that vacuum and effectively become dogmatic religions. Science is in a bad way right now – producing the results that big money wants. Free Market fundamentalism is another new religion.
To me, the real divide in the world is not Islam vs The Rest or Islam vs Secularism. Fundamentalist Islam seems politically right wing, which is probably why our leaders have generally supported those fanatics. The real ideological divide is those who believe business exists to serve the people vs those who believe the people exist to serve business.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 4:33 am |
@ Josh: “BuddhismS”: Many variants. Satanic variants of the Dalai Lama’s faith exist.
Why are fanatics so angry when we contradict them? Maybe I should write an essay on that. The idea was blocked by a professional philosophy site. That has got to mean it’s dangerous, thus excellent.
It’s because they lie. To themselves.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 5:27 am |
agree extremists exist everywhere, including some buddhists.
The extremists i came across do not lie about their beliefs, they do tell some lies (heck, what are those infront of giving one’s life).
They (most, depending on how hardcore) believe in it 100%…i do not think they think they are lying to themselves. What makes you think they have any kind of doubts in their beliefs.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 6:38 pm |
My argument, which I am putting in an essay, is that everybody knows enough right now to know their own PROCLAIMED religion is not the only truth, and actually can be demonstrated, from others’ point of view, to be outright false. People are too exposed to the world, geography, history, and the practice of evidence (for example, hundreds of millions of women drive without adverse consequences).
It’s not so much INDIVIDUAL Buddhists who are a problem: Zen Buddhist is not much of a problem (nor an asset). Even Tibetan Buddhism, mainstream, although perfused with grotesque superstition, is rather innocuous. It’s a less well known branch, which has a very dark streak.
The same is true with Islam. Frankly, the Islam I knew, variants of Sufism, is a DIFFERENT religion from Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia) or Salafism in general.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 10:15 pm |
well, at the end of the day we all operate is some “state”…be it science/logical, sufi/mystical, zen, or pick your religion.
The problem is with “extremists” who think they know everything, and try to dictate how the world needs to be, and do not hesitate to enforce their version. Even some so called scientists/philosophers are guilty of this.
It becomes deadly when these extremists start pissing in the common-pond, so to speak. This is no different than any other sort of crime(s) against society or humanity.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 12:24 am
Latest essay, posted minutes ago, is sort of an answer to you. It’s not about “extremist” individuals, but extremist SYSTEMS OT THOUGHT.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 7:30 am |
It seems when militant group of people, indoctrinated by totalitarian religion or ideology appear in the scene of history, liberal political and juridical system has no tools to oppose it, unless it adopts less liberal policy. And here we have conflict between two wishes, the first-to sustain liberal society and the second-personal security.
At eve of second world war, France and partly England had the same problem with the Nazi Germany. At 1935 they could easily solve the German problem by deposing Hitler who openly and provocatively broke the Versailles agreement. They did not do it, even if they had clear indication about psychotic- aggressive intentions of Hitler, and his and his regimes murderous character and acts where openly exposed to all.
Other problem is that these totalitarian religions or ideologies have wide support among people who live in a collectives in crisis. This crisis may be economical, social, or cultural, which is accompanied by collective subjective feeling of injustice inflated by conspiracy theories. The Muslim population, living in the Muslim countries (except of few exceptions) definitely live in situation of political, economical, social but also cultural crisis of identity and self confidence. It seems their cultural crisis continues in some among them, even when they live in a non Muslim liberal-democratic country.
a. Political failure of Muslim state politicians is so colossal that there is no need to add any comment on it.
b. Social crisis is also phenomenal. Phenomena as slavery that still persists in some Muslim countries, the intentional intellectual and social subordination of women to man, practically non existent middle class, no tolerance and no respect towards the other, be it other gender, other religion, or other sect in the Muslim religion all this persist in the Muslim world.
c. Economically none of the Muslim countries could cope the economic success of the Asian Tigers. Even the oil exporting countries with huge income and accumulated wealth also failed to create functional economy based on skilled and educated labor (except of Malaysia and Indonesia). Most of their working population are foreign workers without any basic rights, just one step in a better state than slaves.
d. The last but not the least is the cultural failure. The Muslim fundamentalists, (according to the results in free elections following the Arab spring it seems the majority in the Arab world are religious fundamentalists), who are stuck in their religious cultural values, try to fight the modern, liberal values that are based on rationality, scientific research and critical thinking by force and violence, since they have no tools and no intellectual arguments to oppose the so called Western view of world. viz;
Islam, as all the monotheistic religions is based on dogmas. This by itself wouldn’t be devastating, if not the need of every faithful Muslim (and this applies historically also for Christians) to be a missionary and try to spread their faith among everyone, and if necessary by force. The Muslim missionary failed of course, since more Muslims, mainly the educated elites leave the faith than join it, (if they are not forced under threat of severe penalties to stick to their religion).
I wonder what will be the response of European politicians to the last events in France. I believe, if even now no action will be taken, and as always they will sweep the problem under the carpet, the more radical politicians will take the power, and we have experienced already what they are capable of.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 4:40 pm |
Euegen, I agree with most of what you say, particularly the paradox of a liberalism having to be less liberal in the face of threats. Being tolerant of everything except intolerance is dangerous as these are subjective terms. Particularly as we are mostly blind to our own cultural intolerance, while simmering with righteous indignation at the intolerance of others. Morals change over time, acceptable becomes unacceptable and vice-versa.
I disagree that *this* is all about Islam expansionism. Everything you say about Islam also applies to fundamentalist Neo-Liberalism. It is capitalism that has to expand, always seeking new markets and cheap labour when it has used up the last lot.
We already had a knee jerk, aggressive reaction post 9/11 and look where that got us. The war on terror has failed., It’s main flaw being that it did not specifically target and bring to justice the actual perpetrators and their funders. Instead became indiscriminate attacks on anyone “we don’t like the look of” (or more specifically “will not do business on our terms”). 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, Saudi Arabia with a far worse human rights record than Iraq yet not targetted. Instead going next door to the dictator who was sounding far too “socialist” for our owners liking.
We need to target the perpetrators and their funders only. I’m not confident this will happen because I suspect closer links between the wealthy on all sides than they would like us to know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2015 at 6:57 pm |
Dear Hazxan, I do agree with most of what you wrote and would like to comment too. The second Iraqi war was caused by the stupidity and ignorance of US leadership in charge at the time. Unfortunately democratic political system does not makes any exams to who can be president, like it is done to many high skiled professions. I would definitly demand from all the candidates for US presidency, to make exams in history, geography, law, and economics. Then the result would be exposed to the public and lets hope it will help to the population inprove their choice. I am quite sure Bush junior would get very bad marks.
As to the capitalism, this system has many foults. I would mention only some of them, like need of continuous expansion, without to consider cost effectiveness from global perspective. The result is the environment catastrophe we are heading toward, and there is no one to push the brakes. Other problem is the process of concentration of wealth and political power in hands of very few at times of peace and tranquility. Usually only at times of big crisis like, war, economic colaps, revolution, etc. , happens major shift in the wealth division.
As to the Islamic expansianism, I do agree that it is not unique to the Islam, yet, the Islam is the only global cultural phenomenon in the present time that uses violence as legitimate tool for its policy of expansionism.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 7:39 pm |
Dear Eugen: Some remarks in passing. We don’t need no president. We NEED DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
One guy is just one brain. He is not a debate. Culture progresses from debate.
Obama is actually smarter and much more cultured than the average politician. But he has Political Correctness and greed, like some have cancer and tuberculosis at the same time.
“Capital” is closely tied, although more fundamental than, civilization. No capital, no civilization. However, there are many capital, thus capitalism.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 12:05 am
I have to disagree with you about the direct democracy. Direct democracy is possible only in local level and not in a level of big states. More than that i do not believe in the wisdom of the masses, as some obscure decision making theories claim. The masses at the end have tendency to turn to certain authority to lead them, when the situation is becoming to unstable and insecure, and we are back in the worst form of political leadership. To make right political decisions, the decision making must be aware of existence of realities as long term processes and not a stand still state, that can be changed in one immediate step. How many among the masses understand this? Even the educated ones not necessarily are aware of this.
I deeply believe in knowledge and wisdom, but i am not sure even a highly professional scientist is aware of the problematics of political and historical processes, knowledge that is necessary to formulate right opinnion in the major political issues.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 12:15 am
Answered in separate comment, to avoid nestling… And unreadable comments.
Well, so you agree with Qur’an S4, v59? (see latest essay… an answer to Josh, BTW…).
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm |
Dear Eugen: As I documented thoroughly, the attitude of France and Britain or the USA were completely different, and opposed. Britain signed a military treaty with Hitler in 1935. It violated the Versailles Treaty. France announced she was going to war against Hitler in 1936, because of his invasion of Spain. However, the UK and the USA blocked France, accusing her of war mongering.
This is important to understand.
LikeLike
January 10, 2015 at 7:24 pm |
It is also well known that Hitler was afraid of the French reaction when his army marched to Rhineland. But France has done nothing. Hitler then concluded that the liberal democratic countries can’t act and oppose him since they are driven by economic interests of Plutocracy, with them he cooperated. The result was, he started his policy of mass murdering. Eventually he started with population in mental hospitals. It remains me some happenings in Syria, Iraq, etc.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 12:21 am |
@ Eugen: So you don’t believe in democracy?
Hmmm… Because that’s what you say, or what others, who are against direct democracy, say.
… Just reflect about it for a moment. How are the great minds of wisdom supposed to come to the fore and guide us? Do we really need a guide? (I am sure you know what’s the translation of “Guide” in Deutsch… :-(…)
This requires me to scramble another essay… 😉
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 1:57 am |
Patrice, what really is “Democracy”? All my life, every day, it was programmed into me that we had a “democracy” that it was a rare and special thing that meant we lived in the best of possible worlds. Even that those who didn’t have this Democracy should be bombed and crushed until the had this Democracy whether they chose it or not (we chose it for them – begin to see the paradox?)
As I got older, I found situations where the majority did not know best, where one or two knew so much more than the rest, thay to decide democratically would always result in a worse outcome. The horror! Questioning the unquestionable.
I would much prefer direct democracy on specific issues rather than the pathetic representative liars charter we have now. But still. there is no such thing as “the wisdom” of the crowd, only the “herd mentality” of the crowd.
“None of us is as stupid as all of us”.
The key isn’t whether how we should all behave is determined by a dictator or by the herd, but acceptance of difference.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 3:02 am |
Dear Hazxan: You and Eugen are determined to throw the gauntlet at me! I must admit it’s easy to vaporize with wrath those who profess to embrace the Bible, Mein Kampf, the Qur’an, etc. But there is no book called “Democracy”, so we may not know what we are talking about…
I am going to get in gear. However the “madness of the crowd” critique leaves me cold. Most crowds were manipulated by a few. Another case of crowds is fighting crowds. I have been in some (complete with tear gas). Fighting is what crowds are meant to do, instinctually speaking.
The key, for me is not to accept difference. I don’t accept that people get their heads chopped off, legally, if they suggest some guy dead 12 centuries has dogs peeing on him. I don’t accept Auschwitz. Nor a difference in sea level. Or CO2 density. Or Gates overlording.
The key for me is HUMAN ETHOLOGY and DEBATE.
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 1:35 am |
Interesting example of the contradictions of “free speech” as practiced in the UK. Free to criticise *them*, just be very careful what you say about *us*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-who-said-all-soldiers-should-die-and-go-to-hell-on-facebook-is-spared-jail-8203832.html
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 4:19 am |
I read it, again and again. I’m surprised he got condemned, be it only by considering he took out the message after he realized how offended some people were. I have myself been highly critical to some of the soldiery sent without rhyme or reason to Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of my rhetoric on that has not been too far (although I hardly qualify as anti-Western!).
Whereas invading Afghanistan was OK, at the time of the initial assault, up to and including Tora Bora, after a while it clearly degenerated.
Moreover, the most offending sentence could easily be reinterpreted in a somewhat innocuous/religious way. His lawyer was not too good, or on the take…
LikeLike
January 11, 2015 at 6:03 am |
[Sent to New York Times, January 10, 2015.]
This assault is new, because it’s a naked attack on Freedom of Expression. It was designed that way.
It is designed to make everybody terrified to say, or draw anything against, or about Islam. Or about anything that some feudal regimes in Arabia call Islam.
Islam was a small target within Charlie Hebdo’s satire; and some of the drawings were totally innocuous, not offensive at all, just amusing. The Catholic Church, over the years, was more of a target for amusement.
Interviewed by TV during their rampage, the two Charlie Hebdo terrorists calmly said that they had been trained and sent by Al Qaeda in Yemen, specifically to kill Charlie Hebdo, an attack long prepared.
The real counter-offensive, the real protection of democracy, and civilization, is to tell the truth, and educate people about what really happened. What’s called “Islam” is actually just one variant among one hundred, or so, interpretations of the events which led to “Islam”. However it is the one that the Saudi dictatorship uses to its own profit.
It is vital for the Saudis to use their oil money to foster a version of Islam which was basically found only in Arabia fifty years ago. The truth shall not just make us free, but make us safe.
LikeLike
May 12, 2022 at 3:25 am |
No future to those who slander the Prophet?
What a sicko!
That Obama is straight out of the Middle Ages
LikeLike
May 13, 2022 at 10:21 am |
Indeed…
LikeLike