Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Shooting at satirical magazine office in Paris

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 216
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jul 2013, 05:04
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 07 Jan 2015, 20:50
At least twelve people are dead following a shooting at the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Quote:
(Reuters) - Hooded gunmen stormed the Paris offices of a weekly satirical magazine known for lampooning Islam and other religions, shooting dead at least 12 people, including two police officers, in the worst militant attack on French soil in decades.

One of the assailants was captured on video outside the building shouting "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Greatest) as shots rang out. Another walked over to a police officer lying wounded on the street and shot him point-blank with an assault rifle, before the two calmly climbed into a black car and drove off.

A police union official said the assailants - Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said there were three in total - remained at liberty and there were fears of further attacks. The official described the scene in the offices as carnage.


You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/ ... Y120150107
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Jan 2015, 01:49
We talked about Charlie Hebdo in 2012:

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=52872

They were not bad people, but when they felt that they were running out of money, they often published a horrendous caricature of Prophet Muhammad. I'm not against mocking Islam, but sometimes it's just too much, especially when the far right is already doing the job... Now they are dead.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9328
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 08:02
Were the caricatures the magazine published even funny? I ask this because even though when we speak of the dead it should be either good things or nothing, the magazine's editor said of the magazine's conflict with Islamists that the goal was to "disarm them through humor." That probably doesn't work very well not just when the people you align yourself against don't have much of a sense of humor, but also, when your jokes aren't very funny, such as the stuff I've seen republished in the media so far.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Jan 2015, 12:47
They were renowned and talented cartoonists who often draw for our newspaper L'Humanité. But quite often their cartoons were de mauvais goût. A few minutes before beeing killed, they published this on twitter:

Image


[New Year wishes. Al Baghdadi too] "And above all, a good health."

I don't know how to translate that accurately, but in France the tradition is to whish a happy new year (Bonne année) and a good health (bonne santé). In itself it's a good cartoon, but since blaming Islam had became their profession, it was maybe a bit too much. And by the will of Allah, and Al-Baghdadi, they all died a few minutes after that. Isn't that comic? They became their own caricature.

I don't praise them. They died because of their own stupidity. 3 policemen died too, and a worker. One of the policemen was a Muslim. This is the most tragic, and the most heroic: this man died to defend the rights of those guys who insulted so much his religion.

Thousands of people went down in the street to say "We are all Charlie Hebdo", although they never bought the newspaper and never liked it. Hypocrisy.

I was so glad to read this article. What a relief! At least someone dared.

FRANCE
Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr
By Bruce Crumley Nov. 02, 201171 Comments



A police officer stands in front of the headquarters of satiric French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, where a fire broke out overnight, November 2, 2011. (Photo: Thibault Camus / AP)


Quote:
Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Though police say they still don’t know who staged the apparent strike, the (sorry) inflammatory religious theme of the new edition has virtually everyone suspecting Muslim extremists were responsible. Which, frankly, is exactly why it’s hard not to feel it’s the kind of angry response–albeit in less destructive form– Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. What was the point otherwise? Yet rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies. In doing so they weren’t entirely alone. Muslim leaders in France and abroad also stepped up to condemn the action–though not without duly warning people to wait for police to identify the perpetrators before assigning guilt, especially via association.

The reasons for such concern were as obvious as the suspicions about who had staged the strike: the coarse and heavy-handed Islamist theme of the current edition of Charlie Hebdo. As part of its gag, the paper had re-named itself “Sharia Hebdo”. It also claimed to have invited Mohammed as its guest editor to “celebrate the victory” of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia’s first free elections last week. In addition to satirical articles on Islam-themed topics, the paper contains drawings of Mohammed in cartoons featuring Charlie Hebdo’s trademark over-the-top (and frequently not “ha-ha funny”) humor. The cover, for example, features a crudely-drawn cartoon of the Prophet saying “100 Whip Lashes If You Don’t Die Of Laughter.” Maybe you had to be there when it was first sketched.

If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’ face it, just plain lame) Mohammed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. As intended, those produced outrage–and at times violent reaction–from Muslims around the world (not to mention repeated terror plots to kill illustrators responsible for the drawings). Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists. After it’s 2007 reprinting of those, Charlie Hebdo was acquitted by a French court on inciting racial hatred charges lodged by French Islamic groups over those and other caricatures—including one run as the paper’s cover cartoon depicting Mohammed complaining “It’s Hard To Be Loved By (expletives)”. When it comes to Islam, Charlie Hebdo has a million of ‘em—but they’re all generally as weak as they are needlessly provocative.

Editors, staff, fans, and apologists of Charlie Hebdo have repeatedly pointed out that the paper’s take-no-prisoners humor spares no religion, political party, or social group from its questionable humor. They’ve also tended to defend the publication during controversy as a kind of gut check of free society: a media certain to anger, infuriate, and offend just about everybody at some point or another. As such, Charlie Hebdo has cultivated its insolence proudly as a kind of public duty—pushing the limits of freedom of speech, come what may. But that seems more self-indulgent and willfully injurious when it amounts to defending the right to scream “fire” in an increasingly over-heated theater.

Why? Because like France’s 2010 law banning the burqa in public (and earlier legislation prohibiting the hijab in public schools), the nation’s government-sponsored debates on Islam’s place in French society all reflected very real Islamophobic attitudes spreading throughout society. Indeed, such perceived anti-Muslim action has made France a point of focus for Islamist radicals at home and abroad looking to harp on new signs of aggression against Islam. It has also left France’s estimated five million Muslims feeling stigmatized and singled out for discriminatory treatment—a resentment that can’t be have been diminished by seeing Charlie Hebdo’s mockery of Islam “just for fun” defended as a hallowed example of civil liberty by French pols. It’s yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today’s arson, but both the paper’s current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike. It’s all so unnecessary.

It’s obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it’s just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they’re committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it’s just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo’s current edition is all of the above, too.


http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebo ... amophobia/
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 08 Jan 2015, 13:51
The reaction is hypocritical. Newspapers all over Europe are running cover stories that they're "all Charlie Hebdo", others are blacking out their own cartoons sections in protest, and so on. In reality, none of them are even remotely "Charlie Hebdo". Their opinion sections are always full of hand-wringing about what forms of speech are "acceptable" and whether offensive speech should be restricted. Cartoonists, columnists and comedians openly say that they are reluctant to make fun of Islam or Muslims.

I don't really have an opinion about these "issues" (really only issues for those working in media) either way, but it's amazingly hypocritical how they're now trying to align themselves with the "martyrs of free speech". As if every single media publication has always unwaveringly backed even the most offensive speech, as if they hold the monopoly on criticising or satirising religion. On any other day of the week, they wouldn't touch a magazine like Charlie Hebdo with a bargepole, except to denounce it.

The PM of the Netherlands and the mayor of Amsterdam are set to address a protest in defence of Charlie Hebdo today. All sorts of people are going to stand there saying "We're all Charlie Hebdo", but the only grain of truth to that is that we don't even have a magazine like Charlie Hebdo, so I guess our way of being edgy is through solidarity with foreign magazines.

As for the attack itself, well, in the words of Sir Paul, "A drag isn't it?" I mean, people can pretend to be angry, sad, or nuanced about it on the internet, but at the end of the day, life goes on. The second story on the Mail website (okay, easy pickings) is "Kim Kardashian flashes glimpse of world famous derriere in VERY low slung jeans as she and Kanye West jet out of LA". There is a helpful webshop link in the article if you want to buy her £600 leather jacket. Nothing has changed for the vast majority of European people who neither read Charlie Hebdo nor are associated with it in any other way.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 08 Jan 2015, 19:37
2,000-3,000 people protesting in my city are apparently also all "Charlie Hebdo". There hasn't been a protest of more than 100 people in this city in 3 or 4 years. Mental.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 20:38
I am getting quite fed up with the spineless and reactionary British media with the coverage of the killing spree, like rats on the Titanic they are all trying to show themselves to be the biggest protectors of free speech, when in reality there is no such thing - in today's media world there are just profits, shareholders and political allegiances (mostly to the Tories and the krypto-fash kippers) that have to be served. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they will all unanimously complain that the "political Left has failed to protect and reinforce civil liberties for the last 10 years" (WHAT BLOODY POLITICAL LEFT IN BRITAIN!?) and praise the work of "intelligence agencies" that have always been opposed to the very fragging idea of civil liberty to prevent our brave journalists to publish untruths, politically correct (according to their own political party's allegiance) editorials and lazy journalism. There are only 2 papers that actively investigate anything at all: The Graun and the Morning Star. Both accused by tin-hat right-wingers of setting the supposed "liberal agenda", when they are the only papers who publish anything that punches up (The authoritarian right own a practical monopoly on press media here anyway, so this is ignored for stories about celebrity breasts, cellulite and bringing the death penalty to any Muslim they see). They will lose the most in this frantic nonsense, even when a fraction of the truth is laid bare in public in a month's time.

I read some smarmy comment on Twitter which said something like "a newspaper office is not a battlefield" which really shocked me, as if they were totally unaware that whatever trend of political Islam is hot this week certainly doesn't see it that way, neither do those buying and agreeing with the press come to that. Of course, I think he was making some self-assured nonsensical comment about the battle of ideas or some shit, but in a really pretentious way - I would look for it again, but I would end up getting as annoyed as Kirov does reading Tumblr.
Oh yeah, 17 journalists were killed by Israel in the last Occupation of the Gaza Strip, all wearing highly visible "press" tags, where were these "JeSuisCharlie (hashtag lol)" hypocrites then? If we are going to uphold the freedoms of any extremists who offend by design, then we cannot screech in horror when some people on the other side does something different and equally offensive. If you protect someone who has caused offence, you should protect everybody who has done so, the risks be on their head and the full weight of the law to come down on those who act first.

This is a good bit, OP-B:


Quote:
It’s obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it’s just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they’re committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it’s just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.


In my words: I don't go up to every 6 foot 6 neo-Nazi skinhead who looks like he pumps iron 4 hours a day and tell him I think he's full of shit. I value the use of my limbs an face more than that. Tact is the very essence of doing things, it's piss-easy to write or say something that both praises and subversively attacks something you disagree with.


Edit: Just found this. As I said earlier in this post, you either protect all or you protect none - picking and choosing for whatever reason is total bollocks. Anti-Semitism (Charlie Hebdo did this too) is as repulsive to me as depictions of blacks as monkeys (Charlie Hebdo did this too) and the type of crass anti-Muslim shit that populate political cartoons, play the ball and not the man.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 21:03
http://limonov-eduard.livejournal.com/589341.html
Eddie Limonov wrote:
В наказание за аморальную низость

limonov_eduard
January 7th, 19:03
Убийства журналистов Charlie Hebdo сегодня в Париже конечно же экстраординарны по жестокости.
10 журналистов ( cреди них четыре самых зловредных карикатуриста Франции ), собравшихся на планёрку были расстреляны в упор из автоматов, двумя неизвестными в масках, время от времени убийцы вскрикивали "Алла акбар!"

Уходя уже, эти двое застрелили двух полицейских, подъехавших на вызов и оказавшихся неповоротливыми.
Итого 12 убитых и вроде бы 20 раненых, из которых четверо или пятеро балансируют на грани смерти.

"Не убий!" учит нас христианская цивилизация. Исходя из заповедей - совершено злодеяние. Я его осуждаю, злодеяние.

Между тем, аналитики всего мира, раздумывая над происшедшим, приходят к выводу, что совершённое нападение - месть за неоднократные оскорбления нанесённые пророку Моххамеду дерзкой и агрессивной редакцией.
Одно из последних оскорблений - карикатуры на пророка, опубликованные журналом 19 сентября 2012 года. Я тогда писал осуждающе в моём ЖЖ от 20 сентября 2012 :
"Вот подлили масла в огонь. Поражает своей зловредной безмозглостью вчерашнее происшествие во Франции..."

И тогда я считал и сейчас того же мнения, что атаковать мировые религии и их пророков и богов не следует, что это аморальная низость. Поскольку более чем миллиард человеческих душ верует в Христа, и миллиарда полтора верует в Аллаха, следует уважать верования этих людей. И нет никакой надобности их атаковать, следует обойтись без кощунств и низости в адрес великих фигур их верований.

Я, кстати сказать в своё время осудил книгу Рушди, когда она вышла в Европе, и был среди мусульманского духовенства России на пресс-конференции в 1996-ом, когда эту книгу вознамерились опубликовать в России. Мы протестовали против публикации.
В итоге публикация не состоялась.

Charlie Hebdo - выступал и против меня лично.. В № 56 от 21.07.1993 года они опубликовали отвратительную статью против меня "Limonov : L'intellectuel arracheur de couilles" (Лимонов : Интеллектуал.- отрыватель яиц" ), с соответствующими карикатурами.

12 трупов в наказание за аморальную низость. Что ж!
Я, - Эдуард Лимонов.


The same, google translated wrote:
As punishment for immoral meanness

limonov_eduard
January 7th, 19:03
Killings of journalists Charlie Hebdo in Paris today certainly extraordinary cruelty.
10 journalists (they peruse the four most vicious cartoonist France), gathered at planёrku were shot at close range with automatic weapons, two masked men, from time to time killer screamed "Allah akbar!"

Leaving already, the two shot dead two police officers drove up to the challenge and found themselves clumsy.
Total 12 killed and 20 wounded like, of which four or five are on the brink of death.

"Thou shalt not kill!" teaches Christian civilization. On the basis of the commandments - committed a crime. I condemn him, crime.

Meanwhile, analysts around the world, contemplating occurred, come to the conclusion that committed the attack - revenge for the repeated insults to the prophet Mohammed inflicted daring and aggressive editors.
One of the latest insults - cartoons of the Prophet, published by the magazine 19 September 2012. I then wrote disapprovingly in my LJ on September 20, 2012:
"This added fuel to the fire. It affects their pernicious mindless yesterday's incident in France ..."

And then I thought, and now the same opinion, that attack the world's religions and their prophets and gods does not mean that it is immoral meanness. Since more than a billion human souls believe in Christ, and a billion and a half believes in Allah, should respect the beliefs of these people. And there is no need to attack them, should do without blasphemy and baseness to the great figures of their beliefs.

I, incidentally at the time condemned Rushdie's book when it came out in Europe, and was among the Muslim clergy of Russia at a press conference in 1996, when this book set out to publish in Russia. We protested against the publication.
As a result, the publication did not take place.

Charlie Hebdo - spoke out against me personally .. In number 56 from 21.07.1993 year they published an article revolting against me "Limonov: L'intellectuel arracheur de couilles" (Lemon: Intellektual.- otryvatel eggs "), with the relevant cartoons.

12 dead as a punishment for immoral meanness. Well!
I - Eduard Limonov.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5155
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 22:17
The loudest yelps for liberty come from the slaveholders. I find it little surprise, no matter the situation, the reactionaries cry freedom of speech the loudest while they speak the most. Some even use this power to profit off their own failed system of integration by sowing a 'clash of civilizations', creating a scapegoat and making money off a market guaranteed to exist because of nationalism. Charlie Hebdo did exactly this when it was losing money. We are seeing the same issue in the US with African-Americans.

Having this rag be a martyr for free speech only serves to underline the kind of privilege that exists in the liberal-democracies and why, no matter how neoliberal they are, their system is pre-disposed to chauvinism and issues with non-western civilizations as it fails. That this is the time to stand up for 'free speech' is an indictment of who is speaking.

Privilege in the sense that as the liberal system globalizes without ever ceasing to be nationalist, it reaps the benefits of capitalism's uneven development and its own geopolitical status quo achieved by victorious Western imperialism (which subsequently sows ethnic divides over liberalism/progressivism, which the West monopolizes culturally, and creates all these third world peoples that aren't 'politically mature' enough for 'democracy'). It tries to profit off cheap immigrant labor with neoliberal policy, while never actually solving the national & cultural antagonisms with these third world countries whose issues are defined by the legacy of imperialism. Instead, it's just expected the migrants turn their backs on the 'backwardsness' of these illiberal cultures and become pro-West as part of the 'end of history', the real meaning of integration, and accept their poverty and economic disparity without claiming discrimination. All the while their homelands are savaged and the cultural conflict arising from imperialism only continues.

When the dubious prospects of this happening become obvious, the liberal-imperialists wash their hands clean and blame an entire people for being 'backward'. The xenophobes arise, seeking to profit off those prospects, as do the Islamists.

Obviously one, very national system being at fault is more likely than all these cultures and peoples 'inherently' being 'barbarians', as the cretins conclude.

This also goes beyond just Islam, but for all sort of cultures that didn't take to the Enlightenment and have relatively modern issues with the West. We can see the same situation with Russian expats and liberals.

Eauz made a very good post on this on pofo:

Eauz wrote:
So, I'm hearing all about this shooting and then how much we need to promote free speech and fight against extremists. However, I am not hearing anyone talking about the lack of integration that leads to low living standards, low educational and economic performance, and comparatively high criminality amongst immigrants (first, second, etc. generations). The second (and third, etc.) generations are de-assimilating from society, which is also a sign that the society in general is not properly integrating these people into society.

I'm not trying to defend any shootings or be opposed to free speech, however, the sole focus upon fighting terrorists and defending free speech is blurring the socioeconomic realities that have been created from neoliberal policies and simply placing blame upon evil people. Again, I'm not suggesting that these people were not evil (whatever that means), but that our focus is in the wrong place and we are actually assisting terrorist groups like ISIS to recruit marginalised people.

We can place blame upon these reactionaries, however, we should also be pointing out the failures of neoliberal policies that have assisted in the marginalization of these reactionaries.


In the words of Malcolm X, you can't have capitalism without racism. We haven't changed much in 100 years.
Last edited by Conscript on 08 Jan 2015, 22:37, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 22:30
I have been of the opinion that the strange right-wing arguments against immigration are closely tied to the propensity for the powerful and their useful idiots to sow the seeds of this "savage" or "barbarian" cultures gimmick, when in reality the issue is more closely tied to the economics and general demographic necessity (i.e. traditionally pyramid shaped population graphs becoming akin to Christmas trees) that is needed to support a rapidly ageing population with fewer and fewer people of working age available for work. This reality is not at all faced by any powers that be, as seen by the failure to integrate people into society, even by not addressing the colonial heritage and neo-imperialist Realpolitik at work in all corners of the globe; or more simply not even trying to talk to them.

Imperialist reality denied culture to others during the age of the European Empires, and this continues to this day with the conflation of political Islamists (albeit theocratically oriented ones, funded by certain interests as part of this Realpolitik) with normal Muslims in the West. Hell, you meet any Muslims and you can immediately recognise that there are proportionately as many idiots in their community as there are idiots in pretty much every white majority culture in Europe.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5155
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 22:43
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
I have been of the opinion that the strange right-wing arguments against immigration are closely tied to the propensity for the powerful and their useful idiots to sow the seeds of this "savage" or "barbarian" cultures gimmick, when in reality the issue is more closely tied to the economics and general demographic necessity (i.e. traditionally pyramid shaped population graphs becoming akin to Christmas trees) that is needed to support a rapidly ageing population with fewer and fewer people of working age available for work.


I really agree with this. This is all a nationalist distraction from an economic issue that has clearly arisen from their system's own progression. This is probably the most mishandled globalization that could possibly happen, a haphazard combination of the national interests of dominant liberal-democracies with our status as international finance. The result is like a clumsy giant drunk on liberalism trying to smash nations together, and blaming the illiberal one's culture for any failures.

Then, when the cheerleaders of the feud get targeted, it is suddenly an affront to liberal principles and we must all stand behind their 'freedom of speech'...only perpetuating this nonsense.

Western politics is so vapid.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Jan 2015, 22:59
Well, allowing mass immigration of any kind, in the UK sense, of Irish and then post-WW2 West Indian, Pakistani and Indian influxes was nothing to do with cultural reconciliation or integration, but a bare-faced chance to swell the ranks of the working class and rebuild the country after WW2. It was an absolute boon to keeping the gears of the economy ticking - and it worked too, economically speaking, over the period of full-employment - and it fell apart catastrophically as soon as this Keynesian economic model was shattered and supplanted by a system with no semblance of civic duty or unity, namely neo-liberalism. This is why I think it is completely ridiculous that the right-wing will and are using this as an excuse to complain about "traitor socialists"
letting "savages" into the country. It's an ahistorical and knee-jerk reaction to complex global and national economic jostlings that are ongoing, and has denied the neo- and post-colonial world a degree of self-determination without installing a vast number of rentaguns when they choose "incorrectly" like in Chile.

You're right, it is a massive social failing, and those who have been failed are the working class, especially the minority working class in the West, let's not forget the poor innocents who are dying in their thousands on the ground in the Muslim World because of this deadly combination, just so this game can be played. It just so happens the aggressive policies of the US, Britain and France in the Muslim World are really their own self-made problems in attacking Arab Nationalism/Ba'athism to regain control in the first place.

Edit: Kirov, it seems the magazine used to be kinda okay back when it started, because it spent all of its time taking the piss out of de-Gaullism. Satirical publiccations are pretty naff anyway, as they are full of in-jokes and memes that aren't funny unless you have read every edition and were also "there" and also read every single shitty newspaper in the world. Source: "Private Eye Magazine" from the UK.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jan 2015, 21:52
One of the surviving cartoonists said that this "Je suis Charlie" thing is contrary to the spirit of the French satirical newspaper because Charlie Hebdo became a mainstream symbol. Moreover, according to him, this "national unity" is useful to François Hollande and Marine Le Pen.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 11 Jan 2015, 12:12
Of course it's useful to them to pass through loads of BS laws to "protect freedom/rights" (curtail extant formalised liberties) and pump money into corrupt intelligence and defence departments.
A chance for goodwill will be lost if the regimes in France and elsewhere continue down this ruinous path under the guise of "not negotiating with terrorists", but merely digging the graves of innocents and binding their hands in the process.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9328
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 11 Jan 2015, 15:48
Wow, the media circus over this thing is astounding. They even have that lunatic mass-murderer Poroshenko at the rally, some humane spirit. Where were all these people when Ukrainian nazis burned people alive for expressing their freedom of speech in Odessa?
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 216
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Jul 2013, 05:04
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 11 Jan 2015, 18:02
Kirov wrote:
Wow, the media circus over this thing is astounding. They even have that lunatic mass-murderer Poroshenko at the rally, some humane spirit. Where were all these people when Ukrainian nazis burned people alive for expressing their freedom of speech in Odessa?


Good point. It is interesting how lives are valued differently by the Western media. Perhaps as many as 2,000 people in Nigeria were recently massacred by Boko Haram but there has been far less of an uproar about those attacks compared to the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/bo ... -violence/
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1391
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 11 Jan 2015, 20:19
I had begun to post the same thing about Nigeria before I changed my mind but now I'm glad you brought it up. Just today I was having a conversation about the topic at hand with a Nigerian who works in customs. We discussed the absence of media coverage here in Nigeria even though more people died here as a result of terrorism in one day than in all the years combined in France since WWII. Then we talked about the events in Ferguson and the fact that it was covered significantly in the media despite it being about the black community as opposed to the situation in Eastern Nigeria; to which he replied, "That's because to the western media we're not even ni#!@&s, we're lower than that. We're Africans!"

Now ain't that the goddamned truth.

As for Poroshenko, I gotta admit he looked really happy walking among all those other western politicians while the economic situation in the Ukraine gets worse day after day. Ah what the hell, as long as he's part of the superior western white man's club it's all good.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9328
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 11 Jan 2015, 20:26
Not to derail the whole topic, but I feel like that was the whole motivation for Perestroika for Gorbachev and Yakovlev - they wanted to attend all the fancy White Man receptions in Britain, America, etc about human rights and global issues, but also be in charge of the whole USSR. Of course they only got the former part of the deal, because who could have thought that losing control of the whole process and then trying to stop it by force could have really happened to such wonderful democratic reformers.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 11 Jan 2015, 23:55
It's crazy. The media hysteria, certainly, but also the demonstrations. I don't know if the estimations of the size of the demonstrations are correct, but it's certainly the greatest mass mobilisation for the state and ruling class in ages. Participants include world leaders from bastions of free speech like Jordan, Turkey, UAE, and of course the US and UK.

Stupid anti-American leftists always go on about how crazy and hysterical Americans are about 9/11, but in Europe, it only takes 12 deaths rather than 3,000 to tap into the exact same sentiment. There is a new, belligerent tone in the assertion that "We're not afraid" and there is now an aggressive demand that we all must pick a side for "our shared European values" (?) against terrorism. Especially if you are a Muslim yourself.

All sorts of latent sentiments that have been building up over the past one-and-a-half decade can now be awakened. People read this and they decide that they have to do something. And as luck would have it, the local authority is facilitating a demonstration outside of the city hall (usually, they don't want demonstrations there!) so we can all go there and talk about how we have to make a statement that we're not afraid of those bastards.

A good way to be shouted down right now is to draw attention to things like the living conditions of immigrant youth in European cities, or that the terrorists fought in the conflicts started by imperialism. This is a nuance that would have been acceptable 5 or 10 years ago, but now the floodgates are finally open. We can safely ignore the fact that we've simply given up on whole sections of our population.

This week, in an emotional address, the mayor of Rotterdam (a practising Muslim born in Morocco, by the way) said that Muslims with Jihadist sympathies should just "piss off" already if they don't like it here. But of course that's exactly what the terrorists in France did: they went to fight in the Middle East and came back. But that's all fine. Just look at how the imperialists put their weight behind the holy war against Assad (in the 80s against Afghanistan). If any of our citizens sympathise with the monster we created, fine, just tell them to piss off. If they do go to the Middle East, we can always bomb them later. Doesn't matter, they, their friends, their families, and their neighbours are all damaged goods and we can just write them off. If some of them come back and shoot some cartoonists, well, at least they're politically useful.

The great thing is that people are being mobilised for abstract rights like "the right to insult". It's one of those rights that we generally don't care to exercise, except perhaps in traffic. That's not to say we would happily give it away, but I am absolutely convinced that if you had shown the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to people on the 6th of January, the vast majority would be appalled, and at least a significant minority would support the legal suppression of Charlie's "right to insult". It is only now that some people are being forcefully deprived of this right by armed fanatics that the issue is foregrounded in this way, as an absolute right to die for, a typical European value that cannot be negotiated upon no matter what.

It is going to be hard to question what social purposes the exercising of that right serves. Doesn't matter if you just want to insult someone in rush hour, draw a funny cartoon about a religious figure once, or if you want to draw dozens of them as part of a sustained campaign against minorities. None of these can even be questioned, because we're all Charlie. What effect will all of this have on our daily lives? Will we be happier because we've got the inalienable right to insult? Well, I guess it's a relief when new anti-terror surveillance law comes in, when the government decides to monitor and ban extremist content (to protect European values like free speech), or when we're shipped off to fight yet another front in the War on Terror.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9328
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Jan 2015, 05:24
To be fair, I think this is a special case in hysteria - terrorist attacks in London and Madrid were much bigger but did not cause anything like this.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.