It's hard to remember now, but for a brief period after 9/11, the US was the darling of the world. That goodwill dissipated two years later when we invaded Iraq. But, for a while, it was real.
The killing of the 12 French journalists should certainly help all of the anti-immmigration parties around the Continent, and in particular Marie le Pen's National Front in France.
Native Europeans will now feel more positively about the nationalist parties, who will be seen less as aggressors and more as defenders of their countries' sovereignty.
Stephane Charbonnier, the chief editor of Charlie Hebdo, is an unlikely-looking hero:
But, a hero he is. According to the NY Post article linked above:
Charbonnier was famously quoted in 2012 after an earlier controversy saying, “I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. I prefer to die standing than living on my knees.”
Now, he'll have more influence than ever.
Posts
26 comments:
Yes, this is a gift to the right wing anti-immigration parties.
With every attack like this, public opinion will turn further in their favour.
Critics of Islam or immigration are emboldened to speak more freely and more strongly. Some of the liberals perhaps take a step closer to their way of thinking. Case in point:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-killers-must-not-silence-us
When I read some of the things she says, I thought 'the tide is turning'. She takes a liberal line in places but she also concedes a lot more than liberals normally would; she voices sentiments they normally wouldn't.
This has especially united people in condemnation as it is a straightforward attack on freedom of speech, an attempt to kill those who blaspheme and disrespect Islam...a straightforward clash of their values and ours.... rather than a retaliation for an invasion or occupation.
Good article.
He's a martyr for the cause of French nationalism now. That's probably a good thing, I'm just sorry that good men have to die to shake things up, but that's just the reality of this world.
Ever heard of the book 'Camp of the Saints', John?
This book was written by Frenchman Jean Raspail in the early 70's about this very subject. How prophetic?
You can download his book for free from the net for a perusal. A very interesting and politically incorrect book about the third-world siege of France and western society in general.
Steven --
I think everybody can pretty much agree that freedom of speech is a basic right that these Muslim fanatics want to take away.
It's funny ow these things work. Even over here, with the recent protests, I've spoken to people whose politics were basically middle of the road, and they're outraged by the protesters in the Michael Brown case. Here was a guy who reached into a cop car to punch the cop, tried to get his gun, ran away -- at which point the cop did not shoot him -- and then turned around to charge the cop, at which point the cop did shoot him. And all of the protesters are acting as if this cop was just prowling around, on the hunt for young black men. It's insane, and similarly, it's pushed people to the right over here, especially with the recent cop killings.
Spike --
Yes, I'm familiar with the book, though I haven't read it. It's been getting some publicity recently with the publication of Michel Houellebecq's new book "Submission."
Europe's going downhill pretty rapidly something has to be done.
I think there are probably a lot of people who are normally fairly apolitical who speak up when things like this catch their attention. There are also perhaps a lot of people harbouring thoughts and concerns that are more to the right than they usually admit.
By the way, when it comes to freedom of speech in Islam, its not just a minority of fanatics. A poll of British Muslim attitudes found:
"Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not."
http://www.cbsnews.com/.../many-british-muslims-put.../
Spychiatrist,
you might be interested in this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/french-city-with-40-muslim-population-is-the-most-dangerous-city-in-europe/
Steven --
That's pretty damning. I've heard of polls that show that up to 70% of Muslims refuse to condemn terrorist acts. So, even if they're not violent themselves, they do support violence in theory.
Time for the West to close its doors.
Yes, I agree John. As I wrote in the guardian comments:
"Most Muslims that you meet are actually nice, friendly, warm people...
...but if you look at the state of free speech, democracy, woman's rights, gay rights, and religious freedom in the Muslim world, as well as all the conflicts and insurgencies, would you really want a large percentage of Europe to be Muslim?"
Why do we need to take lots of immigrants anyway? Why is it up to people to argue against it rather than for it?
If we actually need more people for some reason, why not just choose what country or countries to recruit from? I say China. You can be practically gaurentee they will be model citizens.
Steven --
Yes, the Chinese will not cause trouble the way the Muslims do, but even they will change the character of a country. I sympathize with those who don't want their national character changed.
Recently, a co-worker told me and another co-worked that the most dangerous thing in this world is fundamentalism (fundamental Muslims, fundamental Christians, etc.). I'm beginning to think she's right.
- birdie
Birdie --
I think your coworker was trying hard to be "fair-minded." If I see a bunch of fundamentalist Christians at the airport, it doesn't scare me. I've never known of a fundamentalist Christian who wanted to restrict free speech. And I don't feel in danger driving through the Bible Belt of this country the way I would driving around in a Muslim country.
Fundamentalists in general tend to be less open to reason, so to that extent she's right. But to say that the biggest danger in this world comes from fundamentalist Christians is ridiculous.
Britain is only 0.7% Chinese. If we have to recruit, we could up it to 3, 4, 5% with good results and little affect on the mainstream.
That would actually bring the country in line with Liverpool, which has the oldest Chinese community in Europe (and the largest Chinese gate outside China). I like the Chinese artifacts we have- the Chinese are a part of this city. Ports always are a little like that.
The national character seems to change a lot on its own over time. My grandmother keeps telling me so!
Birdie,
I think Islamic theocracy (Islamism) is one of the biggest barriers to the emergence of a global civilisation. That is not to indict all Muslims but the serious Islamist element in Muslim countries (about 20%) is holding them back.
When my co-workers and I were talking, we had been discussing the events of 9/11. This woman, stated that she thought that fundamentalism was the most dangerous thing in the world. I could see that when someone is part of a fundamentalist religious group, there is risk involved. Since the belief system is so rigid (people aren't thinking for themselves), members could be encouraged to act out violently (which is not good for the rest of society). I think that we will see more violence from these fundamentalist Muslims because it's next to impossible to get through to them, alter their way of thinking.
-birdie
Birdie --
All true. With any sort of movement you're going to have a lot of adherents who don't think for themselves.
That said, fundamentalist Christians haven't really been dangerous since the time of the Inquisition. Or, maybe, the Salem witch trials.
Stephane Charbonnier is indeed an unlikely looking hero. He's not a particularly handsome man. His physique is nothing to brag about. But he's a here nonetheless.
Charbonnier and I would likely disagree about much in politics and life, but I respect the man's defiance in the face of constant Islamic threats. He was not a 'limousine liberal' nor the kind of liberal eager to condemn Christians but strangely silent when it came to any criticism of Islam or muslims. Though a liberal, he was definitely not 'politically-correct' from what I can see.
I really do hope this tragedy awakens all of Europe to realize that Islam and the West are incompatible.
I agree with your point about fundamentalist Christians - they're less likely to be a threat to other citizens.
-birdie
Ambrose --
Agree completely. Charbonnier is the kind of liberal I can respect: he stood up for his beliefs, and he wasn't hypocritical.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you:.. Matthew 5:44
This is what fundamental Christianity teaches. That is what I believe and try to practice in my life, however, I'll admit that this is a very difficult proposition.
And, I'm in agreement on the editor that was gunned down. I'm not a big fan of most liberal writers, but this guy had some guts and moxie about him and some serious courage. I can respect a man like that liberal or not.
Spartan said…
There's common sense and book smarts. I imagine that to be a European leader one must have an IQ off the charts. How is it that I, a person of average intelligence, would know what would happen to a secular homogeneous society once muslims are imported. A person with any sort of common sense would be able to predict trouble. Muslims have been renowned to encroach on others beliefs.
Just recently, the Swedish PM went on youtube asking that his country support him in taking in 100,000 refugees from Syria. I mean, aren't there's not enough rapes in that country?
Spartan --
I think the answer is that it's not so much a question of intelligence as it is one of ambition (as well as outlook). Many of these politicians who get to the top of the heap do so not by virtue of superior intelligence, but by lack of scruples. They say whatever is expedient to get them to the top, pay lip service to whatever political correctness will win them the approval of the media and the votes of the brainwashed, and succeed thus. You'll never go broke overestimating the dishonesty of our political class.
Charbonnier a hero? I'm not sure.
I have never seen one of his cartoons, but I have read one showed Muhammad in pornographic poses.
There are many acts committed in the name if Islam that are despicable. And I don't know enough about the religion as a whole to judge it. But it is a major worldwide religion, with many who practice it peacefully. I have known several myself.
For some their Islamic faith is everything - and they are willing to fight and die for it. For others, fighting and dying for one's religion is ridiculous.
For some, fighting and dying for their country is everything. Likewise, others would find that ridiculous.
So Charbonnier and his ilk make cartoons that are mindlessly insulting (not pointedly, but mindlessly at the most gutter level). And some practitioners of Islam, for whom their religion is everything, are willing to go kill the person who published that blasphemy. And to do so knowing full well they will likely be killed in the process or afterward.
And, as has been pointed out on this blog, the West is a total hypocrite on what will be glorified as righteous free speech (like blaspheming Islam) and what will not be tolerated, and be treated as a crime (like denying the Holocaust, which by the way, extends to those who will even state the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated).
Charbonnier a hero? Not to me, based on what I know to this point.
- Ed
Ed --
You make a lot of good points. I agree that Charlie Hebdo was needlessly offensive, and I'm sure I wouldn't agree with Charbonnier on most issues (he wanted to ban the National Front, for instance). And that kind of juvenile, pointless parody has never appealed to me.
But he was heroic in the sense that he knew his life was in danger because of his cartoons, and he continued to publish them anyway. There are more noble causes to give one's life for than the right to be offensive, but giving one's life for any cause -- and in his case he also was championing free speech -- is heroic.
If he hadn't been endangering himself by publishing those cartoons, I would basically agree that he was nothing but a little piece of crap. He had no great insights that I know of, his politics were of the far left variety that basically denies reality, and I never would have bothered to read that magazine.
But, in the end, he basically gave his life for a cause he believed in, which makes him a hero.
So by that definition his killers were heroes as well.
- Ed
Ed --
Good point. But, I have to say, in a sense, yes. And so were the 9/11 suicide attackers. They were dastardly, but brave.
Bill Maher had it right the first time when he said that whatever else they were, the 9/11 guys were certainly not cowards. Maher lost his job for having said that, as the national mood would not accept anything positive said about those villains. But he was right: anyone who goes to certain death for a cause is brave.
Here's another example of bravery: the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII. We're far enough removed from that war so that I think Americans can accept that these guys were brave, even if they were the enemy. There's really no difference between them and the 9/11 attackers in terms of self-sacrifice. There is one crucial difference away from that, which is that the kamikaze pilots went after battleships, whereas the 9/11 attackers and the Hebdo assassins went after civilians. (And the Hebdo assassins didn't necessarily think they were going to be caught.)
But, the larger point is, self-sacrifice is self-sacrifice.
I agree.
- Ed
Post a Comment