ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 09, 2015

Mailvox: Did Charlie Hebdo have it coming?

MB asks a pertinent question:
Although it may appear to be like pouring salt on a wound, it occurs to me (and also from your POV) that the people at Charlie Hebdo were quite a bit involved in their own demise (which I do not celebrate or condone).

Just as the nations of the West can’t help but reap what they have sown, so too, the satirists at CH never seemed to accept the consequences of their actions and weren't prepared to defend themselves very well. They attacked religions in the most vulgar terms (from what I’ve read) and thought it rather a lark. Although their offices were firebombed, they promised to continue to poke jihadis in the eye. But it appears they blithely thought giving offense to seriously nasty people should be inconsequential given their own finely ordered sense of c’est la vie and “can’t you take a joke?"

Back in 1981, I once attended a show in a small comedy club in San Francisco near the Haight. A very small young comedian who I thought was quite funny did some sort of riff that an older man in the audience was offended by and made it known. The comic tried to play it for a joke, but in this tiny venue (30- 40 people at best), the offended gentleman stood up and made it known he was going to kick the punk comic’s ass. He was a large man who looked like he could do it. All of a sudden, things, the comic, didn’t seem so funny as he tried to find a way to defuse the situation humorously, and it didn’t work.

The comedian feigned mock fear, for example, but the angry man was not impressed or deflected and made to approach the small, low stage. The fear in the comedian’s eye’s was not simulated. Members of the audience prevailed upon the the angry man to relinquish his complaints and let it pass, but the damage had been done. The event was no longer any fun.

Like Bill Maher et al, Charlie Hebdo felt it could attack other people’s most cherished beliefs with impunity, and their targets should simply take it in the spirit of ‘damn you if what we say offends your pathetically stupid sensibility’. It is horrific what happened in Paris, but should we wonder about those who sow literary contempt and reap violent physical contempt?
Charlie Hebdo was a self-conscious standard-bearer for secular France. Unlike most secular standard-bearers, unlike today's SJWs, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo actually stood by their professed principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and disrespect for the sanctity of sacred cows. They were true Voltaireans; I don't know enough about them to know if they were consistent or not (we know they attacked Christian symbols as well as Muslim symbols, but did they refrain from attacking Jewish and secular ones?) but they were certainly more consistent and catholic in their satires than the average Western secularist who heaps contempt on Christianity and Western tradition while remaining dead silent about Islam, Judaism, and the various shibboleths of political correctness.

Amused by him or not, the jester who enjoys immunity from the king has long been a feature of Western civilization. Charlie Hebdo was one such jester. I didn't find their cartoons to be amusing, or of any artistic value, but then, I am not French. More importantly, they were acting under the long-respected Western principle of jester's immunity, and by doing so in the expectation of continued immunity, they were upholding Western civilization in their own way.

Now, I had begun writing this post with the intention of saying that Charlie Hebdo should have taken more responsibility for its actions, and taken better defensive precautions, and therefore it was negligent in that regard, but in the course of thinking through that argument, I find that it is fundamentally flawed. The jester is neither knight nor king. It is not his job to defend himself, but rather, it is the responsibility of the warriors of the society whose hypocrisies and inconsistencies he criticizes to defend him.

So, my answer is no, Charlie Hebdo did not have it coming. It is the responsibility of the king and his knights to defend their jester, even though they are the primary target of his jests. (Of course, it also behooves the jester to listen to his king when he is warned that he has gone too far in offending the king; at the end of the day, he serves at the king's pleasure. His immunity is not total.) And moreover, any party that insists it possesses a king's veto over the king's jester is a usurping party that presents a direct challenge to the king's lawful authority and therefore must be expelled from the kingdom.

In fact, through their deaths, the men of Charlie Hebdo have fulfilled their traditional jester's role of warning the king that his policies are false and harmful. Had they focused instead on defending themselves, they would not have been able to do so. Now it is time for the king and his knights to fulfill their traditional roles and address the active threat to the kingdom.

UPDATE: at least two people killed after shooting at kosher grocery in eastern Paris in which at least five were taken hostage

Labels: ,

222 Comments:

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous frenchy January 09, 2015 8:11 AM  

Vox,

Charlie Hebdo mocked the Jews as well.

If you've seen the French movie of the same name, you'll understand why this cartoon is hilarious.

I don't think they spared anyone.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 8:17 AM  

Vox, "...but they were certainly more consistent and catholic in their satires than the average Western secularist who heaps contempt on Christianity and Western tradition while remaining dead silent about Islam, Judaism, and the various shibboleths of political correctness."

Gee, I wonder why...

Blogger Salt January 09, 2015 8:17 AM  

Charlie Hebdo is proof these invaders are not French. A question the French need to address is, why do they come here? They do not want to be French, so what is their purpose?

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 8:19 AM  

Didn't jester mainly had the kings/aristocracy and his/their views/deeds as central topics of their jests?

Anonymous Starbuck January 09, 2015 8:29 AM  

Charlie Hebdo is proof these invaders are not French. A question the French need to address is, why do they come here? They do not want to be French, so what is their purpose?

Why do people ask this question? I hear that type of question rather often. The answer I hear from people is "To improve their economic lot in the world."

I think it is to get divide and conquer said country. The muslims want Europe, Mexicans want America and nobody wants China.

Anonymous hygate January 09, 2015 8:30 AM  

Any argument that they should have known that Muslims would not abide their mockery and therefore they brought this on themselves is pusillanimous.

A secularist society will not, cannot, last.

While individual atheists may demonstrate courage, a secular society will be decadent.

The choice is not, as Vox as stated in the past, between secularism and religion, it is between Christianity, Islam, and Paganism.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 09, 2015 8:31 AM  

If Charlie Hebdo eventually results in the French rounding up all their Algerians, Tunisians, and other assorted scum and deporting them back to North Africa, then their sacrifice will not have been in vain.

Anonymous Stingray January 09, 2015 8:44 AM  

and catholic in their satires

Will you please explain what you mean by this?

Blogger Salt January 09, 2015 8:46 AM  

Vox Day @voxday · 22m 22 minutes ago

There can be no compromise between Islam and the West. "Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced." #JeSuisCharlie


My guess is that 4/10 Muslims in America want sharia law too. Unlike the French, who have a history of Kings (see OP) and his protections, time for Americans to be armed in earnest. Not in owning, but carrying. #2A

Anonymous paradox January 09, 2015 8:46 AM  

If you're going to use free speech to the French degree, then you better support the right to own firearms.

OpenID simplytimothy January 09, 2015 8:53 AM  

Several thoughts..

In fact, through their deaths, the men of Charlie Hebdo have fulfilled their traditional jester's role of warning the king that his policies are false and harmful. Had they focused instead on defending themselves, they would not have been able to do so. Now it is time for the king and his knights to fulfill their traditional roles and address the active threat to the kingdom.

This is very good and a model of Christian government; In our republics, we elect our king and it is our responsibility (or, in France, LePen's, in Germany Pergida, in England UKIP) to speak and act as king for the sitting king is as Saul was to David. I think we are up to the task. The descent into perdition has been (in my opinion) a top-down affair--from corrupt centralized mal-education, to "wise" judges telling us we must accept perversion as our way of life.

I do not weep for them, as I would not weep for the death of America's porn merchants, nor the WSJ, nor the NYT, nor MSNBC, CBS..., nor the D.C. government i.e., the enemies of freedom and God. Of course they are free to speak; what they are not free of--is what mankind is not free of--that is the consequences of their foolishness and their sin. I will not defend them, they must fight for themselves and reap what they have sown; with the decision to fight comes deep questions, and at the bottom of that pit comes repentence or evil. For you Christians who say that we must defend them, first tell me why you will dying to defend the people who produce this.

When this happens here in America, it is our national government that will be responsible for the bloodshed; The people will be merciless in their rejection of them.


What is the over-under on George Bush re-iterating that Islam is a religion of peace?

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 8:54 AM  

When will the mainstream media outlets in France finally put skin in the game? That will be the turning point, I suspect. Until they publish blistering editorials or cartoons, they will position themselves as "the voice of reason." They will call for calm and non-retaliation, because they will feel safe from attacks since they kowtow to the jihadi editorial and artistic demands.

The French government can act and the media may hammer them for over-stepping.

The French people can act and you can bet the media will hammer them for vigilante justice.

Things will get ethnic-cleansing real when the mainstream media's attacked or they decide to take on the jihadis.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 09, 2015 8:54 AM  

Stingray,

The actual definition of "catholic" is universal.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 8:55 AM  

"
Will you please explain what you mean by this?"

The word catholic means whole or universal.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 8:57 AM  

What is the over-under on George Bush re-iterating that Islam is a religion of peace?

He may push that privately, but the Bush family plays the customary role expected of former presidents. Keep a low profile and don't engage in policy because it distracts the current occupant of the White House.

I realize Slick Willy and, to a lesser extent, Carter openly violate the rule, but the Bush family doesn't.

He won't issue anything publicly.

Blogger Salt January 09, 2015 9:02 AM  

Don't forget the words of our Dear Leader, Obama -

‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam’

Anonymous DrTorch January 09, 2015 9:03 AM  

They were true Voltaireans

And let it be known, as I tweeted yesterday, CharlieHebdo et al brought this on themselves. I will NOT defend to the death their right to say anything. Not in this instance.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 9:04 AM  

"UPDATE: at least two people killed after shooting at kosher grocery in eastern Paris in which at least five were taken hostage"

damn this is going down hill fast.

Anonymous Stingray January 09, 2015 9:09 AM  

Nate and Stg58,

Thank you.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 9:10 AM  

" I will NOT defend to the death their right to say anything. Not in this instance."

tell us what words are worth killing over.

Blogger Salt January 09, 2015 9:12 AM  

tell us what words are worth killing over

Glock.

/s

Anonymous We are not amused January 09, 2015 9:13 AM  

The king HAS made it known that the jester went too far, by allowing the jester's enemies entry to the kingdom and by doing nothing to protect him from persons known to wish him harm. The message from the throne to the proles could not be more clear: Islam is off limits.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 9:16 AM  

"There can be no compromise between Islam and the West. "Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced." #JeSuisCharlie"

and 6 in ten british muslims deliberately lie on surveys.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 09, 2015 9:20 AM  

Muslims: doing the jobs Nationalists won't do.

Be inspired--and act.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 9:22 AM  

David Brooks is surprisingly insightful today.

The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.

Anonymous Fran January 09, 2015 9:22 AM  

Marine Lapen is picking up new votes by the 100's of thousands now..

Blogger Rabbi B January 09, 2015 9:23 AM  

"Now it is time for the king and his knights to fulfill their traditional roles and address the active threat to the kingdom."

If you can drag them away from their windmills.

“Destiny guides our fortunes more favorably than we could have expected. Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich ourselves. This is nobel, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth."

"What giants?" Asked Sancho Panza.

"The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which are very nearly two leagues long."

"Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and turn the millstone."

"Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures.”

Blogger icr January 09, 2015 9:24 AM  

Hebdo actually stood by their professed principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and disrespect for the sanctity of sacred cows.

in 1995 CH called for the banning of the National Front.

Anonymous dw January 09, 2015 9:27 AM  

It begins in France? Yeah I guess it figures the next great war would start in Europe.

Blogger Markku January 09, 2015 9:32 AM  

They reviled us, and we bless them. Now, where have I heard that before...

Blogger Doom January 09, 2015 9:36 AM  

You assume that the king did not use the islamists to do his bidding. You assume that these people were not warned by France. I suspect they were told to stop, temper, change, but refused. Still, that does not mean they deserved it, only that they probably knew where their actions would lead. The two observations can easily coexist, much as with men who fought our Revolution and were captured. It is fitting, for a jester, who ignores his king, to be bled by the very instrument which he attacks against the crown's wishes. And so it was.

The ruling body of France has surrendered to islam. As have most Western governments. Whether for gold, fear, a bit of both, or other reasons. Mock islam at your peril, whether you wear a crown, bear a sword, or have a cap with many stems and bells. Your government is not on your side in this, even to your death. Actually, all enemies of the state are considered more favorably than are citizens.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 9:39 AM  

Maybe the slaughered weren't the jesters of the kingdom but the intellectual pioneers in the King's service.

Anonymous Rhys January 09, 2015 9:39 AM  

UPDATE: The muslim holed up in the kosher grocery store with the hostages is the decoy who shot the police woman to help the others get away. He has a French girlfriend who may be with him (just like the Boston Bombers the native women choose the alpha jihadis).

The two actual terrorists are holed up in a rural area inside a printing warehouse with one suspected hostage.

I looked at some of the footage broadcast by ABC24 and the entire country appears to have ground to a halt. Traffic on the motorways are suspended in the vicinity. Its both surreal and disheartening how easy it is to bring a major city to a halt.

In semi related news there are reports of a bomb at Melbourne airport within the last hour. Not sure if its real or terrorist related. Interesting times.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 9:40 AM  

Dr Torch

I ask again. You said:

" I will NOT defend to the death their right to say anything. Not in this instance."

Tell us what words are worth killing over.

Anonymous karsten January 09, 2015 9:42 AM  

"We know they attacked Christian symbols as well as Muslim symbols, but did they refrain from attacking Jewish and secular ones?"

Of course they refrained from attacking Chosen symbols and, more specifically, Holocaustianity. It's a crime, after all, punishable by jail time, to mock Holocaustianity in France, and in most of Occupied Europe. In fact,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/?tid=sm_fb

“Charlie Hebdo [...] fired a cartoonist who published an article deemed anti-Semitic in 2008.“

Just what one would expect.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 09, 2015 9:55 AM  

For you Christians who say that we must defend them, first tell me why you will dying to defend the people who produce this.

Three reasons:

1. Because only a barbarian would kill over words and barbarism cannot be tolerated.
2. Because not defending him means freedom of speech is nothing more than a western shibboleth. I don't know about you but I care about the freedom of speech.
3. Because it is absolutely certain that if you don't then one day you will see murders like this simply because some Islamist is offending by someone producing christian imagery.

Anonymous Anonymous January 09, 2015 9:58 AM  

Like it or not, we're fast arriving at times where one's only considerations will be as follows:

1. Site Picture (i.e. center mass)
2. Breath control
3. Trigger Squeeze

This is what peoples are driven to when their "leadership" sets the wrong priorities, regardless whether it's out of naivete or avarice. Indeed, Mr. Rhys, interesting times!

Regards,
David Smith

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:03 AM  

Of course they refrained from attacking Chosen symbols and, more specifically, Holocaustianity.

No they didn't. One of the slain was even Jewish. Unless you think the untouchables cartoon doesn't sufficiently mock Jews.

“Charlie Hebdo [...] fired a cartoonist who published an article deemed anti-Semitic in 2008.“

Just what one would expect.


Some context

You don't suppose the son of the French president being the target of the cartoonist might have had something to do with that controversy?

Also:

"His attackers point to a 1982 radio interview, shortly after a terrorist attack on Jews in central Paris, in which the cartoonist said: 'Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it... I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die.' Siné later apologised."

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:07 AM  

They seem to take shots at everyone, much like the south park guys.

Blogger The Deuce January 09, 2015 10:08 AM  

But it appears they blithely thought giving offense to seriously nasty people should be inconsequential given their own finely ordered sense of c’est la vie and “can’t you take a joke?"

The implication of this is that seriously nasty people get special privileges of never having their narrative criticized, and of being able to push it more loudly and freely than everyone else. It de facto puts them in charge of discourse.

The correct conclusion is not that we should all be silent and let them have their way, but that we should purge them from our midst now that we know who they are, and not allow others like them to enter.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 10:09 AM  

Cogitans Iuvenis, "2. Because not defending him means freedom of speech is nothing more than a western shibboleth. I don't know about you but I care about the freedom of speech."

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Anonymous Porphyry January 09, 2015 10:10 AM  

Or you could go full native american and say everyone has the right to speak and everyone has the duty to defend their right.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:11 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Yes.

Anonymous Musashi January 09, 2015 10:12 AM  

Ahhh Muslims.

Crusade anyone?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 09, 2015 10:13 AM  

Michael,

Did we lampoon the Nazis in WW2? They fit your description.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 10:13 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

It wouldn't be worth shit otherwise.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 10:14 AM  

It _would_ be worth shit otherwise, of course.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 10:15 AM  

"Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?"

***chuckle***

You mean like governments?

That is exactly what free speech is design to protect against.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 09, 2015 10:16 AM  

"Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?"

If it doesn't, what good is it?

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 10:17 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

If not, what else do we have than the law of force. I doubt that's what you are advocating.

Anonymous PA January 09, 2015 10:17 AM  

"The ruling body of France has surrendered to islam."

That sounds extremely unlikely. I can see an OPEC or Saudi bribe to western governments to let in immigrants or to coddle Muslims. But the idea of any Arab state or its diaspora causing a European government to surrender is absurd.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:17 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

You mean like the ADL or SPLC?

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:18 AM  

@TheDeuce

Seriously nasty people DO get special privileges. That's just a simple fact of human nature. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the getting of such privileges is the reason WHY they get seriously nasty in the first place.

The real question, as Vox described, is what are we going to do about it? Is the majority (ostensibly king in a democracy) going to defend the rights of the minority, or are we going to cave in to the seriously nasty?

If we choose the former, then we uphold the ideals of western civlisation that Vox described.

If we choose the latter, then we abandon those ideals.

We cannot do both. Ergo, we cannot "make sure nothing like this ever happens again(*)", while at the same time kowtowing to seriously nasty people and inviting more of them into our nations, while insisting that the non-nasty must tolerate their nastiness or be prosecuted.

(* a political slogan you will hear a lot in the coming days,, which is in fact code for "we will enlarge our power and special privileges at your expense, introducing measures that will not address the problem, not afflict the guilty, and will be a curse on the innocent."

IOW, whenever you hear it, you will be listening to a seriously nasty person with special privileges not available to their victims.)

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 09, 2015 10:18 AM  

By the way, we have laws against free speech in most Western countries already. I doubt the #JeSuisCharlie crowd cares about those.

Anonymous VD January 09, 2015 10:20 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Yes, absolutely.

Anonymous Fuck neoreaction January 09, 2015 10:21 AM  

FYI, the Neoreaction party line ... especially the Moldbuggian-type papists... is they deserved to be murdered. See Dr. Torch, simplyTimothy above, numerous NRx tweets.

In short ... according to NRx ... they had it coming.

Blogger The Deuce January 09, 2015 10:21 AM  

Well, for those who think a propensity to violence is a good reason for a society to just shut up and not offend the violent group in question, let me warn you: You are offending me right now, I consider you a traitor to Western civilization who we need far less of, and when this inevitably culminates in civil warfare to preserve our civilization and remove the barbarians, I will gladly kill you for it as part of the enemy.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:23 AM  

You are offending me right now

I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU ARE OFFENDED!

OpenID spastic0plastic January 09, 2015 10:25 AM  

Did the jester have immunity? I have the impression they were occasionally beaten like dogs. But while the master's absolute power makes him forgiving of his pet, people of low station can't be expected to shrug off insults

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 10:27 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Of course. What an incredibly dumb question.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 10:27 AM  

It doesn't seem wise to incite a violent group to action, that is unless there's an ulterior motive. That's my point. Besides, how can free speech be championed on the one hand while it's punished on the other as thought crime?

Anonymous Chuck Martel January 09, 2015 10:28 AM  

OT:

"Back in the days of the Cold War, Jerry Pournelle edited a series of anthologies called There Will Be War, which combined SF with non-fiction articles and occasional poetry. Vox Day and Tom Kratman have done much the same with Riding the Red Horse, a collection of SF and non-fiction that examines terrorism and the rise of Red China to superpower status in the same way Pournelle’s anthologies examined the Cold War with the old Soviet Union. I’m only partway through it so far, but I think I’ve read enough to say this is just as good as the Cold War version."

from theothermccain.com

Blogger The Deuce January 09, 2015 10:30 AM  

Well, it's nice to see all these liberals admit that George Tiller had it coming, at least.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:31 AM  

@Rhys

You wrote: "He has a French girlfriend who may be with him (just like the Boston Bombers the native women choose the alpha jihadis"

Her name appears to be Boumedienne, or some variant thereof, according to RT.

Lakhdar Boumedienne was the guy whose lawyers sued the Bush Amdinistration over habeas corpus in response to his kidnapping by agents of the US government and subsequent confinement at Guantanamo Bay.

May not be at all related, but I wouldn't assume she is "french" in the usual sense ...

Anonymous hygate January 09, 2015 10:31 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Pusillanimity

Anonymous jamsco January 09, 2015 10:32 AM  

"Amused by him or not, the jester who enjoys immunity from the king has long been a feature of Western civilization."

You have shown that there is a historical basis for their actions, but you haven't shown a moral basis for them.

The people of Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been shot for their art, nor prosecuted for it, but they should have been ashamed.

It's possible to logically think "the government should have protected them" and "what they did was foolish and wrong" at the same time.

Anonymous DavidK January 09, 2015 10:35 AM  

I can only add that this Western tradition ultimately comes from Christ who told his disciples to turn the other cheek. That is why countries from Western Civilization are referred to as Christian nations, even when the government is set up explicitly to be secular. The fundamental assumptions rest on Christ's teachings.

Of course, the West is slowly throwing away those fundamental assumptions, but hasn't yet thrown away all of them.

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 10:36 AM  

It doesn't seem wise to incite a violent group to action

A) Irrelevant to the question of free speech, and B) it doesn't seem wise to conduct mass killings of citizens of a nation that has a history of going to war for a hundred years when pushed

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:36 AM  

It doesn't seem wise to incite a violent group to action, that is unless there's an ulterior motive. That's my point.

Do I spy a shifting goal post?

Besides, how can free speech be championed on the one hand while it's punished on the other as thought crime?


No one here seems to believe in thought crimes.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:37 AM  

The government should not have protected them.

Fuck's sake - the number of people begging the government to assume more dictatorial powers over a few dead cartoonists is shocking.

A real indication that there is no such thing as western civilisation any more, just a bunch of flaccid pansies cowering in the shadow of the ruins ...

As to what they did being foolish, I would agree, but only because they knowingly aggravated a bunch of people known to respond violently to such aggravation, and yet they took almost no measures to defend themselves from the inevitable.

As to it being wrong, opinions differ. Plainly someone thought so. The real question is, whose interests does it serve to FOCUS on what they did wrong, as opposed to focusing on what their killers did wrong?

And I would put it to you that the answer to that question is:

"not yours".

And certainly not mine.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 10:39 AM  

And yet Western nations are wrought with thought crime punishment, hence why the establishment wants to do away with online anonymity.

No "shifting goal post," my point was just that: to incite a notoriously violent group to action, in your own country to boot, is downright stupid.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:39 AM  

Fuck's sake - the number of people begging the government to assume more dictatorial powers over a few dead cartoonists is shocking.

Has anyone done that on this blog?

Anonymous Musashi January 09, 2015 10:39 AM  

"Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?"

F##k them, they're not my people, I don't care what they think.

They're not the only ones in this world willing to be violent. The depraved cowards that currently infest the West are not representative of everyone in the West. Perhaps, for a while anyway, the Muslims will be useful in ridding us of those that caused this problem in the first place.

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 10:41 AM  

to incite a notoriously violent group to action, in your own country to boot, is downright stupid.

That may well be, but it's still utterly irrelevant to the question of free speech. Why don't you quit typing and think for two minutes?

Anonymous VD January 09, 2015 10:41 AM  

It's possible to logically think "the government should have protected them" and "what they did was foolish and wrong" at the same time.

Of course it is. You could also add "unfunny" and "of little artistic merit" and I wouldn't have disagreed. But you're ignoring the fact that we're dealing in martial semiotics here.

I mean, Jamsco, you're the one who welcomes the mass importation of Africans and Muslims. Congratulations. Look on your work and be proud. And I will tell you right now, the same blessings of diversity are coming to Minneapolis.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:41 AM  

No "shifting goal post," my point was just that: to incite a notoriously violent group to action, in your own country to boot, is downright stupid.

Would you apply that same standard to your own comments?

Anonymous Porky January 09, 2015 10:42 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

So free speech is fine EXCEPT in regards to Muslims, Christians, Jews, the police, Greenpeace, Occupy Wallstreet, Right Wing Militias, Animal rights activists, Trade Unions, The Feds, Black Panthers, Drug cartels, Bill Ayers, Abortion protesters, President Obama, Maoist guerrillas, and Ray Rice.

Is there anybody I missed?

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 10:43 AM  

"
Fuck's sake - the number of people begging the government to assume more dictatorial powers over a few dead cartoonists is shocking."

fascinating.

murder is out of the scope of government power...

what a strange worldview.

Anonymous Daniel January 09, 2015 10:43 AM  

People who shop in kosher groceries are just asking for it. They should have been ashamed.


...right?

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 10:44 AM  

" And I will tell you right now, the same blessings of diversity are coming to Minneapolis."

and arguably already have.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:44 AM  

Is there anybody I missed?

College football fans

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 09, 2015 10:44 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:44 AM  

@Josh

that is the necessary consequence of "the government should have protected them".

That sentence (it is only 3 or 4 comments before mine) has no possible meaning in this context, other than requiring the government to exercise powers no sane person would want or agree to live under.

See also, for example, the wife of one of the dead blaming the government for not preventing this. There is no way of preventing such things without the exercise of overwhelming force and routine repression on a mass and system-wide scale.

The government should protect them by protecting all of us; by finding and prosecuting and punishing the criminals.

Not be encouraging everyone to piss their pants and beg for mommy to keep them safe.

Such infantilisation is not in our interest, but it IS in the interest of those in power.

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 10:45 AM  

"
The people of Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have been shot for their art, nor prosecuted for it, but they should have been ashamed."

Yes... they violated the First Law of Jamsco: Always be a pussy.

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 10:45 AM  

Well to be fair, yes we have.

We want it for our side, true. But I'm all for the French government abolishing religious tolerance (against Islam), massive deportation and removal of citizenship (from Muslims and people of African/Middle Eastern national origin), seizure of property from the same, the reintroduction of the death penalty, and probably one or three other points that are unquestionably authoritarian in nature.

Now granted, "for a few dead cartoonists" aren't my stimulus so much as a bit more kindling on the bonfire. And I'm not *pleased* that things have gone this way.

But as the choice of living in a fairly free, fairly open, fairly tolerant society is rapidly being removed from the realistic options, I prefer the one where people of my blood and beliefs are the ones wearing the boots.

Blogger Joshua Dyal January 09, 2015 10:46 AM  

It doesn't seem wise to incite a violent group to action, that is unless there's an ulterior motive. That's my point. Besides, how can free speech be championed on the one hand while it's punished on the other as thought crime?

You seem to be very confused. There is a difference between being legally punished and being socially punished. Free speech means that you are not legally punished for publishing unpopular or even offensive views. The notion that other private citizens can't be offended by your offensive speech and act accordingly, within the confines of the law, has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

Nobody demands that, for example, SJW's be denied the ability to speak (or type, as the case may be.) Merely that when they do, they invite ridicule and insult upon their heads as the natural reaction of what they have freely spoken.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 10:46 AM  

The government should not have protected them.

Fuck's sake - the number of people begging the government to assume more dictatorial powers over a few dead cartoonists is shocking.


This goes back to another post/thread.

IF the government disarms the populace, then the government owes safety to the populace.

That's not saying "dictatorial powers.” It is saying that the government assumed responsibility for protection when it restricted self-defense (gun laws).

That said, I would expect a government response. They’re responsible for public safety (moreso, given the suppression of gun rights) and must take measures to ensure the jihadis don’t repeat the actions.

Again, that’s not calling for a dictatorship, but it is saying that the government has to either allow the populace to defend itself or step up and do the job it swore it would do when it disarmed them.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:46 AM  

@Nate

I encourage you to read for comprehension.

Perhaps you are labouring under the misapprehension that France lacks laws against murder?

Blogger Earl Thomas January 09, 2015 10:46 AM  

'Amused by him or not, the jester who enjoys immunity from the king has long been a feature of Western civilization.'

And guess which culture doesn't have this immunity long prescribed in it...the one that took him out.

OpenID simplytimothy January 09, 2015 10:47 AM  

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Yes.

Does it follow that everyone who engages in that right is worthy of my support? Does it follow that I must fight and die on their behalf? (as opposed to fight for the right of free speech).

Of course not.

Let's take the simple, loathsome example of the communist liar Saul Alinsky--a man who was fluent in the use of the virtues of the West against the West and its freedoms.

Did Alinsky have the right to spew his words? yes. Is it my responsibility to ride to his physical defense when a member of the vibrant hordes disembowels him?

No, of course not. For, while Alinsky was enjoying the benefits of freedom of speech, he was its enemy.

Your argument mistakes the principle for the man.

As the wag quipped, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"









Anonymous jamsco January 09, 2015 10:47 AM  

"I mean, Jamsco, you're the one who welcomes the mass importation of Africans and Muslims."

I have never stated that - nor do I think that. If you think I have - I'd sure like to know where.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:47 AM  

@Owen

I would not argue with your formulation overmuch. It is certainly true that all our governments have defrauded us with a social contract they would ban in any commercial setting.

Anonymous karsten January 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

"in 1995 CH called for the banning of the National Front."

Typical. So much for this group as some kind of latter-day Voltaires.

They're another brood of Cultural Marxist propagandists. Just like the South Park guys, actually.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

Yes... they violated the First Law of Jamsco: Always be a pussy.

No no no.

The First Law of Jamsco is Always Be Nice.

Anonymous Daniel January 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

After all, indulging in haram is a very serious offense against ALLAH and the punishment may be severe. Kosher groceries are haram and an offense to violent people, and anyone shopping there is just asking for it...

...right?

Anonymous Stingray January 09, 2015 10:48 AM  

Is there anybody I missed?

Women. How could you leave out the poor women?!?!

Anonymous Daniel January 09, 2015 10:49 AM  

Maybe if they just kill all the cartoonists and the grocery shoppers, that will make our lives better...

...right?

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 10:49 AM  

The government should protect them by protecting all of us; by finding and prosecuting and punishing the criminals.

Criminals, huh?

Do you think the jihadis are at war with the French? Or the slightest bit concerned about jail time or breaking laws?

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:49 AM  

They're another brood of Cultural Marxist propagandists. Just like the South Park guys, actually.

In what ways are the south park guys cultural Marxists?

Anonymous Porky January 09, 2015 10:52 AM  

I have never stated that - nor do I think that. If you think I have - I'd sure like to know where.

You clearly don't understand VD's brand of rhetoric.

Anonymous Fuck neoreaction January 09, 2015 10:52 AM  

"what a strange worldview."

Smells like shit.

Eau de Moldbug, actually.

The NRx are nothing but reliable to the Party Line.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:53 AM  

@Owen

You're widening the argument. I did not say the government should protect us by sending them to criminal academy at our expense, I said punish them.

Dont mistake me for any kind of acolyte of modern "justice" systems. That's a whole 'nother argument.

(which i'd be happy to have, but it is not directly relevant here)

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 09, 2015 10:54 AM  

Cogitans Iuvenis, "2. Because not defending him means freedom of speech is nothing more than a western shibboleth. I don't know about you but I care about the freedom of speech."

Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

The fact that they antagonized a group known for violence is irrelevant, fact is that they are in OUR lands and in our lands our rules govern. The attack didn't happen in Iraq, nor Syria, nor Libya, nor Afghanistan nor any other middle eastern nation. It happened in Europe, a western nation with western traditions and western rules. The French response should not be "why did they not realize they were going to antagonize them" but "how high should we hoist the blade of the guillotine?"

Anonymous Gx1080 January 09, 2015 10:55 AM  

"They had it coming". More repulsive than the actual cowardice is the attempt to disguise it as virtue. Traitorous vermin, worthless eunuchs, are the weight that Western Nations must shed to be able to face their enemies, who wish nothing that their destruction.

Anonymous Laz January 09, 2015 10:56 AM  

"Is there anybody I missed?"

The Clintons, Dick Chaney, D.C sniper, Mexicans, African-Americans and anybody in Texas

Blogger YIH January 09, 2015 10:56 AM  

I do think they had some responsibility. As Vox pointed out yesterday at Alpha Game their only door security was a 'key code' that he noted was easily defeated:
Arriving at No 10 – the offices of Charlie Hebdo – the two men approach Corinne Rey, a cartoonist who is arriving at work with her young daughter, having just picked her up from kindergarten.

The gunmen force the terrified woman, also known to her friends as ‘Coco’, to punch in the four-digit security code allowing them access to the magazine’s office. Miss Rey was frogmarched upstairs with her daughter. The pair hid underneath a desk during the subsequent chaos.

Miss Rey said: ‘They said they wanted to go up to the offices, so I tapped in the code.

‘They shot on Wolinski, Cabu… it lasted five minutes.

Considering that they were quite aware that they were target due to being firebombed in 2011 by moslims, that they didn't have an actual security guard was neglectful.
Also your mention of the jews, well, Charlie Hebdo canned someone in 2009 for committing the most heinous crime in Europe; ''anti-semitism''.

Anonymous Drew_Deuce's January 09, 2015 10:57 AM  

Neither the cartoonists at CH, Bill Maher, nor any other politically incorrect speaker should rely on the king, nor their own country men to protect their lives or property. I would agree that they should expect all decent and right thinking people to act in defense of the nations ideals after they've been killed.

But to be so brave as to stand your grounds for rights to speech, but not also take measures to stand your grounds for rights to property and life is stupid.

They should have both written and said things they believed AND been lying in waiting to utterly destroy the inevitably arriving practitioners of peace.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 10:57 AM  

Josh, "Would you apply that same standard to your own comments?"

Absolutely. Besides, I'm not using MSM to incite a reaction from an extremist group. Besides, the group primarily responsible for allowing said extremists to flood their countries is getting off scott-free.

Porky, um, yes, free speech should apply across the board, but not without responsibility. If I walk into a public area and begin mocking Muslims, am I not endangering the well-being of others? It seems the only people PC has deemed alright to mock are whites and Christians - usually one and the same. Do you think that's a coincidence?

Harsh, "That may well be, but it's still utterly irrelevant to the question of free speech. Why don't you quit typing and think for two minutes?"

That is until it jeopardizes the lives of others, as the incident in France has illustrated. Like I said, these are people notorious for their extremism. Therefore it is counterproductive to incite them to action.

Joshua, I agree.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 10:57 AM  

@Alexander

That is a very short term perspective.

The moment anyone attains to such dictatorial powers they cease to be like you in any meaningful way, or on "your side".

Then you've created a monster to protect you which is far worse than the danger you faced previously.

"It will all end in tears, you mark my words. These things usually do."

Anonymous Bobo January 09, 2015 10:57 AM  

Gov't: "You can't insult muzzloids, or we'll shut you down and throw you in the joint" = No Free Speech. See Canada.

Gov't: " Say what you want about muzzloids, but remember that they're savages, and quite touchy ones at that, so be prepared to defend yourselves from attack, in case we're busy doing something else" = Free Speech.

I support Charlie's right of free speech. I will defend it against the Gov't. I will not defend them from muzzloids or anyone else they pick a fight with.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 10:59 AM  

You're widening the argument. I did not say the government should protect us by sending them to criminal academy at our expense, I said punish them.

Dont mistake me for any kind of acolyte of modern "justice" systems. That's a whole 'nother argument.


No, I think you misunderstand or I wasn't clear.

I'm skeptical about using the criminal justice system to counter a large, well-funded faction that has declared war on the larger society. It's ill-suited, open to exploitation, and will ultimately fail to do what is really needed:

Take away the jihadi will to fight.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 10:59 AM  

Besides, the group primarily responsible for allowing said extremists to flood their countries is getting off scott-free.

You know, that could be interpreted as antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:00 AM  

Cogitans Iuvenis, "The fact that they antagonized a group known for violence is irrelevant, fact is that they are in OUR lands and in our lands our rules govern. The attack didn't happen in Iraq, nor Syria, nor Libya, nor Afghanistan nor any other middle eastern nation. It happened in Europe, a western nation with western traditions and western rules. The French response should not be "why did they not realize they were going to antagonize them" but "how high should we hoist the blade of the guillotine?""

Yes, but who let them in and who's stopping that in-flow from Middle Eastern countries? That is what needs to be addressed.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:01 AM  

Josh, "You know, that could be interpreted as antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation."

Oh really? So you think said group has the right to dictate the policies and legislation in other people's nations, then turn around and lash out at anyone who points out the obvious?

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:03 AM  

Scuzza,

Yes, it very much is a short-term.

But right now, long-term is that we get overwhelmed and destroyed demographically.

So if the choice is a monster of my own creation that very likely will turn on me, or a monster of someone else's creation explicitly designed to kill me... well, shit. Going with option A.

I'm all ears though on your proposed third way. There still is one: cutting the welfare state and new immigration and not actively undermining the host culture, with the intent of self-deportation lowering the pressure and the remaining immigrants understanding they will not be tolerated if they don't assimilate and police their own.

Going back even further, ideally they would not have been allowed in in the first place.

But going further forward? Not seeing a lot of answers that don't involve monsters.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2015 11:03 AM  

You assume that the king did not use the islamists to do his bidding.

well, there is The Rightful King with the Mandate of Heaven, and then there's the guy sitting on the throne. Sometimes it's hard to tell the two apart, but this is one of the ways that you can.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:04 AM  

Oh really? So you think said group has the right to dictate the policies and legislation in other people's nations, then turn around and lash out at anyone who points out the obvious?

Well if they're as all powerful as you say they are, you should heed your own words and not antagonize them.

Savy?

Blogger Will January 09, 2015 11:04 AM  

It is odd that lefties will blame Hebdo, but cry foul when you even suggest a woman might be slightly at fault for being raped. Blaming Hebdo is like blaming a victim of (actual) rape.

Anonymous Salt January 09, 2015 11:05 AM  

One thing these idiot islamists seem to not put any thought to is, the French have nukes. All the French have to do is declare this attack as an attack on France by Islam, ignoring any national aspect (irrelevant imo), and dropping a big one on Mecca.

Anonymous A simple test January 09, 2015 11:05 AM  

Free speech or a substantial percentage of Muslims in a society.

Choose one. Only one. So far the Western elites have chosen the second.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:08 AM  

All the French have to do is declare this attack as an attack on France by Islam, ignoring any national aspect (irrelevant imo), and dropping a big one on Mecca.

Would Jonah Goldberg still call them cheese eating surrender monkeys?

Blogger Nate January 09, 2015 11:09 AM  

"Perhaps you are labouring under the misapprehension that France lacks laws against murder?"

And perhaps you think mass deportation of assimilated violent invaders is Big Government.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:09 AM  

Josh, I think not. The very fact that they're in power is completely anathema to the purpose of Western governments. You know that they were responsible for opening the door which allowed these extremists to flood our countries and we have a right to fight back against both. You're confusing fear with righteous anger. They don't mock Judaism in MSM; they laud it and protect it at all costs.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 11:11 AM  

I think the seeds to undermine the support of the jihadi have already been planted.

The shoots and roots are difficult to spot in the chaos and, if we were able to completely isolate the Middle East, it might be easier and less painful for the West.

One of the most destructive ideologies in the West will infect the muslim culture. Indeed, I think the jihadi actions are as much a reaction to it as they area a reaction to other Western encroachment.

Anonymous VD January 09, 2015 11:13 AM  

I have never stated that - nor do I think that. If you think I have - I'd sure like to know where.

I stand corrected. I erroneously understood that to be your position after discussion that concerned Piper. I'm glad to hear it.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:15 AM  

You know that they were responsible for opening the door which allowed these extremists to flood our countries and we have a right to fight back against both.

Yeah, this still sounds like antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation...

You can't have it both ways, dude.

OpenID UnderwaterOperative January 09, 2015 11:16 AM  

"You know that they were responsible for opening the door which allowed these extremists to flood our countries"

So we're back to yesterday. Let's worry about who started the fire before putting the fire out...

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 11:16 AM  

@Owen

fair point. I dont believe these people are representative of a wider faction WITHIN the larger french (or 'western') society - I think they're more likely not that organised nor that large or well-funded.

If Lind et al are right about 4th generation warfare, they don't need to be in order to be effective.

But it is also true that modern cointel methods PRODUCE militant opposition, they don't dampen it. And these clowns are symptoms of the underlying problem, not the problem itself, in my view. (That doesn't mean I wouldn't hang them in the public square: I would. But not because I've tied some politically convenient label on them - terrorist, extremist, militant, jihadi, whatever - but because they're guilty of multiple murders.)

So we agree that whatever the official response to this it is likely to be counterproductive. In the meantime, it seems the Police have had little trouble tracking down the perps; the problem is going to be with what happens after that ...

OpenID mattse001 January 09, 2015 11:16 AM  

The secular statists want all force in the hands of government. They promise to protect the citizens but at best, that is naïve. Sometimes it's an outright lie, and often the state itself is the guilty party.
The reality is that the state cannot be everywhere and we wouldn't want it to be. Every citizen who would be free has an obligation to defend themselves, especially if they are criticizing the violent and powerful.
The paradigm of "the King" is a call to another era, one full of serfs.

Anonymous Porky January 09, 2015 11:18 AM  

If I walk into a public area and begin mocking Muslims, am I not endangering the well-being of others?

Better not wear fur in public either. Somebody could get hurt.

OpenID cailcorishev January 09, 2015 11:18 AM  

They're another brood of Cultural Marxist propagandists. Just like the South Park guys, actually.

Yeah, anyone who thinks South Park satirizes everyone equally hasn't watched the show very closely. Yes, it makes fun of Jews, but in a lighthearted, mostly affectionate way, similar to many Jewish comedians like Buddy Hackett or Mel Brooks. Sort of the "Yeah, I know we're kinda goofy in ways, but we can all laugh about it." No comparison to their treatment of Catholics or Mormons. I mean, when Cartman demanded Kyle's Jew Gold (and Kyle had it on him, just like Cartman claimed), that was hilarious, but there was no hate in it.

People are too quick to fall for the "Oh, they make fun of everyone, so it's okay" dodge. There are different types of making fun, and lefty entertainers are good at mixing in one type to give them cover for the other type.

Which isn't to say they should have been killed, of course.

Blogger dash January 09, 2015 11:19 AM  

This is as good an analysis as you're likely to read anywhere. The court jester/king analogy and the (failed) dependency relationship are spot on.

Personally, I never had any use for their nihilism, so I never bought their rag, but they spared no one--not even, on occasion, the '60s marxist left, of which they were the ideological children--although their favorite targets were what they considered to be of the extreme right-wing: religion (all religions) and the nationalists.

An hour ago, I stood in front of Le Monde's offices (my dog's favorite spot to empty her bowels, it so happens) which has barricaded it's front entrance with an iron curtain emblazoned with the placard "Je Suis Charlie". Oh, how I'm tempted to return with a spray can and add MARTEL in large block letters. Doing the work the French will not do for themselves...

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:20 AM  

Jews should not live in Germany. Why are you provoking people infamous for violent retaliation.

Blacks shouldn't bitch about Yankees killing them. You shouldn't provoke people infamous for violent retaliation.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:20 AM  

Owen, the only thing that's been planted is the seeds of war by the Marxists in power. They intentionally allowed mass immigration from Middle Eastern countries and then sowed discord in order to spur violent uprising. That's their specialty, to promote diversity and then pit two sides against each other, the innocent are left to suffer while they plunder the riches, and then run away with their tail tucked between their legs crying about how persecuted they are. Since there's no way they can deny it, they need to resort to ad hominem and distractions in order to cover up their guilt.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 11:21 AM  

@Alexander

Difference between a revolt and a revolution: fighting to kill the monster and fighting for a new monster.

If you are going to fight, then fight to kill the monster.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 11:22 AM  

crap: one of those pairs should be t'other way around ...

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:23 AM  

I mean, when Cartman demanded Kyle's Jew Gold (and Kyle had it on him, just like Cartman claimed), that was hilarious, but there was no hate in it.

What about the Jewish summer camp episode where it turned out that Jehovah was a space hippo?

Anonymous Porky January 09, 2015 11:23 AM  

Here's what you're missing, Michael.

Those cartoonists are not dead because they were disrespectful.

They are dead because their society was politically correct.



Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:24 AM  

@Scuzza

With what shall I kill it?

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:26 AM  

Josh, "Yeah, this still sounds like antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation...

You can't have it both ways, dude."

The difference is that the Jews have already done violence to Western civilization by allowing our countries to become breeding grounds for extremists. Furthermore, I don't see mainstream Christian sources openly mocking Judaism, so your argument doesn't wash. Either way, we're left to clean up the mess Judaism left in our countries, so we have no choice but to eventually deal with it, especially now that their state actors have manipulated us into various wars in the ME for profit while funding and supplying the ISIS extremists or whatever handle they go under tomorrow.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:29 AM  

Porky, they're dead for three main reasons:

One, because of France's immigration policy.

Two, because they're disarmed.

Three, because the MSM is stupid to knowingly incite the extremists within their midst.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:29 AM  

So Michael, what you're really saying is antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation is bad, unless it's the Jews.

Blogger dfordoom January 09, 2015 11:29 AM  

in 1995 CH called for the banning of the National Front.

So they were typical leftists. They believed in freedom of speech for themselves and they believed in silencing anyone who disagreed with them.

Anonymous Porky January 09, 2015 11:29 AM  

that was hilarious, but there was no hate in it.

There was no hate in their broadway play "The Book of Mormon" either.

They must be in league with the Mooooooooooooooormons!

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 11:30 AM  

Owen, the only thing that's been planted is the seeds of war by the Marxists in power.

Well, I meant the general rot of Leftism. By its nature, it runs counter to any religion because it is meant to supplant religion as the sole god in people's lives.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:33 AM  

They must be in league with the Mooooooooooooooormons!

Dum dum dum dum dum

Dum dum dum dum dum

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:33 AM  

Josh, the Jews are not as forward as the Muslims are; they prefer to do things in a more discreet manner to evade direct scrutiny, such as the Lavon Affair or 9/11 (with US and Saudi government involvement).

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:35 AM  

Owen, that's right, but it would be remiss to not mention the root source of Marxism and that is Judaism.

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:35 AM  

Update: Some sort of shit going down at the Eiffel Tower. It's being evacuated and police are apparently swarming the area.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:36 AM  

Josh, the Jews are not as forward as the Muslims are; they prefer to do things in a more discreet manner to evade direct scrutiny, such as the Lavon Affair or 9/11 (with US and Saudi government involvement).

Wouldn't that make it even more wise for you to heed your own advice and stop antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?

Anonymous PA January 09, 2015 11:36 AM  

-- "Fuck's sake - the number of people begging the government to assume more dictatorial powers over a few dead cartoonists is shocking."

The fundamental problem with Western governments is that they prohibit individual and community self-defense in the first place. Imagine if skinheads were tolerated, even quasi-celebrated.

Anonymous Joe Blow January 09, 2015 11:36 AM  

I appreciate what Charlie Hebdo did, but on the other hand, make no mistake about it. They, like their hero Voltaire and his pal Meslier, were a pack of destructive assholes on a mission to tear down the institutions in society that permit an ordered liberty. Those two ancient Frenchmen - like many of our modern aggro nihilist atheists and maybe to some extent the Charlie writers - are terribly destructive, no less so than leftist revolutionaries. They just destroy our social institutions for different reasons than the leftists.

Don't get me wrong - we need to defend atheists and scumbags because as a matter of law, it's very dangerous to let government sort out which speech is permissible and which isn't. Assholes like Fred Phelps or the Charlie Hebdo writers are the ones who stretch and protect our free speech rights. Doesn't make them right on the merits, or good people.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 09, 2015 11:38 AM  

@Alexander

my preference would be for superior arguments, but I dont actually believe that is going to work, either.

But then I dont believe western civilisation can be saved in the way most people think about that. IOW, I'm not a reconstructionist type, I'm what you might call an armageddonist, and I believe it's not far off.

That's not to say we cannot as individuals make a difference, we can. It is to recognise that limits of that possible difference.

In a democracy, no single person can "kill the monster". That's inherent in the system, that only a significant politically active group can bring about systemic change. But then, no man ever became king on his own either.

Whatever method you choose, you're still going to have to persuade people to join you, support you, fund you, and fight for you.

So we're back to superior arguments.

My point being that I, personally, will not fight for a new monster. I'll argue against the existing one becoming more monstrous, but I see not point at all in laying down my life to replace it with a new one. You want to persuade me and those like me to your cause, you're going to need a better argument than that.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:39 AM  

Josh, no, because we are called to bear truth by Christ, not to cower in fear. Jesus does not want for us to mock and ridicule others. There's a fine line between exposing the wicked and mocking the wicked.

Anonymous Michael is Cady From Mean Girls January 09, 2015 11:40 AM  

I was a woman possessed. I spent about 80 percent of my time talking about Regina. And the other 20 percent of the time, I was praying for someone else to bring her up so I could talk about her more.

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:40 AM  

Indeed PA. Charlie's lot might be alive right now if after threats had been made against him, a couple of heavies with allegiances to FA had decided they had business hanging around the front of the building.

But nope. The elite - and Charlie Hebdo - have decided that all extremes are bad. The elite went a step further and decided which one was worse... and shied away from it.

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 11:43 AM  

Ad hominem? Don't care.

Anonymous Stilicho January 09, 2015 11:44 AM  

you haven't shown a moral basis for them.

I mean, Jamsco, you're the one who welcomes the mass importation of Africans and Muslims.

Just curious Jamsco, do you think there is a moral basis for your position on immigration? If so, what is it?

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 11:44 AM  

Harsh, "That may well be, but it's still utterly irrelevant to the question of free speech. Why don't you quit typing and think for two minutes?"

That is until it jeopardizes the lives of others, as the incident in France has illustrated. Like I said, these are people notorious for their extremism. Therefore it is counterproductive to incite them to action.


You're confusing the wisdom of exercising free speech with the right to exercise free speech. Ad baculum is not a valid argument.

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:44 AM  

Josh, no, because we are called to bear truth by Christ, not to cower in fear.
Um, asking "Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?" Looks an awful lot like cowering in fear.
Jesus does not want for us to mock and ridicule others.
1. Jesus is a Jew.
2. He mocked and ridiculed others. Particularly the Pharisees.
There's a fine line between exposing the wicked and mocking the wicked.
You can do both. And mocking the wicked is a great way of exposing them.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 11:46 AM  

@Nate:""Really? Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?"

***chuckle***

You mean like governments?
"
dammit, you beat me to it......great minds think alike....drunk ones too......although I'm not drunk...yet...not even drinking....too early even for me.......

Anonymous Starbuck January 09, 2015 11:48 AM  

I find this all very interesting. The "I am Charlie" slogan along with all the pens and pencils in solidarity to these cartoonists should be used. The cartoonists stepped out and attacked in art satire form, i.e. cartoons, the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. Which seriously offended Muslims. Ok, I believe this was done on purpose. They got shot dead standing for this right of free speech. The police are trying to catch the perpetrators. But, I have seen people demonstrating by holding up pens and holding signs saying "I am Charlie" in French though.

My question is now: Are they going to put those pens and pencils to good use? Will they stand up for free speech and flood newspapers, TV, The Internet with Mohammed style satire/ironic/personality attacks? You know, let the muslims know that there are MANY who share this ideal of Freedom Of Speech that they are all willing to provoke the Islamic world? You could literally flood the media with all this.

I would seriously relish that. Now that I could applaud. I don't think it will happen, but it would be very interesting at how bad the muslim world would eat itself...

Anonymous VD January 09, 2015 11:49 AM  

Michael, if you're going to go on and on about the Jews every time there is a thread about Muslims or anything else, I'm going to spam you. Knock it the fuck off.

I don't give a quantum of a damn what you think is important.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 11:49 AM  

@S..man:"that is the necessary consequence of "the government should have protected them"."

I think the context is they should have restricted their ability to protect themselves, via gun control, and even discourage them to do so.....that's how I took it....

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 11:50 AM  

should NOT have restricted...

Anonymous Alexander January 09, 2015 11:51 AM  

@Scuzza

I can empathize with your dilemma and I'll salute you if you can hold true to your resolve of non-participation, but:

Superior arguments aren't going to work on those who *have* a superior argument: Namely, Allah wishes the entire world to submit to him, and deathly force to do so is not only allowed, but glorified. Case closed.

It will not work on those with an inferior argument, but who deny reality. The John Scalzi's of the world. There's really no arguing with "I lack virtue and so will denigrate those in my own tribe who do while grovelling to those outsiders who would do me harm". Case never opened to begin with.

So when both large elements of the ruling class and the enemy are in fact working together, I am willing to explore options that would normally be outrageous.

Just like, I would prefer to live in a world where Anders Breivik is a folk hero than one where my grandchildren may live in a home no larger than the smallest Muslim dwelling... if they aren't first sold to the barracks and the brothel.

Does't mean I find it a good outcome.

But now I think we are arguing over personal differences of action but that we are both looking at the same chess board. If you have any arguments that you think may sway me I shall listen and respond, but I for one have no particular grievance over how you wish to play the game.

Anonymous FP January 09, 2015 11:51 AM  

" "Will you please explain what you mean by this?"

The word catholic means whole or universal. "

And yet... Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned,” Donohue wrote just hours after the slaughter of 12 journalists, cartoonists, police, and average French citizens. “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

Blogger Josh January 09, 2015 11:57 AM  

Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

Sometimes I wonder if he's just mad that he can't murder his critics...

Anonymous Hodge Podge January 09, 2015 11:57 AM  

“a secular society will be decadent.”



It is the extent of that decadence that matters. You seem to have forgotten that in 1600 Europe, society was based on Christianity, yet its rulers and subjects were increasingly becoming self-indulgent and materialistic despite being strict adherents to that faith.


“The choice is not, as Vox as stated in the past, between secularism and religion, it is between Christianity, Islam, and Paganism.”

What about Hinduism and Judaism?


“…in the French rounding up all their Algerians, Tunisians, and other assorted scum and deporting them back to North Africa, then their sacrifice will not have been in vain.”

How would this be achieved? What about inter-ethnic couples and their children? Would they be allowed to remain or forced to leave? What is the cost involved? Where would they be deported to?


“Be inspired--and act.”



Lugana Beach Fogey, the bankster, always quick to demand others act, all in the comfort from his easy chair and pipe, stroking his beard.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 12:02 PM  

"... and anybody in Texas"

FUWFT

or Ray's version:

SUWFT

Anonymous Michael January 09, 2015 12:03 PM  

Josh, "Um, asking "Does free speech include antagonizing a group infamous for violent retaliation?" Looks an awful lot like cowering in fear."

No, it doesn't, because we're not called to provoke violence.

"1. Jesus is a Jew.
2. He mocked and ridiculed others. Particularly the Pharisees."

Jesus came in human form as a Jew, to tend to the lost sheep of Israel. The Pharisees were part of the Synagogue of Satan; Jesus, being the Messiah, had the full authority to rebuke them, as do faithful Christians today. Jesus mocked no one, get your terminology right; He was the one who was mocked, reviled, spit upon, scourged and crucified.

"You can do both. And mocking the wicked is a great way of exposing them."

Mockery serves no purpose except to sow discord. It would be like referring to every Jew as a kike just because those in positions of power have done wrong. IOW, two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2015 12:05 PM  

With what shall I kill it?

Guns.

Later on ropes and lampposts.

Also love for that which isn't the monster. Maybe faith that there is something other than the monster.

But definitely guns and the will to use them.

Anonymous paradox January 09, 2015 12:19 PM  

Hey, you have a right to free speech. What you don't have is the right to enslave others, in order to defend your speech or life.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 12:23 PM  

"If you are going to fight, then fight to kill the monster."

If you're successful you become the monster, if not you have a better fed monster.....

the best you could hope for is to have a new, baby monster, and keep it on a tight leash as it grows up....or periodically kill it and replace it before it does.......which we never do because he's so cute and keeps most of the people somewhat happy most of the time...while he eats the others......

like all analogies mine eventually falls apart, but it's fun posting them........

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 12:24 PM  

Hey, you have a right to free speech. What you don't have is the right to enslave others, in order to defend your speech or life.

Why not?

Anonymous DrTorch January 09, 2015 12:25 PM  

I ask again. You said:

" I will NOT defend to the death their right to say anything. Not in this instance."

Tell us what words are worth killing over.


I will not be telling you anything since your question makes no sense for a couple of reasons.

I understand the rules of the blog, but I thought that nonsensical questions were exempt.

I didn't make the claim that words were worth fighting to the death...that was Voltaire (as per EB Hall) so your question should go to him.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2015 12:27 PM  

Does it follow that everyone who engages in that right is worthy of my support? Does it follow that I must fight and die on their behalf? (as opposed to fight for the right of free speech).


You have a responsibility to preserve civilization if you wish to live in it. Expelling barbarians is an essential part of preserving civilization. If you are unwilling to take the risks inherent in expelling barbarians, you do not deserve and (unless rescued by better and forgiving men) will not long enjoy the benefits of civilization.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2015 12:29 PM  

If you're successful you become the monster

I see you have no faith there is something other than the monster.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 12:29 PM  

But nope. The elite - and Charlie Hebdo - have decided that all extremes are bad.

More importantly, they have decided for the populace what is "extreme."

If you're one of the people who actually believe what's written in the Bible (Abraham, Noah, Jesus)? Extremist.

Blogger CubuCoko January 09, 2015 12:33 PM  

How about they didn't have it coming, but weren't exactly heroes either? (see this, for example)
The whole episode reminds me of the Tranzis getting their comeuppance in one of Col. Kratman's books ("Desert Called Peace", iirc) - only this time at the hands of actual jihadists.

Anonymous JI January 09, 2015 12:37 PM  

Charlie Hebdo has mocked Christianity in the most vile ways. Perhaps God does not extend his protection to people who reject him so utterly.

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 12:38 PM  

"If you are going to fight, then fight to kill the monster."

If you're successful you become the monster


I'm not following your logic. If I defend my family from an armed thug and kill him in the process, do I become the monster? Or did I miss some of the context?

Anonymous JI January 09, 2015 12:47 PM  

I think this is a brilliant analogy. Charlie Hebdo and the like as the court jesters. IMO, the only place they went wrong as jesters was in spending so much of their energy attacking Christianity when that is not the threat the king faces.

OpenID cailcorishev January 09, 2015 12:51 PM  

What about the Jewish summer camp episode where it turned out that Jehovah was a space hippo?

Again, over-the-top silly. Disrespectful, sure, but not an attempt to get anyone thinking anything bad about Jews.

South Park's jokes about Jews aren't anti-Jewish any more than The Blues Brothers scene with the stereotypical mean nun was anti-Catholic. In-jokes.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 12:51 PM  

CuboCoko,
From the article linked:

The leftists and multiculturalists who are now so determined to protect bourgeois values such as “the freedom to offend” turned their backs on the working class youth of Europe a long time ago. Their priorities are now clear to see. Rather than engage with the difficult task of building a future for their youth they prefer to play silly and irresponsible games, throwing around their sole Voltaire quote in a pique of self-righteous narcissism. It all has less to do with noble ideas of freedom than with the self-indulgence of a bored elite.

The supporters of free speech support that right for those who advocate multiculturalism, but they support jail and censorship for those who oppose it.

Interesting food for thought.

For the anti-multicults, are these bastards (CH) worth dying for? Or starting the fight?

For certain, the same media will attack anyone from the non-Left who fights back. They will call for immediate action to isolate, quarantine, or eliminate both camps.

I think that's the dilemma a good number face. We know there's a fight coming, but is this the group you want to be associated with? The same types who would throw the anti-multicults into jail if they had a chance?

Anonymous paradox January 09, 2015 12:52 PM  

Why not?

Uh... maybe it's because enslaving someone to defend my speech or my life, would constitute taking away their free speech.

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 12:56 PM  

Uh... maybe it's because enslaving someone to defend my speech or my life, would constitute taking away their free speech.

That's all enslavement takes away? Free speech?

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 12:56 PM  

And Taco Tuesdays.

Anonymous Daniel January 09, 2015 1:11 PM  

Charlie Hebdo has mocked Christianity in the most vile ways. Perhaps God does not extend his protection to people who reject him so utterly.

Allāhu Akbar!

Anonymous paradox January 09, 2015 1:13 PM  

The topic was fee speech. It's pretty much a given enslavement would take away other individual rights.

So do you have the right via coercion and enslavement, against another's fee speech, to force someone to defend your speech?

Anonymous Harsh January 09, 2015 1:16 PM  

The topic was fee speech. It's pretty much a given enslavement would take away other individual rights.

So do you have the right via coercion and enslavement, against another's fee speech, to force someone to defend your speech?


No.

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 1:18 PM  

So do you have the right via coercion and enslavement, against another's fee speech, to force someone to defend your speech?

You mean "you" in the individual sense, correct?

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 1:19 PM  

Because, if not, the concept of conscription/draft isn't unthinkable, especially in Europe.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 1:24 PM  

@Jack Amok:"If you're successful you become the monster

I see you have no faith there is something other than the monster."

I believe I do, but I'm not convinced He wants me to use the sword to kill the monster.

@Harsh:"I'm not following your logic. If I defend my family from an armed thug and kill him in the process, do I become the monster? Or did I miss some of the context?"

I was responding in the context of mass revolution or revolt, not personal defense. My analogy reading might be a bit off....

Anonymous patrick kelly January 09, 2015 1:28 PM  

"Perhaps God does not extend his protection to people who reject him so utterly."

It is observably true that such protection was in fact not extended to Charlie in this case. I suspect discussing why requires a lot of popcorn....

Anonymous Stilicho January 09, 2015 1:34 PM  


I was responding in the context of mass revolution or revolt, not personal defense. My analogy reading might be a bit off....


Does it make a difference to you if the thug who is illegitimately breaking into your home is wearing a uniform?

Blogger Owen January 09, 2015 1:41 PM  

Charlie Hebdo mocked Christianity, and the Holy Catholic Church. He deserved death. In a future monarchy (run by a Catholic) then mockers of the Holy Church deserve death, if not by the State then by direct action. Notice all the support for Charlie Hebdo are the spawn of Martin Luther and the Reformation, i.e. defenders of Democracy and liberalism. Clear as day who is on whose side.

Yeah, that Charlie Hebdo was a real SOB.

You only get the clarity found in that statement by studious observation, careful research, and penetrating thought.

Anonymous DavidK January 09, 2015 1:50 PM  

If Judas Iscariot was given an opportunity to repent then Charlie Hebdo should certainly get the same chance.

Anonymous Stilicho January 09, 2015 1:54 PM  

I see that Rome or Die has returned. He wants so desperately to derail the thread by instigating a Protestant/Catholic theological debate, but he doesn't know quite how to do it.

Anonymous DavidK January 09, 2015 2:08 PM  

It is being pointed out elsewhere this attack will effectively censor satire of Christianity as well as Islam. People will be too afraid to lampoon Islam, but if they continue to lampoon Christianity, they will be accused of hypocrisy.

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts