Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Extremist Ideologies & Violence ( re Charlie Hebdo )

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2636

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:51 am    Post subject: Extremist Ideologies & Violence ( re Charlie Hebdo ) Reply with quote

This week's attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris followed by the supermarket siege perpetrated by a man demanding the release of the previous two perpetrators can be read as an example of inadequate people making a bid for the admiration of others having no other means of obtaining any, but ... why would anybody resort to such acts to obtain admiration - what drives them, and indeed is it qualitatively any different from publishing cartoons ? If the latter act was one of copying the former, were the cartoons published afterwards also drawn by people seeking to be part of something bigger than themselves - that they felt assured of the automatic admiration of others ?


There has been an awful lot written already and Democrats in Wales are planning to jump on this blandwagon and get their photographs taken as usual, after all there is an election soon and they are all unpopular at the moment and they need to find something to distract the attention of the voters away from their failures ... but take a look at that VOX video ...


... now actually Charlie Ebdo's satirical cartoons for the most part do not label the Muslim man featured as actually being Mohammed the Prophet, except on the occasion that he is named as ' guest editor ' that in itself offers him no criticism let alone any direct insult although the offence may lie in associating him in the mind of the observer with what is beneath the cover, but then again that is in the mind of the observer. What is in the mind of the observer depends very much upon how their belief system is constructed, and that is what I have it in mind to have a think upon. ( Note that the ban in Islam on idolatry is not universally interpreted to mean that Mohammed can not be depicted at all : there are depictions but they are contrived to prevent them from being used in an idolatrous way, and there are some very detailed literary descriptions of him which create an intimate sense of his character and appearance which are much beloved.)

Perfectly inoffensive and useful belief systems can be twisted around and used for ulterior motives, and perhaps the most dangerous ones are those which demand an unquestioning belief in certain key ideas - and the obvious one to choose for that is ' God ' and by association with that idea the founders of various religions are typically also placed beyond criticism. Atheism however is no remedy because atheistic belief systems are equally susceptible to the following behaviour, and the popular ideas that equally can not be questioned in modern societies are ' Democracy ' and ' The Free Market Economy.' But forget these details for a moment and think about what typically happens in a fight ( not a Hollywood movie scripted scrap.) When somebody wants to injure another person the first thing that they tend to do is to start by abusing them, portraying the victim to themselves and those who are onlookers as being contemptible, subhuman, beneath care or consideration, unable to experience hurt or injury as others may : in other words the attacker denies the effect of their actions in order to repudiate the idea that there should be any consequences for themselves. In all likelyhood an audience will then gather, agreeing with the perpetrator's claims in excited anticipation of the spectacle which they are licencing.

I am not about to argue that the murdering of people at Charlie Ebdo is justifiable, but on the other hand - given the threats made against them - it is hardly to be argued that the likely consequences of their behaviour were unknown : they were not the innocent victims of an accidental death, it was very much as if they went out to reason with starving lions arguing that they should not be molested because they were but harmless lambs. Believe me - this is not an argument that lambs like us can win with : my arguing that I am a fully accredited pacificator has never ever stopped anybody punching me in the mouth on the basis of their disagreeing with the truths that come out of it - the sorts of people who will use violence to pursue their ends do not in fact need any arguments, only the will to kill. In contrast, those who wish to stop the sorts of violence being done to millions of Muslims have millions of arguments, mostly very grave ones, and yet these are of no avail against those perpetrating that violence - yet ...

... millions of people turn out to protest against the murders of a dozen cartoonists who were deliberately provoking those who feel passionately angry about the murders of millions of Muslims, yet those same millions of people do not protest about the latter but instead put all of their effort into protesting about " The Right to Free Speech " - ! - The whole point of " The Right to Free Speech " is that it is to ensure that we can speak the truth i.e. effectively criticise so that we can thus speak out against the injustices being meted out to - Muslims. Charlie Ebdo were not exercising " The Right to Free Speech " to speak the truth : they were using it as an excuse for gratuitiously abusing people to make money - and if those millions of people now demonstrating on their behalf had properly exercised " The Right to Free Speech " and protested instead about what the United Kingdom and other states have been doing in the Middle East there would not be so many murderous Muslim extremists around willing to believe that butchering people in a kosher supermarket in Paris was " fighting Zionism " and therefore halal. But how does anyone come to believe this ?

Forget the idea of a fight between adults : it is our parents who create our belief systems and the small child is utterly at their mercy and desperate to be approved of, devoid of any ideas other than those bestowed by their parents in their early years of development. It is easy to manipulate small childen because they lack any independent knowledge by which to assess the reasoning given them by their parents. Good parents teach their children to question and criticise, and in all likelyhood centuries ago when a parent was deceiving and manipulating a child there were other adults around to question and criticise their behaviour and so the child could learn to do so by observing the interactions of adults around them. People brought up this way learn to be sensitive to others and the collectivity that this involves means both that they both step forward to protect others from being abused and treated as beneath consideration and that they anticipate others doing the same for themselves. But we live in a society that takes pride in individualism, our political norms are those of ' Liberal Democracy ' and what this means in practice is that individuals do not seek advice and they are indifferent to the consequences of their actions for others : they are actually outraged when anybody steps forth to protect another and cite " The Right to Free Speech " as their right not to listen.

In contrast, the political norms of Republicanism are balanced between the individual and the collective : it rejects both Liberalism and Communism as being extremist ideologies, and it sees the ' Liberal Democracy ' that licenced the behaviour of Charlie Hebdo as being deviant. Equally, Republicanism also sees the kind of obsessively conformist society envisaged by Islamic extremists to be equally deviant, that it is a religious variety of Communism. The clash between the French Republic and Islam is therefore entirely predictable, and it has been clothed most obviously as an issue by the banning of hijab, which has clearly demonstrated that the republican argument in France has now been twisted out of shape entirely. The French like to proclaim " Laicite " - " Secularity " - as a principle, but they are not practising it correctly because the ' French Republic ' has become essentially the god of a religion which denies that its ideology is being imposed as a system of beliefs upon people who have other ideologies, other beliefs.

This then is where ' Liberal Democracy ' leads to, supposedly licencing the individual to develop their own understanding and contribute their own criticism ( which is precious to Republicans, because information is the very basis of decision making and vital to the health of any political system ) but actually banning individuals from differing from those who possess control the state, which in France is a community of intellectuals who have proclaimed themselves superior in culture, education and intellectuality and for whom Charlie Hebdo was simply a proxy. In other words, Charlie Hebdo took a bullet for those they served and were always going to be expendable and deniable, or in this instance - exploitable for the purposes of the communities of interest which are to be found at the centre of the coalition which constitutes the modern French Monarchy. Whilst many will admire those at Charlie Hebdo for taking a stand on an axiomatic principle, the fact that they did not debate that principle in itself points to the fact that they were indeed extremists every bit as much as their assassins were. Assassination is indeed a better term for what was done to them, but it was an act which has provided a salutatory demonstration of the uselessness of violence as a political tool - in Paris and London, Baghdad and Kabul, East or West, North or South : Democracy just polarises people.


I don't have time to write much about the events which have followed : a million or more fools caught up in emotionality chanting " Liberte ! Liberte ! Liberte ! " have been marching through Paris ( and other places ) whilst their minders on behalf of the corporations have seized their long awaited opportunity to erode away " Liberte " even still further in the name of their defending Democracy. This is exactly what the original 18c Republican theorists predicted before the " shotgun marriage " took place in which Republicanism and Democracy were wedded together and spawned Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Liberalism, Fascism and Conservativism - " Voltaire's Bastards " - and yet whilst today Voltaire's most famous quotation is being bandied around as if our oppressors meant it they do not : they are Democrats and in each of their own private fiefs they intend to contrive to suppress any kind of thinking which differs from their own and thus establish their own ideologies as the orthodoxies to be imposed upon their own state's enslaved populations - and we will be enslaved if these ' world leaders ' now seize the opportunity to use their ' war on terrorism ' to pass laws aimed not at lone gunmen, which are nearly impossible to locate by any means, but at trade unionists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, youth and social workers, welfare benefit advisors etc. We are probably about to see all the books re-written, if not burned, to say such things as -

" I approve of what you say, but I will not defend to the death your right to say it."

( The original saying was apparently only attributed to Voltaire in " The Friends of Voltaire ", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre )

Since I just looked that up, and I need to do a little more research later into exactly how this ' war against extremists ' is now being turned into a victory for Democrats and the communities of interest which they serve, especially these shadowy monarchies which stand behind the thrones of France, America and the United Kingdom which now appear to be merging into or rather emerging out of one big shadowy world government, let's part ways here with a few relevant Voltairisms ...

There are some that only employ words for the purpose of disguising their thoughts.

There is a wide difference between speaking to deceive, and being silent to be impenetrable.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2636

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been a string of murderous outrages conducted in the name of Islam since the Charlie Hebdo affair - in particular the development of individuals driving vans and trucks at pedestrians then jumping out to slash at them or as yesterday in New York shoot at them - but this poem iccurred to me in the early hours of this morning whilst in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital whilst supporting a friend whose daughter had been taken ill ... bleary eyed I wondered why the hospital was employing atheists ...

Born again Christianists_Are happy to be arsonists_Burning down all hospitals -_Permitting no acquittals -_All because they employ - Anaesthetists !

Born again Christianists_
Are happy to be arsonists_
Burning down all hospitals -_
Permitting no acquittals -_
All because they employ - Anaesthetists !

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !

I suspect that underlying the murderous violence handed out so often by religious groups is a fear of death : they are obsessed with martyrdom and so angry about their lives not being as they desire them to be that they set out to protest this by handing out to others what they fear as if anybody could learn the lesson which they want to impart from either being killed or watching somebody being killed. So angry that it is so uncomfortable they want to be killed. In contrast take Gitanjali who was a dying teenager who wrote poems about her predicament and hid them for her family to find after her death in order to comfort them. In the Royal Glamorgan Hospital I had the book of her poems with me and wrote -

[ responding to a poem by Gitanjali ]
Oh Death you have your serious task_And in you shadow I must bask_Anticipating your sweet release_Yet not feeling all at ease :_Give me one favour - just to ask ...

[ responding to a poem by Gitanjali ]

Oh Death you have your serious task_
And in your shadow I must bask_
Anticipating your sweet release_
Yet not yet feeling all at ease :_
Give me one favour - just to ask ...

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !


Poems of Gitanjali: A chronicle of solitary suffering


One August day six years ago, a girl of 16 died of cancer in a hospital in Bombay. Several months later, her mother began to find and collect a number of poems that the girl had written and hidden in her pain-racked solitude. ... Born in Meerut on 12th June 1961, Died in Bombay on 11th August 1977', Gitanjali took her name from Rabindranath Tagore's book. In a preamble to her posthumous offering, she prays, "Oh! help me God/I so live that.../I live up to that name".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitanjali - Tagore's book
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games