Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Richard Seymour Scums out on our beloved Charlie martyrs.

with 69 comments

Not content with wanking off on Race Play Seymour now tosses off on our martyrs.

This is the vilest thing I have read in a long time.

No not the Seymour semen in the above.

But his comments on the massacre at Charlie.

However, there is a wider narrative that is emerging in the rush to judgment, as news media attempt to stitch together details — at first entirely circumstantial— into an explanatory story. The assumption is that the killers are members of some sort of Islamist group, possibly linked to Islamic State, and are exacting political retribution for the publication’s regular satirical attacks on Islam by executing its journalists. And about that, I do have something beyond the obvious to say, just as a starting point.

The second is that there is already an enormous pressure, in this context, to defend Charlie Hebdo as a forceful exponent of “Western values,” or in some cases even as a brilliantly radical bastion of left-wing anti-clericalism.

Now, I think there’s a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow “legitimate targets,” and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.

To my knowledge Seymour is not a Francophone so how he is suddenly an expert on Charlie  is beyond explanation.

He is barely an anglophone.

As this ‘sentence’ indicates.

But no, we also shouldn’t line up with the inevitable statist backlash against Muslims, or the ideological charge to defend a fetishized, racialized “secularism,” or concede to the blackmail which forces us into solidarity with a racist institution.

You will pay dearly for these  comments  Seymour, very dearly.

Written by Andrew Coates

January 8, 2015 at 10:56 am

69 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Andrew

    I saw the “racist/islamophobic” claims about the cartoons yesterday. I confess ignorance of Charlie Hebdo but would wager that you are the man to provide a ballanced view.

    Boleyn Ali

    January 8, 2015 at 1:15 pm

  2. “You will pay dearly for these comments Seymour, very dearly.”

    That’s a remarkable sentence to write. You wouldn’t care to expand upon its meaning?

    ejh

    January 8, 2015 at 1:38 pm

  3. I can’t speak for Coatesy, but I imagine he means that Seymour’s reputation as a fucking idiot, piece of shite, scab on Enlightenment values and all-round tosser will be further reinforced amongst genuinely left wing people.

    Jim Denham

    January 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm

  4. I have used the methods of democracy: to pour contempt on this connard.

    Andrew Coates

    January 8, 2015 at 2:21 pm

  5. Andrew,

    I realise you are genuinely upset buy you must know full well he won’t pay at all.

    His books will continue to be published by Verso, Zero and Pluto, the Guardian, LRB and so on will continue to let him pontificate away, his academic career will continue on its trajectory to an eventual professorship at some mediocre university and he will eventually die in his bed still full of pretentiousness, bile and stupidity.

    That article has already got 19,200 facebook likes and 1,900 retweets – the great majority of which will I am sure have been approving.

    He not us is expressing the natural kneejerk reaction of the self-described ‘Left’.

    We’re done here.

    It’s all got to be torn up and burned and the ground that has produced such stunted and poisonous growths sown with salt so that future generations will at least know to build somewhere else.

  6. Sgtts for Tendance Co\tez (yesterdy) Charlie Hebdo, ‘Sharia Hebdo’, Burnt Out. 2,689
    Islamist Filth have attacked our Beloved Charlie. 216
    Home page / Archives 211
    Charlie Hebdo. 161
    Charlie Hebdo Publishes Graphic Novel on Mohammed. 129
    Serious Concerns about the PCS Union. 25
    Charlie Hebdo: We Shall Continue until Islam Becomes as Ordinary as Catholicism. 23
    UKIP: UK Now Has Real Far-Right Populist Politics. 23
    Channel Four Censors Jesus and Mo Cartoons in Deference to Mohammed Shafiq . 20
    Charlie Hebdo Publishes New Mohammed Cartoons. 18
    Other posts 258
    Total views of posts on your blog 3,773

    CLICKS

    Andrew Coates

    January 8, 2015 at 2:37 pm

  7. It’s interesting how alleged “racism” and “Islamophobia” seems to count for certain media pundits as a worse crime than massacring people with Kalashnikovs…

    Francis

    January 8, 2015 at 3:46 pm

  8. I’ve wept twice over because of this appalling tragedy. Firstly, hearing about the deaths themselves and then reading the Seymour article. It is staggering that he claims the Charlie Hebdo is racist then cites nothing to support this assertion apart from Saids work which is irrelevant.

    There is bizarre article on Counterfires website that blames the West using similar contorted reasoning.

    It is truly staggering that when 12 left wing satirists are mercilessly gunned down some on the purported left show zero solidarity with them.

    It is a sad day when Cameron appears on the television alongside Angela Merkel defending free speech when cretins like Seymour and German remain silent.

    I have now gone from very sad to very angry!

    Dave

    January 8, 2015 at 3:53 pm

  9. “You will pay dearly for these comments Seymour, very dearly.”

    You see, normally if I saw, or heard, this phrase I would assume it was some kind of a threat. It’s that kind of language. You can assure us that no such implication is intended here?

    ejh

    January 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm

  10. Another comment disappeared – is there some sort of word limit to comments that makes them just go pfft!

  11. As with the 19th and 20th centuries with regard to antisemitism, there are memers of the nominal left who really don’t get it. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon were very reminiscent of the sort of trash one would see in Der Sturmer, http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/dersturmgal/Anti-Semitic%20cartoon%20from%20Der%20Sturmer.html . As a Black leftist I found the imagery offensive and not at all brave, since they were essentially following the racist narratives of the French state and traditional intolerance of Europeans to the other with in their societies. I was not surprised when one of them attacked Chomsky for Anti-Americanism. Another example of bravery no doubt.

    The fact I have to point this out to fellow “leftists” in 2014 is depressing. Have fun with your Anti-Muslim hate fest dressed up as progressive politics. Remember there are parties of the right you can join that will help in your crusade to defend ideological constructs like Western values, which seem at the moment to consist of Imperialism, hyprocrisy and extreme piety at the death of a bunch of white people. When the inevitable backlash ensues will any of you shed a tear? It’s doubtful.

    Adam Smith

    January 8, 2015 at 7:25 pm

  12. Reposted due to typos.

    As with the 19th and 20th centuries with regard to antisemitism, there are members of the nominal left who really don’t get it. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon were very reminiscent of the sort of trash one would see in Der Sturmer, http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/dersturmgal/Anti-Semitic%20cartoon%20from%20Der%20Sturmer.html . As a Black leftist I found the imagery offensive and not at all brave, since they were essentially following the racist narratives of the French state and traditional intolerance of Europeans to the Other within their societies. I was not surprised when one of them attacked Chomsky for Anti-Americanism. Another example of bravery no doubt.

    The fact I have to point this out to fellow “leftists” in 2014 is depressing. Have fun with your Anti-Muslim hate fest dressed up as progressive politics. Remember there are parties of the right you can join that will help in your crusade to defend ideological constructs like Western values, which seem at the moment to consist of Imperialism, hyprocrisy and extreme piety at the death of a bunch of white people. When the inevitable backlash ensues will any of you shed a tear? It’s doubtful.

    Adam Smith

    January 8, 2015 at 7:32 pm

  13. Some comments made elsewhere… Where I have posted this I have had no responses, probably because most people in the discussion know as little French as me.

    *********************

    A couple of related things here. Firstly, the slogan ‘We are CH’. If that means opposition to religious obscurantism and religious terror and support for freedom of speech, then I’m with it. If it means that my secularism makes me an enemy of religious obscurantism, then I’m with it.

    If, however, it means giving CH a carte-blanche, then as I don’t read French and am unable actually to read what it says, then I’m reluctant to use it. Just because I strongly condemn the attack on CH and defend its right to publication does not mean that I would necessarily endorse the magazine’s policy.

    Secondly, I feel it is legitimate to ask whether CH’s editorial policy help to increase hostility in France towards Muslims as a whole, not just towards obscurantist imams and violent jihadists? Having a poke at obscurantist spokesmen, theoreticians and doctrine and censorious and murderous hoodlums of any religious stripe is fine with me; wantonly annoying ordinary believers of religions at a time when religious divisions are worsening might make these divisions worse and (at worst) give credence to religious extremists amongst the faithful.

    Does anyone have any ideas on that? With no knowledge of French, I am unable to assess this. It is a question that I feel has to be asked because of the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe today. The deepening of divisions between Muslims and everyone else is something that can benefit only the obscurantists and bigots on both sides. Le Pen must be rubbing her hands with glee at the prospects of the intensification of anti-Muslim sentiments, as are the jihadists. I feel that the left has a special responsibility to ensure that feelings of outrage about yesterday’s attack do not get diverted down that path.

    Dr Paul

    January 8, 2015 at 7:47 pm

  14. Paul – Charlie Hebdo lampooned all religions, without fear or favour. It also lampooned politicians of all persuasions, celebrities, you name it… Its cartoon style was generally grotesque – nobody depicted in its pages was depicted flatteringly. But its political line was pretty firmly on the left, and several of the cartoonists were aligned with the PCF. People bang on about the anti-Islamic cartoons because certain pious Muslims were the only people who bothered to take offence. Members of other sky-god cults ignored it, if they didn’t like it. Nobody was forced to buy or read it, after all.

    Is there any reason to imagine that CH’s editorial policy intended to, or had the effect of, increasing hosility to Muslims in France? None whatsoever. I doubt anybody ever torched a mosque or abused a Muslim after laughing at a copy of CH. If there is any increase in anti-Muslim hostility in France now – and that is a real danger – the blame will lie pretty squarely with those Kalashnikov-wielding murderers.

    Adam – you can accuse the CH journalists of a lot of things, but a lack of bravery? That joke is in such poor taste, it could almost be a tribute to CH.

    Francis

    January 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm

  15. Adam’s comparison of CH with “the sort of trash one would see in Der Sturmer” is simply ignorant. There is no meaningful comparison. CH’s cartoons may have been crude and offensive, but I have yet to see any evidence of racism – unless you think that Steve Bell (for instance) is racist.

    The crap that we’re beginning to hear from sections of the relativist liberal-pseudo -“left” to the effect that the CH employees deserved what they got because CH’s humour was crude/offensive/racist is really beside the point – even were it true. Does *anyone* seriously believe that the Islamo-fascists killed the CH people because the magazine’s satire was crude and non-PC? If its satire of Islam had been more sophisticated and PC do you think the Islamo-fascists would accepted it as fair comment? Get real!

    Jim Denham

    January 9, 2015 at 1:16 am

  16. Some very interesting commentary here: note, especially, the stuff about “racist” cartoons (a refereence to the notorious UNISON “Three Wise Monkeys” case): http://sharmanka.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo/

    Jim Denham

    January 9, 2015 at 1:31 am

  17. What sticks in the claw with you, er, relativists is your horror at this event (which I share) but then your backtracking when it comes to similar massacres, perhaps by a out of control US soldier in Iraq or Pakistani state forces wiping out a village in Waziristan.

    In line with your mainstream media friends the obscene death of these Western journalist in Europe will play out for days and you will all be keen to display your anguish; yet the murder of dark-skinned people far way is but a foonote, if even that, e.g the repression and murder of Tartar (Muslims) in Crimea – http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/12/disappearing-crimea-anti-russia-activists-201412110405525656.html Ever felt the need to display your angst about such? A communist is consistent.

  18. Not a lot of time to comment right now. It’s late and I have to go to bed. I may comment in greater detail later.
    So apparently I believe that the staff at Charlie Hebdo deserved it ? Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I don’t actually remember writing that or even believing it, but apparently according to some of the commenters here I do. There’s this thing called over-interpreting. Some of you might want to look into that problem.

    @ Jim Denham. Islamofascists*? Seriously? Forgot to mention The Axis Of Evil? Those Neocons know how to build a left/right consensus,that’s for sure. Attach the word Fascist to something and watch the more gullible lefties get all excited about bringing the light of Western Enlightenment to those benighted heathens. Because everyone we don’t like post 1945 is Hitler in some form, even when their Commies. This is all done for the best of humanitarian reasons of course. Remember,the US Army, Navy and Airforce are just the military wing of feminism and aerial bombardment is a tried and tested means of bringing democracy and market based economies (just don’t mention the last bit of that equation too loudly).

    As for telling me what counts as racist imagery. I wonder exactly where do you get off with that one?
    I’ve experienced racism in various forms for the best part of three decades and I know it when I see it. I get to decide not you. The fact they were racist and crude does not mean that I think they should be killed, (don’t let their crude invective taint me). It also does not mean that I should express any solidarity with them. Get over it.

    Furthermore, the fact that you call Richard Seymour a scab on enlightenment values, for a moment capturing the sentiments of the most rabid Spenglerian nut, speaks volumes round here. You might as well have called him a Bolshevik, intent on destroying Western Civilisation. What was that about Fascism? Actual Fascists are using the sentiments you express with regard to this issue to their own ends and you are too dazzled by the shining city on the hill that is Western Civilizations to have a serious critique of them, other than the fact their bad and stuff and sort of like Islamists. While we’re at it let’s remember who the real backers of “Islamofascism” (fucking hilarious term) are. Exhibit A: Our old friend Tony Blair pushing the Saudi/Qatari line, with his trademarked lack of irony, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/demented-tony-blair-recites-the-saudis-creed-in-his-latest-speech-9292292.html . A clear case of the Western Establishment aiding and abetting that thing you hate by siding with the Kingdoms. Well guess what? I’m not too keen on it either. Blaming people like me for this problem is beyond absurd. I know that racist cartoons contribute nothing to the debate, neither does pious sermonising and because of that I prefer to think rather than just react.

    * Google Robert Paxton. A serious academic who has written extensively on the subject of Fascism, totally demolishes this silly little construct in about 30 seconds.

    Adam Smith

    January 9, 2015 at 7:08 am

  19. blocked?

    Adam Smith

    January 9, 2015 at 7:13 am

  20. I can’t get a sentence up on this fucking thing

    Adam Smith

    January 9, 2015 at 7:18 am

  21. BTW Mr Southpaw: it’s “craw” not “claw”

    Jim Denham

    January 9, 2015 at 9:39 am

  22. I am a leftist, a Marxist: I don’t claim any particular skin colour when I say this.

    I have read Charlie since its relaunch in the 1980s.

    The very first article I had published in English, while living in Paris, mid-1980s, took one of Cabu’s cartoons – against the Front National.

    As a youth I defended the secular republic against Catholic reaction.

    I see now reason to change that now – against Islamist reaction.

    Andrew Coates

    January 9, 2015 at 1:28 pm

  23. What are we supposed to do about the murder of darkskinned folk far away? To intervene would be imperialist, so we have to let them duke it out among themselves. I think the worldwide socialist and communist movement (what remains of it) should force socialism onto the agenda more. I listened to Francois Hollande’s speech this afternoon and it was painful. As platintudinous as Obama at his most verbose. Actually, Lefthanded Jab (not a single punch that kills I hope?), I can’t decode your point above. Are you saying that the deranged soldier who massacres an entire village should be shownt he same lassitude as these murderous anti-democrats?

    Sue R

    January 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm

  24. Bring back the young Coatsey, I say.

    Who is the more dangerous opponent of the (illusory and bourgeois) values of the Republic?

    Some reactionary desperado gunmen or the Catholic Church?

    Some Islamic organisation or the Front National?

    Some group of mullahs or the French equivalent of the CBI?

    Who killed 100? 200? Algerians after a demo in central Paris in 1961? The cops.

    Who killed 8 in a communist organised demo in Paris in 1962? The cops.

    Page after page of this blog is prompted by the state influenced identification of Islam as the main enemy – both a distraction and an untruth.

    Muslims will become and often are, secularised in the way that Jews have become starting 100 years earlier when moving to the West.

    The main enemy in France is the same it has been since the start of bourgeous democracy. Also, nothing has fundamentally changed since WW2 in all of Western Europe. The enemy is the same there as it is here.

    The death of the journalists and the caretaker is grim but it is but a footnote compared to the widespread slaughter elsewhere led by the white, nominally Christian ‘gunmen’ with their cruise missiles and drones – rampages you don;t appear to notice.

  25. I have just been speaking to an Italian woman about how her friend, JIM GASTON ALTEAU, the cartoonist, is now in hiding from the Islamists.

    This is his best known album,: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153512817408747&set=a.67465793746.92266.806553746&type=1

    Andrew Coates

    January 9, 2015 at 4:24 pm

  26. Andrew Coates

    January 9, 2015 at 5:15 pm

  27. Rather such than an idiot like yourself.

    Le Len feels excluded from the ‘Republican march’ (an actual march, with Hollande?) against the atrocity.

    That reinforces my point. As I said, which is the greater threat to the Republic “Some Islamic organisation or the Front National? There will be Muslims organisations on the march.

    Instead of showing off your Fancypants (as my mother called this Frenchie g/f of mine – little knowing the actual truth of what she spoke) French why not try and improve your poor English comprehension?

  28. or … or … or
    AND … AND … AND

    tosser

    Front National et AQ sont les deux joues de la même cul

    redkorat☭ (@red_korat)

    January 9, 2015 at 10:14 pm

  29. Islamism may be an enemy of the bourgoise French state, but it’s certainly no friend of the workingclass. Can one of the apologists please explain to me how Islam would benefit the material conditions of the international proletariate? With reference to actually existing Islamic regimes.

    Sue R

    January 9, 2015 at 10:33 pm

  30. Still under moderation. What happened ? Did I offend someone?

    Adam Smith

    January 10, 2015 at 1:31 am

  31. So I reply to one of the other commenter’s here, in a not overly vociferous manner. I get moderated for a day then my my comment dissapears. What was that about believing in the free exchange of ideas?

    Adam Smith

    January 10, 2015 at 1:40 am

  32. For what it’s worth, Adam, my lengthy repel to you, yesterday, seems to have been lost

    Jim Denham

    January 10, 2015 at 2:14 am

  33. I am appalled at the assumption that charlie is racist because it attacked the muslim far right. I am french speaking and have lived in france and can tell you the journal relentlessly attacked the catholic far right (on the rise again in france) AND french and american imperialism in north africa and the middle east. These are positions that many algerian, tunisian and moroccans on france also shared – the north african left some of the most anticlerical people i have encountered. Remember that many algerians now living in france are exiles from the algerian civil war of the 90s when the front islamique du salut systematically assasinated trade unionists, feminists, teachers, artists, singers… Le pen et all hated charlie with a passion and the feeling was mutual. It makes me scared to see how often the left conflates cultural essentialism and hence protecting religion with “anti-racism” and then falls right into the arms of the religious far right. Anti-racism my arse – there is nothing more racist than assuming all muslim-born people should be offended by critiques of their religion

    isabella

    January 10, 2015 at 3:15 am

  34. Less Reactionary than Richard Seymour No. 27 http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sheikh-hassan-nasrallah-terrorist-attack

    Mr Jelly

    January 10, 2015 at 8:55 am

  35. I think that Richard Seymour’s views on the Hebdo massacre are unsurprising as it fits in perfectly with the world-view of the those from the SWP tradition.

    “On some issues we will find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists against imperialism and the state. This was true, for instance, in many countries during the second Gulf War. It should be true in countries like France or Britain when it comes to combating racism. Where the Islamists are in opposition, our rule should be, “with the Islamists sometimes, with the state never”.

    (Chris Harman

    The prophet and the proletariat)
    (Autumn 1994)

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1994/xx/islam.htm#pt9

    This view became more apparent during the Iraq war –

    “Supporting the insurgents doesn’t mean backing the political views of al-Sadr or any other Iraqi leader. It means recognising that it is the resistance that is fighting for the Iraqi people’s basic democratic right to self determination.
    More than that, if the insurgents win – if they force US and British forces out of Iraq – it will become much harder for the US to use its military power to bully and occupy weaker countries.
    A victory for the Iraqi resistance would also be a victory for all those fighting capitalism and imperialism around the world.”

    (Alex Callinicos (Socialist Worker Sat 21 Aug 2004)

    http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/1796/Victory+to+the+resistance+in+Iraq%3F

    And at Marxism 2004 –

    We support the [Iraqi] resistance, whatever its political form, whatever its banner,” he [Callinicos] said.

    http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/537/marxism-2004-iraq-imperialism-and-the-politics-of-/

    So, what does Iraq have to do with the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

    This –

    Cherif Kouachi, 32, had been imprisoned for 18 months for his role in a network sending volunteers to fight alongside al-Qaida militants in Iraq between 2003 and 2005

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/charlie-hebdo-attack-chhrif-kouachi-french-militants

    In a nutshell, Kouachi and al-Qaida could receive “critical support” from the SWP (and Seymour was a member at the time) so long as their actions were directed at the US occupation (and allies) in Iraq.

    However, the Hebdo massacre is more problematic and must be condemned (with qualifications) but as Harmen indicates no support will “ever” be forthcoming to the state even against Islamic terror.

    john r

    January 10, 2015 at 3:06 pm

  36. It was noteworthy that La grande Grande Mosquée de Paris de Paris – with close links to the Algerian society – condemned the attacks immediately and stood for the republic.

    Andrew Coates

    January 10, 2015 at 4:27 pm

  37. There is only moderation for actual racist comments – which are binned.

    Because of the, er ‘controversial’ nature of the site I have lots of filters and some comments get snarled up in the Spam.

    Andrew Coates

    January 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

  38. I happen to agree with every word reported above from the SWP (and I’m not, nor have been, a supporter of the SWP) – it’s a communist summation of how to fight imperialism (also see ‘Heights of Oslo’ by Trotsky for more, or Marx’s defence of the what we would now call ‘Islamists’ in the Indian ‘Mutiny’). Incidentally, communists have had occasion to support real, live fascists, e.g. Nazis, before 1933.

    Clearly, Isabella is not a communist and thinks that agreement on secularism is a pre-requisite of support for joint work. If I went to a meeting of Jewish workers, I would not say, ‘Let’s all eat these pork sandwiches before we start, it’s important that all superstitions are cast aside first.’ In the same way I would appreciate that portraying Mohammed in my publication would needlessly offend many people that you are trying to talk to – no end of Muslims would look at it and think, possibly quite wrongly, that these people just want to be offensive to us. Nor would I ridicule a latest large youth fashion trend and those who dress in such a manner in a communist youth publication as ‘sheep’ when I want to talk to such ‘sheep’. Such childishness, towards Islam and more, could also aid and feed into an atmosphere where many others do want to not just offend, they also want to deport (or worse) as well.

    So although Isabella has the advantage on me of speaking French, my view of some Charlie Hebdo front covers I have seen over the years, is I think that they often stoop to being offensive (as above) or even promote straightforward bigotry.

  39. Robert Fisk in the Independent – Paris attack brothers’ campaign of terror can be traced back to Algeria in 1954 “a little reminder that nothing – absolutely zilch – happens without a past”.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html

  40. Surely the question is ‘how can this circle of violence be ended?’. Can Islamism end it? If so, how?

    Sue R

    January 10, 2015 at 11:02 pm

  41. Less Reactionary than Richard Seymour No, 48 http://t.co/deoVnnXNa7

    Mr Jelly

    January 11, 2015 at 3:32 am

  42. Less Reactionary than Richard Seymour No, 57: http://t.co/dJnBc1APLk

    Mr Jelly

    January 11, 2015 at 3:35 am

  43. Seymour’s articles have been a wonderfully intelligent contrast to the garbage you have given us (which I can find on any far right or establishment publication btw). So thanks for directing me to this invaluable source of material.

    Socialism In One Bedroom

    January 11, 2015 at 1:01 pm

  44. If Paris march isn’t a carnival of reaction, that’s not due to wishes of Lyse Doucet and other BBC ‘reporters’ (sic) who have given up reporting to give their reactionary take on life, well expressed when the BBC featured a interview with an Italian Prince (have they noticed the Republic of Italy?). Crowd cheering the cops, now.. When I saw that line-up of leaders, at the head of the march, my thoughts turned illegal.

  45. It’s a great pity the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are no longer around to lampoon their posthumous canonisation by the very people they’d been mocking for the past few decades.

    Francis

    January 11, 2015 at 10:06 pm

  46. Does Mr Jelly and Lefthand Jab think that Saudia Arabia is upholding humanitarian law when it administers 1,000 lashes to a blog administrator of a blog calling for liberal reforms with the Kingdom? Do we have the right to criticise such a penal policy?

    Sue R

    January 11, 2015 at 10:08 pm

  47. Must say, I do SO enjoy SPP’s lessons in revolutionary praxis.

    redkorat☭ (@red_korat)

    January 11, 2015 at 10:20 pm

  48. orange carrot, I will send you details of a beginners course – only £199.

  49. Sorry, SPP, you haven’t answered my question. Do you think that flogging a man for being the webmaster of a liberal reform website is a thing that progressives can support? Or, because it is happening to a darkskinned fellow in a far away land, it’s not something we can comment upon?

    Sue R

    January 11, 2015 at 11:43 pm

  50. The man in question was interviewed Thursday by The Real News Network; it was posted that day on their own site, but held back until Sunday on their YouTube channel (the other six TRNN postings made Thursday appeared the next day on YT; seven subsequent vids appeared there before the Richard Seymour one):
    http://therealnews.com/t2/?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&jumival=12971 (10′; with transcript & over 200 comments) (I’m unable to comment on the suggestion that Mr Seymour’s recent makeover has been sponsored by Dove, nor that he gave his interview in the home of the commentator known as Socialism-in-One-Bedsit.)

    TRNN, like Democracy Now!, rarely challenges interviewees, so no surprise that he wasn’t asked to give evidence for his claims that Charlie Hebdo had been “satirizing Islam, albeit in quite a racist way”, “Charlie Hebdo was engaged in some quite racist scandalous depictions of Islam and of Muslims”, & “producing cartoons that are racist”. The only evidence Seymour cited was:
    “sometimes it played into sexist tropes as well. So, for example, there was one cover which depicted pregnant Muslim women, and saying that these are the Boko Haram sex slaves. And they’re saying, don’t touch our welfare. So it’s somehow connecting Islam to claims on welfare[,] to lots of pregnant Muslim women making demands on the French state. So this is the kind of thing that we’re talking about.” (my interjection).

    Neither was he asked to explain how a criticism of religion can possibly be racist: a religion is necessarily pan-human, except its adherents it is not specific to any particular group of people, be they ethnicised or racialised.

    Another matter. Dr Paul on Thursday, 8 Jan, put an important question for the benefit of those who don’t read French: “it is legitimate to ask whether CH’s editorial policy help[s] to increase hostility in France towards Muslims as a whole, not just towards obscurantist imams and violent jihadists?” (my addition). Is someone able to offer any evidence on this?

    Jara Handala

    January 12, 2015 at 9:25 am

  51. The jihadists are racists in case nobody had failed to notice this.

    Andrew Coates

    January 12, 2015 at 12:02 pm

  52. @ Andrew Coates. Meet your new comrades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK8yX3_X8bY
    If the past you could see the future you, I’m not sure he would be happy.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 4:47 pm

  53. Very sad, isn’t it, when self-styled “leftists” (albeit of the petty bourgeois Guardianista variety) cannot recognise fascism when it confronts them. Good job these stupid assholes and anti-Semites are totally irrelevant.

    Jim Denham

    January 12, 2015 at 8:00 pm

  54. @ Jim Denham.

    Not a Liberal. Working Class. Don’t read the Guardian. Not an Antisemite like you. You seem to forget a lot of Muslims are Semitic peoples. You somehow believe you can read minds, clearly you can’t.
    Since when was your tiny faction of a faction relevant ? Siding with guys like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCUDZ_N2B6w doesn’t make you powerful or relevant.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 9:24 pm

  55. “The jihadists are racists in case nobody had failed to notice this.”

    Critic of moral relativism uses moral relativism when convenient. Here’s a thought, perhaps people with your professed beliefs should hold themselves to a higher standard than radical Islamists.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm

  56. “You seem to forget a lot of Muslims are Semitic peoples”: when some idiot comes out with that banality, it’s a sure sign that they’re either an anti-Semite or simply indifferent to anti-Semitism.

    Jim Denham

    January 12, 2015 at 9:50 pm

  57. … But back to the central point: can we all agree that these anti-democratic, anti-working class and and anti-Semitic killers are Fascists and should be treated as such?

    Jim Denham

    January 12, 2015 at 9:54 pm

  58. @ Adam Smith

    Not Adam Smith at all then, more Houson Stewart Chamberlain.

    Race Theory rears it’s entirely discredited vile head YET AGAIN.

    redkorat☭ (@red_korat)

    January 12, 2015 at 9:57 pm

  59. @ redkorat

    “Not Adam Smith at all then, more Houson Stewart Chamberlain.

    Race Theory rears it’s entirely discredited vile head YET AGAIN.”

    Have you read my other posts? Clearly you are an expert in obtuse obsfucation if you can get to there from where I was. By the way Adam Smith is my real name, not some internet affectation.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 10:07 pm

  60. “… But back to the central point: can we all agree that these anti-democratic, anti-working class and and anti-Semitic killers are Fascists and should be treated as such?”

    Not every engagement is the Second World War, despite what your Neocon buddies tell you.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 10:37 pm

  61. @ Jim Denham

    Your White Supremacism runs so deep that you seem to think having read Das Kapital many moons ago makes you immune to a lot of the racist garbage that passes for political discourse these days. Guess what? It doesn’t.

    Adam Smith

    January 12, 2015 at 10:44 pm

  62. It may be true that not ever skirmish is the the Second World War, but that does preclude some of them being so. Anyway, where’s the moral relativism in point out that the jihadists are racists ie Jewhaters. They targetted the grocery store because it was Jewish; in fact the police believe they intended to attack the Jewish primary school next to the shop (in imitation of Merah in Toulouse) but went for the shop as an easier target. The murderers told the Frenchwoman that they forced to admit them into the building that they did not kill women and yet they killed one of the female workers at Charlie Hebdo. Do you know why? Because she was Jewish. That all strikes me as pretty racist ie discrimination based upon someone’s birthstatus.

    Sue R

    January 12, 2015 at 10:49 pm

  63. @ Sue R.

    I’d like to answer your comment in more depth, but the commenting system round here is fucked. I’d have write along reply only to have the coment rejected. Making it a waste of my time.

    Adam Smith

    January 13, 2015 at 12:53 am

  64. Still @ Sue R

    Instead I’m reduced to short missives that don’t really give you any idea of what I think about this.
    Also a lot of people here seem deficient in nuance. So far,in the space of a couple of comments I’ve been accused of antisemitism and being some sort of Wagnerian loony. These sort of mischaracterisations seem insane to me. Trot logic at work?

    Adam Smith

    January 13, 2015 at 1:00 am

  65. reposted due to typos. @ Sue R.

    I’d like to answer your comment in more depth, but the commenting system round here is fucked. I’d have to write a long reply only to have the comment rejected. Making it a waste of my time.

    Adam Smith

    January 13, 2015 at 1:02 am

  66. @ Andrew Coates

    You probably can’t give an answer on this, but in case you can. I’m posting from a Computer using Linux Mint on Firefox, would this be an issue? It shouldn’t be, but on some sites it has been. I’d prefer not to, but if neccesary I can reboot and use shitty Windows and shitty Internet Explorer.

    Adam Smith

    January 13, 2015 at 1:09 am

  67. @ Jim Denham

    And another thing.

    Islamophobia is the twisted child of Antisemitism you dimwit. The fact that you’ve bought into Clash Of Civilizations rhetoric just makes you a useful idiot for the Petro-dollar and other monstrosities of contemporary Capitalism

    Adam Smith

    January 13, 2015 at 1:48 am

  68. “You seem to forget a lot of Muslims are Semitic peoples”

    There is no such thing as ‘Semitic peoples’, there is no ‘race’ but the human race. Racism is division of human beings in spurious categories according to their [perceived] place of origin, physical characteristics, skin tone etc etc. Anyone who thinks there are distinct ‘races’ of human beings is just as much a racist as a bat-weilding skinhead. All of this pseudo-scientific bullshit was invented to justify the enslavement, oppression and excluion of other human beings. ‘Antisemitism’, properly spelled without a hyphen because there is no ‘Semitism’ for anything to be counterposed to, is a word invented sui generis to give a scientific sounding gloss to Judenhass, ie ‘jew hatred’.

    That these ‘first principles’ require repeated explanation, is testament to the preponderance of left-liberal church-social semi-literacy abroad these days.

    Rosa@red_korat

    January 14, 2015 at 4:45 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: