Saturday, 10 January 2015

ARMING ROUSSEAU’S CHILDREN: WHY WE ARE NOT CHARLIE HEBDO




Who hath taught the use of the pen

Hath taught Man that which he knoweth not.

Nay, verily, Man is insolent…

 Koran, Sura XCVI
 

As societies become increasingly multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious, if we accept the idea that people have a right not to be offended, we will end up with a tyranny of silence, for almost any speech may be deemed offensive.

Flemming Rose, The Tyranny of Silence
 

 

Like many people interested in the coming clash of civilisations – to quote Samuel Huntington – I became aware of Charlie Hebdo in 2011, when their Paris offices were fire-bombed by Muslims in retaliation for the satirical paper’s decision to print cartoons originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The next time I was in France, I bought a copy. Even with my limited French, the language was not too demanding, although the paper itself was rather childish, Leftist and unsophisticated. Private Eye, for all its goonery, is far more mature. But Charlie Hebdo has done what must be done with increasing frequency by dissidents everywhere; it has mocked Islam.

Our political class will oppose this ridicule using the strongest means at its disposal in order to maintain its apparent (although unreal) love affair with Muslims. As the supreme race-hustler and community activism pimp Barack Hussein Obama put it; the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But the future must belong there, or there will be no future.

It is no coincidence that the two foreign cultures most deleterious to the white West – Muslim and black – are also the two most sensitive to mockery, criticism and satire. It is acceptable for blacks to be ridiculed, for example, as long as it is Chris Rock who is doing it. If you can find Chris Morris’s spoof interview with the bumptious Darcus Howe many years ago, you will see a perfect example of a black man affronted by the japery of a white man, a light mockery neither accepted nor understood. Mocking Islam, however, as many others than just the decimated staff of Charlie Hebdo have discovered, may earn you more than just black looks from Diane Abbott.

It is a measure of a human being’s emotional maturity that he or she can accept criticism and mockery with good grace, dignity, and an eye to self-improvement lest the comments aimed at him or her contain truths. In cultural terms, it is a sure sign of the immaturity of a race or religion if it responds violently to ridicule or satire. Thus, we have to ape our political classes, benevolently racist as they are, and treat of Muslims as though they were particularly unpleasant children.

Watch the way children respond to being twitted and made to look silly in front of other people, particularly other children. They do not like it, and you are guaranteed a response. Thus it is with Islam. But where they differ from children – and we recall Rousseau’s observation that, if a child could, it would destroy the world – is the desired outcome of their aggravated effrontery; control.

Control is a fascinating and all-pervasive concept which will rise to the surface as the twilight of Western civilisation deepens and darkens. Along with its provisional wing in the offence industry, the race hustlers and civil rights organisers and social justice activists, the modern seekers of control have a sophisticated and nuanced grasp of just what control is.

The journalist kneeling in the desert in his orange jumpsuit – mocking Guantanamo as it does (never think Islam does not like to mock) – knows about control, about the boundaries of what one can and cannot achieve as set in place by others who do not share your goals or beliefs. The thousands of women, Muslimas mostly, raped in half by Boko Haram are aware of the niceties of control. Theo van Gogh, descendant of the painter and director of a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women – a treatment which produces a deafening silence from the disgraceful and pathetic sluts who nowadays call themselves feminists – was almost decapitated, and left with a warning note pinned to his body, during his masterclass in control, freely given by a Muslim of the Maghreb. Control, then.

Islam seeks to control the West by an attritional process of shutting off its freedoms, beginning with freedom of speech. Although not genuinely offended by images of the ‘prophet’, the paedophile warlord Mohammed, the maintenance of offence works on the Western Liberal conscience in a way that mere anger cannot. And Islam has a powerful fifth column active in the West, one which already controls the media, politics and, increasingly, the law of the land; our genuine enemy, the cultural Marxists of the Left.

Islam is not to blame for faux sensitivity to what it perceives as idolatry; the Left is. Muslims have merely reaped what the Liberal Left has sown. In a country with a rich satirical tradition, where clubs were threatened with closure if even a particular anti-establishment gag was repeated, the Left betrayed us. This betrayal is summarised by Humphrey Carpenter in his fabulous book That Was Satire That Was, as he considers the stand-up comedy boom of the 1980s;

‘It might seem [from Alexei Sayles’s act] that the motto of alternative comedy was “anything goes”. In fact it was always left-wing, and strictly governed by political correctness, with a particular ban on any material that might be thought racist or sexist.’

Is it acceptable to you that the great British tradition of political and social satire defeated the office of Lord Chamberlain, with his censorious green pen, only to have him replaced with a gaggle of low-IQ imams and their armed accomplices deciding what can and can’t be said? You are certainly not Charlie Hebdo. If you have children, and your liberal-left beliefs force you to believe that no one has the right to offend, your offspring are not going to thank you for the world they will have to live in.

1 comment: