Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for the insider insights.

>>There seems to be a quasi consensus in France for full integration of Muslims and Jews, i.e., everybody should accept Charlie Hebdo and ignore it as the Catholics do.<<

I do not think Jews need to be integrated into Western culture since they have been part of it for centuries. Also, integration (of, say, the Muslim youth in the banlieues) is much more than just accepting and ignoring Charlie Hebdo.

>>I have not heard or read a single word of criticism of Charlie Hebdo by any of the leaders of the three major religions (Catholicism, Islam and Judaism) since the attacks.<<

Which means that none of them voiced publicly such criticism. Catholics and Jews might be privately at most disgusted, but I am afraid the attitude of many imams to the Muhammad caricatures - not only private but also when they preach in the mosques - is much more an explicit condemnation, not a mere disgust.

Dear david f,

I think Europe’s Muslim problem is much more serious than America’s Tea Party problem. And there are other (historical and geographic) factors that make the situation in Europe different from that in the US. I like to read George Freedman’s (head of Stratfor, “the Shadow CIA”) poilitical analyses and predictions. Here is his about that difference: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/europe-rediscovers-nationalism#axzz3OphIb9lE.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for that interesting panorama of Tea Party Republicans and Dominion Theology in the US.

We certainly live in a strange world, David. I hope we manage to get out of it in time.

.

Dear Crowie,

.

You ask:

« How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hedbo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world … I hope its all worth it just to sell a few magazines. »

.

It is not just Charlie Hebdo who is responsible for “further insulting Muslims across the world”, Crowie. It is the whole of the French nation. We have witnessed a major uprising here in France right across the country from east to west and from north to south. On one single day, Sunday 11 January, 4 million people took to the streets to demonstrate their full support for that insignificant little magazine that most had never even read in their lives before.

There had already been spontaneous demonstrations in every city, town and village immediately after the massacre. There would have been a riot, perhaps even another revolution if Charlie Hebdo had capitulated to the terrorists. It was no longer just a battle between Charlie Hebdo and the jihadists. France had declared war on the jihadists. It had become a national cause. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind here in France that it was an imperious obligation for Charlie Hebdo not to give in.

There was a smell of gunpowder in the air. The French resistance had risen up once again to defend “la patrie”. The patriots had come to the rescue of what France considers its most precious treasure: “liberté, égalité, fraternité” – freedom first of all and above all.

From an insignificant little magazine with 7,000 paying subscribers. It has suddenly become known worldwide and, at the latest count, now has 150,000 paying subscribers. People queue-up every morning at 5 o’clock in the hope of buying the latest edition of which 5 million copies are being churned off the press night and day.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You opine :

« I do not think Jews need to be integrated into Western culture since they have been part of it for centuries. Also, integration (of, say, the Muslim youth in the banlieues) is much more than just accepting and ignoring Charlie Hebdo. »
.

Yes you are right on both counts but, if you will pardon the expression, more and more Jews are “disintegrating” and leaving France for Israel each year with the assistance (including financial assistance) of the Israeli government: 3,293 in 2013, 7,000 in 2014 and probably more than 10,000 in 2015.

France is currently supplying the greatest contingent of migrants to Israel, in the world. According to the Jewish “Consistoire de France”, this is due to a marked increase in anti-Semitism and a persistent climate of insecurity within the Jewish community.

As a result, the French government has finally awakened to the gravity of the situation and implemented a vast programme of security measures aimed at protecting Jewish synagogues, schools and other institutions throughout the country. Ten thousand troops have been mobilised:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hollande-calls-crisis-meeting-10000-extra-forces-sent-to-protect-people-of-france/2015/01/12/63610982-9a34-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Integration of the Muslim youth in the ghettos on the outskirts of all the major cities is a vast and complex sociological problem. As I indicated in a previous post on this thread (page 3), the ghettos have become the breeding grounds of crime and extremism. Religious fanatics feed on the human rubbish heaps and recycle them as human bombs.

Even if Charlie Hebdo had never existed we would have had problems with the ghettos which are a real cancer of modern urban society and a growing concern to the government and the French people.

.

Crowie - good comments "How responsible was it of the remaining Charlie Hebdo staff to incite global hatred and violence by further insulting Muslims across the world.
Im beginning to think that the people who work at this useless gutter rag are nothing more than socially retarded morons.
So what has been the result of this latest insult?...Only more unnecessary death, injury, mayhem and a guarantee of more terrorist attacks and lives lost in Paris..."

No one raised the issue of personal responsibility and acceptance of the consequences of one's actions. Sadly those who were killed at Charlie Hebdo had repeatedly offended the Muslim extremists to the point they provoked a violent reaction, a predictable reaction.

Having the right to exercise Freedom of Speech may be a license to publicly insult anyone or anything, but it does not include a proviso of 'without impunity'.

I equate the Charlie Hebdo publication with walking up to a gang bikers and telling them they all stink and their girlfriends look like pigs. Charlie simply pushed to far and paid the price. It's not right or justified but its also not a surprise. How many others have now needlessly been killed as a direct result of their most recent issue?

.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

.

You wrote :

« Charlie simply pushed too far and paid the price. It's not right or justified but it’s also not a surprise. »
.

In case you may not have seen it, there is an interesting article in The Guardian dated Friday 16 January 2015 by Polly Toynbee entitled “On Charlie Hebdo Pope Francis is using the wife-beater’s defence". Here is the link :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-free-speech-charlie-hebdo?CMP=ema_632

.

Dear George,

I read Freedman's article. It contained:

“Europe traditionally has been a cradle for nationalism. From the romantic nationalism of the 19th century to the totalitarianism of the 20th century, Europeans have long defined themselves by a strong sentiment of national belonging, often linked to language, ethnicity and religion, and distrust of foreigners. The love for the place you were born, the trust of the people who surround you, and the fear of what strangers could do to you and your community is a basic human feeling. But in Europe, nationalism is particularly notable for the sheer scale of death and destruction it historically has brought to the Continent.”

The logic of the above is faulty. Europe traditionally has not been a cradle for nationalism. Nationalism based on a unity of national feeling shared by a group identifying themselves with a nation state is largely a product of the romantic period. The article correctly states “From the romantic nationalism of the 19th century to the totalitarianism of the 20th century”. Before the romantic nationalism of the 19th century the type of nationalism the article describes did not exist. The nation-state was ruled by dynasts in general who ruled a conglomerate of peoples of varying ethnicities, languages and later religions. The French Revolution was not a nationalist uprising. It was a revolt against an oppressive ruling class. Its theoretical underpinnings resided in the document called “The Rights of Man”. That document maintained that all men had certain rights (It was not concerned with either women or French people).

continued