Bill Maher is Wrong About Pope Francis' Take on Charlie Hebdo

Last night, in one 'Real Time' spot during his opening joke segment, Bill Maher saw fit to call out the Pope for his recent remarks that there are limits to free expression. According to Maher, wearing a half-assed smile:

"This is so sad! I was starting to really like this Pope. Oh yeah, fuck the Pope! Well, George Bush said it, 'you're either with us or against us'.  Apparently the Pope is not with us because he came down on the side of the bad guys. 'You cannot provoke, you cannot insult someone's faith, you cannot make fun of the faith of the others'. I guess he doesn't get HBO.  ....And then he mimicked punching someone in the face! He said, if Luigi here made fun of my mother, POWWW!"

SO what, Bill? The Pope is exactly correct on this and I am afraid you and the righteous mob are all wrong. Moral courage, in fact, means not standing with the mob but with moral clarity and moral communication - which is what the Pope's message was all about, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/moral-communication-and-free-expression.html

And I provided two links therein, one noting how despicable 'cockroach'  cartoons led to the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, e.g.

http://hutututsi.weebly.com/propaganda.html

and also how the Nazis' portrayal of the Jews dehumanized them and led to their mass slaughter.

http://sefershoah.wordpress.com/nazi-propaganda/

And by the way, any dodo who refers to Obama as a "Nazi" clearly doesn't get it, and has no clue what a Nazi even means, or what it meant. As my late German friend Kurt put it (he had been in the Hitler Youth, under compulsion) it meant: mercilessly beating up socialists, workers union members, Jews and communists and-  if not killing them- making sure they didn't  ever return to the particular village or town.  Obama meets the definition on none of these, nor in fact being a member of the N.S.D.A.P. for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei . (Again, a right wing fascist party, not a left-socialist party, despite the misleading name)

Back to Maher. He doesn't get the Pope's point at all. Nor is the Pope "on the side of the bad guys", which is the simpleton's take - the same as if some clueless critic said I was "with the bad guys" for writing this blog post.. As I asked in my earliest blog on the Paris Hebdo attack:

Can one condemn the brazen attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine but also criticize the outrageous satires the medium used, especially to attack Muslims?

The Pope showed one could condemn the murderous attack, but also hold the propagator of the inflammatory cartoons partly responsible. As I noted myself in that January 8th post:

"No one gets to insult whoever and whatever they want without any consequences. Ask any drunk in a bar who after one too many begins hurling epithets at the mothers of the all the other patrons. Think he will last very long before being punched out for his intemperance? Anyone who believes so is an idiot"

The Pope said essentially the same thing:

"If my good friend, Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch."

He referred above to Alberto Gabarri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by Francis side when he made his remarks. (Francis made the comments to reporters en route to the Philippines.)

Francis went on to defend freedom of speech as a fundamental right and even a duty to speak out for the common good. But he said there were limits to free speech, especially when confronting another equally fundamental human right: the freedom of religion. Meanwhile, Hebdo had indiscriminately attacked all religions, including Catholicism, Islam and even Jews (a la the Nazis' cartoon exaggerations).

Francis' points didn't come out of the blue either, but from a long Catholic tradition in its canon that freedom can never be absolute. Points I noted earlier including the three axioms tied to the "paradox of freedom":

The first paradox of freedom is that true freedom is experienced only in relation to what is good and true.

The second paradox of freedom is that, since we are contingent and limited beings, we can only experience freedom within parameters and by limiting our freedom to a certain extent:

The Third paradox of freedom is that my freedom today often exists due to prior constraint."

The point missed by Maher (and the Hebdo satirists and their mob defenders) is that so long as over two billion subscribe to these principles, making gratuitous attacks (under the 'free speech' banner)  on religions or minorities is a fool's errand.   As I asked in my Jan. 8 blog:

How can we ever expect to make the world a better place by tearing others down, whether via films ('Desert Warrior', 'The Interview') or by over the top "satire" which is designed to impale raw nerves and inflame hatreds?

Maher himself has been on an anti-Islamic tear for over two years now, referring to "radical Islam" as if Islam itself is innately radical. But as his guest, author Wes Moore (a former soldier in Iraq) corrected him, one must "distinguish between the radicalization of Islam and Islam itself".   A good point, which again brings up the importance of history - especially of the Middle East- when most Americans don't even know their own.

Thus, as Shamus Cooke (on smirkingchimp) has observed, "Islamic fundamentalism was virtually extinguished from 1950-1980, with Saudi Arabia and later Qatar being the last bastion and protective base of fundamentalists "  

But in the 1980s, as I also pointed out in the last chapter ('From November 22, 1963 to September 11, 2001')  of  my recent book, 'The JFK Assassination: The Final Analysis', the U.S. - under Reagan - had to interfere in Middle East geopolitics by propping up Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran. It did this by supplying him with arms, including poison gas (later used on the Kurds) and also set the stage for later jihadi assaults by herding radical Islamists into Afghanistan to fight the Russians.

A good summary from Shamus Cooke:

"The U.S.-backed Afghan jihad was the birth of the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. The jihad attracted and helped organize fundamentalists across the region, as U.S. allies in the Gulf state dictatorships used the state religion to promote it. Fighters who traveled to fight in Afghanistan returned to their home countries with weapon training and hero status that inspired others to join the movement.

The U.S. later aided the fundamentalists by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying Libya and waging a ruthless proxy war in Syria. Fundamentalists used these invasions and the consequent destruction of these once-proud nations to show that the West was at war with Islam."

So basically, the U.S. created the 'Frankenstein' monster of "radical Islam"  itself - by its interference for purposes of hegemony only, in the Middle East. Now, having created that monster, we stand and gape at the dozens of attacks launched by these mutants - after WE created them in the first place!

There is such a thing as taking responsibility but evidently we have none. We'd rather have people believe that these Islamic radicals simply sprang out of the blue.  No remote clue the original RPGs, IEDs etc. were given to them by the U.S., as well as many other arms.

Meanwhile, let's return to the matter of "free speech" and where it should really matter in true freedom of the press. To most intelligent people and those educated in history and the march of globalism, it means inveighing against the powerful - not picking on minorities or religions. To the extent the Hebdo cartoonists didn't  consistently attack the Neoliberal World Order - and took time instead to jab religions and minorities, they weren't doing their jobs.

This is the background that Maher would do well to learn, as well as many others in this country, before they launch into their anti-Islamic jeremiads again.

But am I hopeful they will? Hardly! Not when PR and propaganda dominates exchanges and most people have the historical memory of a gnat.

See also:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/these-crimes-will-never-be-purged-away.html

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/margaret-kimberley/60483/charlie-hebdo-je-suis-white-people

Excerpt:

"One look at Charlie Hebdo cartoons shows that the word satire is being used very loosely. The depictions of cabinet minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey, and the kidnapped Nigerian school girls as pregnant welfare recipients make a mockery of the world satirical. Regardless of how many French politicians are skewered in its pages, it must be pointed out that Charlie Hebdo indulges in racist hate speech."

Another Reckless "Free Speech" Episode: GOOPr Compares Obama to Hitler For Not Going to Paris

Where does it end? The crass stupidity and ignorance afoot in this country like a mutant  swine flu virus run amuck. How many brains are already infected we don't know, but on the conservo side it looks like most of them - from the evidence: denying global warming imps, to the subset seeking to make it 100 times worse with the Keystone XL pipeline, to the degenerates who removed a key banking regulation that could bring on another financial crisis. And now, some mutant asshole comparing Obama to Hitler, for god's sakes!

Republican Congressman Randy Weber (R-TX) on Tuesday  took the debate to reprehensibly  offensive levels when he tweeted that "Even Adolph [sic] Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris. (For all the wrong reasons.) Obama couldn't do it for right reasons."

 

 

Are you kidding me? Turning Obama into Hitler (who had his storm troops INVADE Paris)  because he didn't join the security nightmare mob scene in Paris to selectively mourn the Charlie Hebdo satirists who consistently poked the hornet's nest because they could?  (And let's bear in mind even Pope Francis declared that while using violence in the name of religion is wrong, so is insulting others' religions.)  Aren't people thinking? Haven't they seen the news of problems in the Secret Service - with four major security breaches - and the overhaul just yesterday by Assistant Director Joseph Clancy in replacing four high officials? Imagine the nightmare scene had Obama stood with freakin'  millions in gay Paree with these security vulnerabilities. See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/60420/the-lash-and-the-sword-hebdo-hypocrisy-and-the-mob-mind

 

 

Let's get this clear:  whatever your take is on the Charlie Hebdo incident and attack, the jaw-dropping insult from a sitting member of Congress was unconscionable. Further, it can only really be understood when you realize that the conservative media in America have been wallowing in that kind of mindless garbage for most of Obama's time in office. (UPDATED: Weber has since apologized as he should)

 

 

Freely engaging in the kind of rhetorical bomb-throwing that had previously been seen and heard on the far fringes of American politics, mainstream conservative commentators have embraced the Obama-is-just-like-Hitler narrative and have proudly paraded it around for years, either oblivious to, or unconcerned with, the offensive implications. In previous blog posts I have noted many outbursts of this Hitler - malarkey, including some clueless folks posting repugnant images such as:

 

 

 

As Media Matters noted last year:

Wallowing in self-pity and convinced of the dark forces moving against them, conservatives launch attack after attack, insisting they're fighting forces at home akin to Hitler's Nazi storm troops. They complain louder and louder that America has become like Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler when 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.

This country's  perception of "free speech" has now been so badly fucked that something as innocuous as a debate over Obama's scheduling is met with a Republican Hitler-based denunciation.  This is a mark of insanity and intemperance - which would be bad enough among the bigot punditry like Limbaugh and Hannity - but is inexcusable coming from a lawmaker. (In Germany such comparisons would earn the guy 3 years at hard labor)

 

 

But sad to say,  this kind of rhetorical bomb throwing  has been a mark of conservative shame throughout the president's tenure.  Let's also recall that Fox News chief Roger Ailes accused the management of National Public Radio of having "a kind of Nazi attitude" when it fired commentator Juan Williams. Then we beheld how the former Fox host Glenn Beck immersed himself in odious Hitler rhetoric during Obama's first years in office, while the then-burgeoning Tea Party movement did the same, and so did Rush Limbaugh. The latter pig obsessed over Obama-Nazi comparisons in 2009:

 

 

"Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." Limbaugh thought it was "fabulous and fantastic and hilarious that a women shows up at a Barney Frank town hall meeting with an Obama-as-Hitler poster and the Nazi stuff."
 

Note that none of these assholes have likely ever been to Germany or actually spoken to real Germans that fought in WWII - including in the Wehrmacht under Hitler - as I have. So they don't have a damned clue what  they are yapping about, other than from comic books. See e.g.
 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/want-to-know-about-nazi-germanys-real.html

 

 

Then, last year, billionaire venture capitalist Tom Perkins submitted a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor hyping an alleged "progressive war on the American one percent" and compared it to Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish riots. (WSJeditors, a Fox analyst, and Michelle Malkin all defended Perkins from the criticism he received following the distasteful

 

And I've already bashed this fool elitist for that outburst, e.g

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/01/tom-perkins-another-whiny-rich-asshole.html

Then there was cornpone moron Mike Huckabee who  likened abortion to the methodical extermination of the Jewish population in Germany under Hitler. This jerk not even conscious that one mandate under the Reich laws of Hitler was forced abortions, mainly of Jewish women and forced births demanded of "Aryan" women - or dispatch to the camps.

 

 

More recently, the latter day Fox News contributing numbskull Dr. Ben Carson claimed America is "very much like Nazi Germany" in that it has a government "using its tools to intimidate the population."  Clearly this jerkoff who calls himself a doctor has no clue - not one - of the level of intimidation in Nazi Germany in the late 30s, early 40s, when neighbor regularly spied on neighbor and people's doors were broken down in the middle of the night by Gestapo agents - taken to hidden locations - and forced to endure rectal rehydration, genital mutilation and whipping until they expired. Those that didn't were dispatched to Nazi concentration camps. Don't take my word! DO your own research, including getting hold of the book, 'The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During The Second World War', by Martin Gilbert.

 

 

Carson, who was actually expected to mount a presidential campaign, recently defended his ignorant comments:

 

 

"I know you're not supposed to say 'Nazi Germany.' But I don't care about political correctness," suggesting additional Hitler rhetoric could be a cornerstone of Carson's upcoming campaign.

 

 

But it isn't a case of "political correctness" as this imbecile claims, but of getting historical facts correct. Sadly, assholes like Carson, Beck, Huckabee,  Limbaugh and others get away with their BS because for too many 'Muricans the 2nd World War is like ancient history - and most haven't read one single serious monograph on the Nazis, the Third Reich, Hitler himself -  far less actually gone to Germany and spoken to the people who lived at the time.

 

 

For years, the Anti-Defamation League(ADL) has been grappling with the mainstreaming of Hitler rhetoric especially in the punditry and the political class (namely American conservatives)  - which ought to know better.

 

 

Last year the ADL again tried to raise a red flag, declaring, "The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve better. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. This type of comparison diminishes and trivializes the Holocaust."

 

 

But do these toads care? Hell no! They will continue to spout their ignorance and rhetorical bombs against Obama so long as they know their main audience is woefully ignorant of the facts of history. This is why they can exploit it!

 

 

See the Pope's take on the limits to free expression here:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/19f31342-9cb6-11e4-a730-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3OuY6oOIM



See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/shamus-cooke/60462/the-spectacular-media-failure-on-charlie-hebdo

The French Islamic Terrorists: Is Their Aim To Provoke the West Into Over-reaction?

The French terror attacks, which have now left 18 dead, have been summarily described by one French official as "the French being at war". No, I don't think so. That fulsome rhetoric embodies precisely the memetic mistake the U.S. made after 9/11 which enticed us into nearly bankrupting ourselves by two useless 'wars' (I call them occupations) that have merely left us with $4 trillion in debt (when all the medical costs are finally toted up). Rather than treat the al Qaeda imps as what they were - criminals- we inflated them to the level of another superpower just like us, as demonstrated by the military response in Afghanistan (now 13 years and counting) and the debacle in Iraq.

Anyway, Juan Cole has some insightful words on the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. He points out that the shooters were neither "attacking free speech" nor "defending Mohammed"; they were using a time-honored tactic of radical extremists (of all stripes): "sharpening the contradictions," hoping to provoke an overreaction that would lead to repression and persecution of Muslims in general -- thus helping the extremists recruit new members. 

This is similar to  what bin Laden did with such spectacular success with 9/11: provoking an endless global war, with Western "interventions" and "targeted assassinations" and drone strikes that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people -- all of which, as our own security services tell us, have fed the flames of extremism and made the situation worse.

Much of this was highlighted in my blog post of May 4, 2011, referencing Rachel Maddow's excellent analysis from the night before.  Maddow showed, using assorted news releases, past documented video quotations and third party reports how we'd all been had in a classical 'rope a dope'. While we had our eyes and minds focused on the DEATHS brought by Bin Laden from his 9/11 terror attacks, we lost sight of his hidden goal: to bring the whole American Republic to its knees by making it spend itself into oblivion. Which is damned near what we have succeeded in doing, by erecting an entire security -defense establishment (much of it contracted out) in addition to an expanded military -industrial establishment.

In the meantime, most of our civil liberties have been extirpated or at least seriously compromised by the Patriot Act and other provisions exposed by Edward Snowden.

According to Maddow, in her then introductory remarks:

"When we think about Bin Laden we think about murder, mayhem and perverted, pseudo-theology. But Osama Bin Laden himself always thought about money. Money was always how he explained what he was doing, and what al Qaeda was up to. One month after the September 11 attacks, gave an interview to Al Jazeera in which he said, quote:

"The losses on Wall Street amounted to 16 percent, and they have said this was a record loss that had never happened in the market's history in 230 years. The capital in circulation in this market amounted to $4 trillion. If we multiply 16 percent by $4 trillion to find out the losses their shares suffered, that is $640 billion. This is what they lost in one hour. The national income in the U.S. is $20 billion.

Bin Laden, in Maddow's quote from Al Jazeera, then goes on to brag about the hidden economic costs latent in the "psychological shock" after the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon.

Maddow then played the infamous Bin Laden video that emerged just on the eve of the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. In this video he's heard to state

"Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the attacks but America in the incident and the aftermath spent more than $500 billion"

So even three years after the horrific 9/11 events, Bin Laden wasn't bragging about the deaths or physical damage inflicted on New York or Washington but the financial costs to the country. Obviously, as Maddow pointed out, that was where his head and major purpose were, though Americans always believed it was about death, destruction.

Juan Cole's insight and suggestion is that, like the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11, the aim of the French terrorists might well have been the same - to provoke France and the West into a disproportionate response that will cost blood and treasure.

Do the French have the good sense not to fall into the trap that we fell into, set by bin Laden? (Who must still be laughing from his watery grave)?  Only time will tell, but when one hears any kind of "war" rhetoric the future doesn't appear very auspicious.

Moral Communication and "Free Expression": Why They Are Opposed

Few Americans today have any remote recollection or understanding of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, mostly during April, 1994. Fewer still grasp that the horrific slaughter was largely triggered by "free expression" in the form of hate cartoons and talk radio - depicting the Tutsis of Rwanda as cockroaches.

What began as "humorous" cartoons depicting Tutsis as the most hated insects on the planet then transmogrified to non stop hateful rants about the "cockroaches" on Kigali RTLM radio, run by the majority Hutus.  While the Tutsis could tune out this hate spiel (as most wise aleck 'free speech' mongers like to recommend for those who dislike bullying verbal taunts), the Hutus didn't - but rather fed their infernal hate on it to the bursting point. Every night more hate was ingested via this "free speech" medium until only a trigger was required to unleash the worst in Rwanda. That transpired when the Rwandan President's plane (he was Hutu) was shot down en route to what was supposed to be a peace conference in Tanzania.

See also:

http://hutututsi.weebly.com/propaganda.html


Two side notes on this:

1) At one point the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State asked that the U.S. military jam RTLM radio - but was told that doing so was against "freedom of speech". Her response that the talk radio was feeding the hatred (already 280,000 were slaughtered by machete by Day 15) fell on deaf ears. Pseudo "free speech" principles obviously had to prevail over human lives.

2) Ten years later when the main broadcaster was brought to judgment in Tanzania his lawyer asked the War Crimes Tribunal  plaintively: "What has he done? Who has he really killed? He was just a journalist doing his job, exercising freedom of speech!"

However, the accused didn't buy it and acknowledged his direct responsibility in the genocide by fomenting hatred of the Tutsi via his nightly radio show. He had thereby courageously acknowledged there is a vast gulf between what clueless humans call "freedom of expression" and moral communication.

The key difference is that moral communication does not incite to violence, by castigating and vilifying a whole people. And yes, that means words and cartoons can act as murderous weapons! They embed themselves in the mind, especially of those already with axes to grind, and incite them to take precipitous action.

And lest we take that as a freak exception let us recall how Limbaugh once referred to Leftists as "cockroaches" e.g.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/02/951587/-Limbaugh-Leftists-are-cockroaches#


And the Nazis during the Third Reich regularly depicted the Jews in cartoons and films as "rats". E.g.

http://sefershoah.wordpress.com/nazi-propaganda/

Was this free expression or free speech, given the horrific effect it had? Of course not! It was the most scurrilous, vile refuse and propaganda masquerading as speech. No form of propaganda is defensible, whether in books, film or cartoons. This is not free speech but hate speech. It defiles the user as it does the target, reducing each - via dehumanization. See the Nazi material produced on the Jews in the preceding link.

In his superb book, Morality and Human Nature, Robert J. McShea, in Chapter 14 (Moral Communication) makes clear the standards and norms we are talking about. It is a subtle read but one which I would recommend to all those who insist that there should be absolute freedom of speech to say whatever, insult and demean people at will - with no consequences.

McShea writes (p. 221):

"Moral communication is possible among us to the extent to which we share common genetic feelings and a common view of facts."

Did the Hutus share common genetic feelings, e.g. with the Tutsis? Of course not! They dehumanized them via their "free speech" portrayals and depictions as cockroaches. This already discloses the break with moral communication. Did the Nazis share genetic feelings with the Jews? Again no, not if they depicted them as sub-human vermin. But the point here that may be missed is that it isn't even necessary for a depiction to be one of vermin. A depiction, say via cartoon, of the people or their sacred icons as practitioners of perversion or sexual license is an equal transgression of genetic feeling. In addition, such depictions violate the rubric of a common view of facts - hence cannot be regarded as moral communication.

My argument, and the author's, is that only moral communication is truly deserving of protection - not gratuitous speech that violates precepts of fact or shared genetic feeling - which only inspire isolation and hatred. Key to grasping this is McShea's point that moral judgments are composed of two independent variables: circumstances and feelings. Circumstances are "real, objective and not a matter of point of view".   Thus, the circumstance that Hutu talk radio was inciting to actionable violence is beyond question - it did, and even its perpetrator admitted such.  Similarly, the Nazi use of anti-Jewish propaganda was purposefully done to motivate anti-Jewish violence and hatred. In the same way one can surely argue that Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Muslims in vile poses, caricatures fall under the same category.

To reinforce this, McShea adds that (p. 221):

"Feelings are real, objective and not a matter of point of view. Therefore it follows that morality, statements about the better or the worse, about 'what is to be done' is ultimately knowable, ultimately not a matter of point of view".

Thus, if a person or group experiences its feelings violated by a symbolic portrayal - sees it as demeaning and hateful - the ones creating it are in absolutely no position to deny the authenticity of the group's feelings. Further, by McShea's reckoning, they know damned well exactly what they are doing. When they sketch that vile depiction, say of a group as cockroaches, they know in their deepest conscious recesses they are transgressing moral norms.  They are acting with intent to defile a group, and attend not at all to facts. All that matters is the toxic caricature - despite the fact they have to know the virulent seeds sown.

It is also idiotic and useless to inform the affected or aggrieved group "don't read it or look at it if you're offended" because irrespective of whether they do so or not the wider populace likely will and take the hateful images and "hate speech" to heart - reinforcing their feral beliefs and prejudices. Thus the wider Hutu population adopted the view that the Tutsis really were cockroaches and this dehumanization via symbolism made it easier to hack them to pieces with machetes (1,000,000 were estimated slaughtered by the end of the genocide).

 One last point: the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were not evincing or manifesting "freedom of the press".  The "press" means specifically the medium of objective information and news conveyance - not depicting and abusing assorted groups in cartoon satires.  And in point of fact, despite all the pompous blather by blow dried blowhards, there is more than enough evidence to show there is no "freedom of the press".

For Exhibit A I leave readers to peruse the Project Censored site, noting the dozens of news stories left out of the mainstream for one reason or other  - usually because the item challenged those in power or corporate advertisers. See e.g.

http://www.projectcensored.org/?gclid=CMuctcPLiMMCFQsAaQodVDYAgA


If there were real "freedom of the press" none of those stories would have been sidelined to the margins or not published anywhere it counts. In this sense, it is ironic all the hoopla made over the "suppression" of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons but not one squeak or tweet about the plethora of real news - which affects all our lives- and is kept under wraps. Why is no one screaming about that?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/60420/the-lash-and-the-sword-hebdo-hypocrisy-and-the-mob-mind