Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Paris and Charlie Hebdo: Enlightenment versus Obscurantism


So, here we are—yet again. And so soon after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter of February 7th, 2015. The new century is still in its early adolescence, and to the rallying cry of  “Je suis Charlie,” which still echoes in the hearts and minds of a stunned world, must already be added another, “J’suis Paris!” The fight is on. The outcome—anyone’s guess; and the bookies are giving even odds with an overtime finish. In the near corner, in the red-spattered clothes: enlightenment philosophy translated into political, democratic freedoms. As with Charlie Hebdo: on the line is the firm conviction that individuals can live out their lives freely, and that “liberty and equality will yield a greater harvest of human joy and fulfillment than any form of tyranny, whether of religion or of state.” Versus, in the far corner, the tag-team of Religious Fundamentalism: on the one side those in taqiyah skullcaps carrying Kalashnikovs, and on the other the hallelujah gunmen (cf. here and here and especially here; analysis here) of the Christianized moral majority—a tag-team who will, if they can, bring us all, heads bowed and chanting “Praise the Lord” or “Allah Akbar,” into their obscurant fraternity of submission.
           
Liberty leading the People
 To again borrow upon Abraham Lincoln’s rhythms—we are now engaged in a great contest, to determine whether Men and Nations, “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” can long endure. And whether “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall […] perish from the earth.”

The following text is Phrontisterion’s translation of Riss’s Editorial from November 18th, 2015 (CH #1217), the first edition of Charlie Hebdo to appear on the newsstands after the massacre by Islamic fundamentalists in Paris on November 13th. The attackers killed 130 people. There were 368 injuries. French authorities killed seven of the attackers. One (and perhaps a second) has eluded arrest, to date.

(Phrases marked with an asterisk* were spoken live on the set of LCI [the French Info Channel] the night of the terrorist attacks).

“An evening we’ll remember for a long time.”*

This Friday evening, in a Parisian bistro, the discussion between friends of Charlie led, as it so often does, to telling the story, for the umpteenth time, of the events of January 7th. Each one tells about what he lived through that day, where he was at the precise moment of the attack, in the [Charlie] offices or outside, on the sidewalk. And as we rehash the traumas and anxieties of the ones and the others, a policeman tasked with our protection comes toward us and whispers in our ears: “Are you going to be staying long?” And he adds: “There’s just been an attack at the Stade de France.” We immediately ask for the bill, get into the car, and, 15 minutes later, after crossing Paris, we are at home, sitting in front of the television, safely confined, to protect ourselves against the wolves that just entered Paris.

“Contrary to the month of January, this time it’s just a blind massacre.” *

Paris has once again been attacked. We knew that the January attacks would be followed by other attacks. We were waiting, resigned, for it to fall on our heads, like the sword of Damocles, or the V1 and the V2 rockets during the war. “Blood and tears,” prophesized Churchill. And so it is. Without realizing it, the Parisians of 2015 have become a little like the Londoners of 1940, determined not to yield either to fear or to acceptance, no matter what should happen to fall on their heads. It is the only response one can make to terrorists—by way of making ineffectual the very terror they try to create.

“Didier Deschamps [current head coach of the French national football team] cancelled his press conference.” *

After the attack against Charlie the mistake was to believe that it was going to happen again. But, no, nothing identical to it happened. Simultaneous attacks, explosive vests—stuff never seen before in France. The next time, as well, it will be different. Perhaps a booby-trapped truck loaded with explosives, or something else entirely, that even the police can’t imagine. We have the impression of always being one step behind terrorist perversities. The criminal imagination of those who are free is anemic compared to that of killers alienated in terms of an ideology. As if the only type of liberty authorized by their religious ideology were that of killing. A kind of Islamist May 68: “Imagination in power, but only the imagination to kill.” “Enjoy without boundaries, but enjoy only slaughtering without boundaries.”

“There is no reason why France, which is involved in Syria, should not be hit.” *

After the horrors of the attacks we are going to have to submit to yet another Calvary, that of analyses, explanations, and theories. And it already started on Friday, live on the television. “Specialists” claim that these attacks are the result of the French bombarding of Daech’s fuel installations. The taking of hostages at the Bataclan was hardly over before the same type of guilt attributing speeches could be heard. It’s because ‘we’ did something that they attacked us. Just like with the comic depictions of Mahomet, which were supposedly the impetus for everything that happened afterwards, these specialists make the victims responsible. The French become the guilty party for taking part, for becoming involved. For just simply existing. In fact, for these criminals there is neither beginning nor end in France’s responsibility. For them, human rights, liberty of expression, secularism [laïcité], are values sufficient in and of themselves to legitimize their crimes. And these specialists give us “explanations” that resemble “reasons” and that end up by becoming “justifications.” It is still too early, but in a couple of days, when emotions have settled down, these specialists will begin circling around the dead, these professional vultures who, each and every time, find good reasons for the killers. That’s how it is; that’s part of the process for each assassination attempt: horror, emotion, trivialization, and justification.


“Did you hear these guys yell anything?” *

In the course of these terrible days many words have been pronounced. Except one: “religion.” Religion has become an embarrassing word.  No one dares to say it, but everyone understands that it is religion that motivated these killers, and not some contrived geopolitical considerations. Even if there might exist thousands of ways of believing and practicing, and even if we know that someone can be a believer and yet democratic, can have faith and yet respect diversity of opinion, we also know that religion can be transformed into a weapon of war. The other word so very difficult to pronounce is the word “Islam.” Islam, in the last twenty years, has become a battlefield where radicals want to exterminate unbelievers and to subjugate by force moderates. French Muslims must not be very comfortable seeing the murders committed in the name of their religion, all the while feeling suspicion increase around them.  And because they can expect nothing from the Muslim religious authorities in France, who have always underwhelmed, French Muslims are compelled to face this situation entirely on their own. On the one hand, they are threatened with being marginalized by the rest of French society, and, on the other, by being swallowed up in radicalism.

“They supposedly yelled ‘Allah Akbar!’” *

The only ones interested in seeing the French begin to attack each other are the terrorists. That’s all they want—to see hatred take hold of French citizens like it has taken hold of their own brains. These terrorists are trying to drag everyone into their own violence because that is their language, and in this domain they will always be stronger than us. But avoiding the pitfall of becoming divided should not make us have to give up our right to criticize religion—on the pretext that exercising this right is sometimes irritating. Among all the fundamental liberties that make up our lives, it is also this liberty that the killers wanted to eliminate on that Friday evening.

“Our teams of reporters have been mobilized in order to help you really experience this Friday evening’” *
 
Phrontisterion Middelburg_Nov. 27, 2015

Further reading:
·      Riss’ “Je suis Charlie” editorial: http://nonimprimatur.blogspot.nl/2015/04/a-wager-on-history.html
·      “The left has an Islam problem: If liberals won’t come to terms with religious extremism, the xenophobic right will carry the day” --http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/the_left_has_an_islam_problem_if_liberals_wont_come_to_terms_with_religious_extremism_the_xenophobic_right_will_carry_the_day/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
·      In a City of Immigrants, Rotterdam's Muslim Mayor Leads by Example”-- http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/11/in-a-city-of-immigrants-rotterdams-muslim-mayor-leads-by-example/417075/
·      “Does ISIS really have nothing to do with Islam? Islamic apologetics carry serious risks.”-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/18/does-isis-really-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam-islamic-apologetics-carry-serious-risks/?tid=sm_fb