Charlie Hebdo's New Cover: "All is forgiven"

Here is the first cover of Charlie Hebdo after its offices were torn apart by Islamic gunmen:

According to the editors of the lefty French daily Liberation, where the remaining Charlie Hebdo staffers have been working since the attack, the issue will feature a print run of 3 million.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

They just can't stop pushing buttons.

[Wandering Texan]

Its beautiful, innit?

[Andrew S.]

Truly it is.

[MJGreen]

One of the cartoonists said he vomits on all of their new hypocritical supporters. I wish our lefty provocateurs were as fun as the Charlie Hebdo folks.

[Pro Libertate]

Holy sweet fuck, the balls.

[Spawn of Nyarlathotep]

Boules en acier, mes amis. Boules en acier!

[Pro Libertate]

The French truly have mastered the art of unrepentant assholery. I stand in awe.

[SusanM]

l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace

[Pro Libertate]

Not so great as a military philosophy, but it's pretty good for pissing people off.

[Warty]

Genius. I'm sure those surly French leftists would hate the shit out of us if they knew we existed. But this is genius.

[Pro Libertate]

Today, we are all surly French leftists. Well, we would be, if we were not in a lethargic funk of total ennui.

[Spawn of Nyarlathotep]

I would gladly work for any periodical that had as its operating motto "journal irresponsable" ...

[Irish]

Reason should change its name. At least then we wouldn't have people showing up and saying 'for a site called journal irresponsable.'

[Paul.]

You comment on one...

Boom.

[Irish]

This is leftism I can get behind. They may be wrong on all matters regarding economics, but they are militant and hilarious.

French leftists have to be the least cowardly leftists in the west. The left-wing in every other country has been hijacked by pathetic, cowardly dweebs.

[Mark22]

French leftists are cute in the same way a tiger or elephant are cute: as a children's book abstraction. When you get close to them in real life, they are deadly, smelly, and poop wherever they want.

[LynchPin1477]

From a random website comment section:

cmpunk12 on Jan 12, 5:18 PM said:
Why does the Prophet Muhammed look like he has two testicles and a flaccid penis on top of his head?

Hmm on Jan 12, 5:21 PM said:
@cmpunk12: Because he does.
If there were a child in the picture he'd have an erection.

Mr Smith on Jan 12, 5:36 PM said:
@Hmm: So would a priest

Hmm on Jan 12, 5:42 PM said:
@Mr Smith: That's the spirit!

I laughed.

[Vincent Milburn]

Maybe he was drawn by Chip Bok.

[Suthenboy]

I just....I....Wow.

This commands my respect, and that ain't easy.

[ProLifeLibertarian]

I'm a Muslim, and I can't see myself ever reading a publication like "Charlie Hebdo".

That being said, all the apologists for radical Islam really need to shut it. That goes for Greenwald and all the other lily-livered hacks who only support free speech in instances where it suits their goals.

I have no problem admitting that my religion has led to more violence in the world than any other religion in recent years, although I don't buy into the eye that Islam is inherently evil. But whenever I see a liberal who hates Christianity but who loves Islam, I lose it.

[ProLifeLibertarian]

"Eye" should be idea.

My thesis: protect free speech at all costs, even if it's in support of something truly disgusting.

[Zeb]

Well, fair play to you. A good dose of individualism and personal responsibility would fix a lot of what is wrong with many religions.

I'm quite irreligious and I have problems with all the big monotheistic religions (I'm sure I woul dwith others too, but I know less about them). But I also know that individual followers of all of them can be and often are good people, sometimes because of and sometimes in spite of their religion.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Religion is fine when it's between you (the general you and not you specifically) and your god. It becomes a problem when it's between me and your god. Which is exactly why environmentalism and socialism are out of control religions.

[Mark22]

I have no problem admitting that my religion has led to more violence in the world than any other religion in recent years

"In recent years" is an important qualifier there, because in world history, Christianity holds the record for mass murder easily.

although I don't buy into the eye that Islam is inherently evil.

No, not inherently evil, only inconsistent, propagandistic, and meaningless, just like all the Abrahamic religions. It's only the churches and clerics that use those meaningless writings to inspire people to violence.

[David_B]

No, in fact Islam IS inherently evil.

We only need pay special attention to the life and exploits of Muhammad, the pathetic prophet of Allah.

Don't believe me, read the Koran, the Hadith and Surrah.

Muhammad was a megalomaniacal lunatic, genocidal, misogynistic, rapist.

Who also advocated slavery, theft, racism, sexism, rape, classism and war.

Muhammad himself was inherently evil, and therefore, being the ideal male according to Islam, is what every Muslim is expected to imitate.

Islam IS inherently evil and has zero redeeming qualites.

Reforming Islam therfore, means abolishing Islam, as Islam is irredeemeable.

[Mark22]

Muhammad was a megalomaniacal lunatic, genocidal, misogynistic, rapist.

True. And Jesus was a schizophrenic homosexual end-time prophet. The point is that the ravings of lunatics like Mohammed and Jesus are just that: the ravings of lunatics. Debating whether they are intrinsically evil ascribes a degree of meaning and coherence to them that they simply lack.

[Azathoth!!]

Jesus actually preached a pretty straightforward scapegoatism--his big twist what that it was permanent, rather than cyclical, provided you engaged in regular ritualized symbolic cannibalism of the scapegoat.

All the 'end-times' stuff appears to originate with other people.

The problem with Islam is that it is designed for conquest.

Judaism, as written, relies on breeding more Jews. Christianity, as written, relies on proselytizing to get more Christians. Islam, as written, relies on conquest followed by a classic tiered society to push people towards Islam.

So, no, not evil, but definitely bad in a steadily globalizing society.

[Azathoth!!]

"In recent years" is an important qualifier there, because in world history, leftism holds the record for mass murder easily.

Fixed that for you.

[BFawlty]

Nice fix...

[american socialist]

Nice.

I agree with the comments of Irish above about how the radical Left has gone squishy (do they even exist in the US?), but in their defense they don't have to contend with billionaires who have rigged the system and convinced poor people that they need to fight tooth-and-nail to get the "Death Tax" reversed.

[Mark22]

I agree with the comments of Irish above about how the radical Left has gone squishy (do they even exist in the US?),

They hardly exist in either the US or Europe: most people in the 21st century have figured out that collective ownership of the means of production doesn't work.

What people advocate is most of the program of the left, but combined with private ownership. There is a name for that ideology too, and it's been tried as well. It's called fascism.

[american socialist]

That or the Welfare state. Those Danes are such boot clickers.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

I'm going with door number one, Bob! Your philosophy has killed more people than Islam. I'd keep my mouth shut on this one.

[John Titor]

Well that and more militant leftists had their KGB funding cut when the USSR collapsed.

[KiteFlyer89]

The "far left" in the US has taken on the social justice position of a Tumblr teenager, and as such is more actively hostile to free speech. Hell, they probably hate this cover. They're way more Maoist - while they recognize the government isn't going to help them censor anytime soon, any other avenues available are perfectly fine.

It's weird. Oddly continuous with the logic of the religious right.

[HazelMeade]

It's weird. Oddly continuous with the logic of the religious right.

Good point. So much about today's progressives is about creating and enforcing taboos against forbidden thoughts.

[Azathoth!!]

That's because there is no 'religious right'. The people referred to by that name are just as leftist, just as statist as the rest of the progressive stack--they just call their Top Man 'God'

[MJGreen]

Wouldn't that make the left in the US more radical, and the left in France lazy and squishy and ineffectual?

Also, what?

[american socialist]

BTW, Reason mag, kudos for actually printing the fucking cartoon. It seems like all these major news outlets that have been weeping tears for free speech still can't bring themselves to publish a cartoon of the leader of the religion of ISIS and Al Queda. Those guys are such sensitive souls. I'm usually critical, but you are absolutely right that there should be no sensitivity given to these extremists. So well done and good job.

[EdWuncler]

Balls the size of grapfruits.

[John Galt]

On top of his head.

[straffinrun]

Teabaghaddist.

[ProLifeLibertarian]

Meanwhile, Greenwald and the folks over at "Democracy Mao" are too busy apologizing for Islamic radicalism.

When it comes to leftists, I love Nat Hentoff, and there's a FB page called Pro-Life Socialists which I support wholeheartedly. It's the mainstream "progressives" who have no guts.

[Joshua]

Why is this offensive? All is forgiven sounds very "other cheek" to me. Why does everybody assume that that's Mohammed instead of just a random muslim dude?

[ProLifeLibertarian]

Because criticizing religions is fine, as long as it's not Islam.

Funny thing about liberals. They have no problem killing Muslims with bombs or drones, but when it comes to insulting them, it's strictly taboo.

[KiteFlyer89]

"All is forgiven sounds very "other cheek" to me"

That's what I love about it and why I think it's powerful. The man is in line with the way Mohammad has been drawn by the magazine before, so assuming it's him is fair. The message is one of peace and forgiveness, and an implied disconnect between the prophet and the killers. It is saying that their actions are not representative of the prophet or of the religion. They are arguing for tolerance and specifically not blaming all Muslims for this.

The only, single, solitary reason to find this offensive is either a dumb kneejerk reaction that "you can't do this because some people say so", or is based on a meaningless religious precept that wasn't even enforced until a few centuries ago.

[John Galt]

Sounds sort of familiar. Wasn't that in that Bible novel that was going around a few years ago?

[John Galt]

Random Muslim dude? Banana-lips with one of those porno-novelty rubber-penis-noses and a couple big white nards for a hat.

[straffinrun]

Agreed. The other cover they were considering was having Linus waving an ISIS emblazoned blanket in one hand and an knife in the other while a kneeling and handcuffed Charlie Brown sighs, "Good Grief". "Je suis Charlie."
Maybe that would've been offensive.

[HazelMeade]

I think it is supposed to ironic.

They are saying that carrying a sign saying "Je suis Charlie" ISN'T sufficient to deserve forgiveness.

It's basically a big middle finger to Muslims who mouth condemnations of terrorism while doing nothing to stop it.

[straffinrun]

I read it as a middle finger, too. However, why be cryptic? If there ever was a time to be blunt, this was it. An actual big middle finger, index and middle finger for the French, on the cover would have removed any doubt about what they are saying.

[Warren]

Great acts of defiance:

Martin Luther nails 95 theses to the church door, Germany, 1517
Salt March led by Gandhi, India, 1930
Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, USA, 1955
Tank Man at the Tiananmen Square Protests, China, 1989

We have a new winner.

[John Galt]

Tank Man was last seen being whisked away by some "civilian" clothed men. What happened to him after that was something akin to a real-life summoning of Cenobites.

[John Galt]

*likely

[CN_Foundation]

This proves that this struggling publication is now financially sound in perpetuity and will continue publishing cartoons that might offend Islam or might not. "Charlie Hebdo" will not intentionally offend Islam or anyone else because of realizing the harsh truth that the right to absolute free speech is the right to commit suicide. This was recently done by the "head of GOOG" with Ms Garcia and FB. Being one of the wealthiest humans in history might let you thumb your nose at Islam and the USA but this man is a "dead man walking" just like "Charb" was for a very long time. It is now just a matter of time like was true for "Charb" for decades.