Paris

Charlie Hebdo Remains Unflappable After New Paris Attacks

'Fuck them, we have Champagne!'

|

Killing the actual staff of Charlie Hebdo in Paris did not stop the comic satire magazine from continuing to poke and prod and make fun of every self-important sacred cow under the sun, so it stands to reason Friday's terrorist attacks would not slow their roll. Behold their latest cover:

Charlie Hebdo
Charlie Hebdo

The text translated reads "They have weapons. Fuck them, we have Champagne!"

Because the image presented on the cover is of a white French male, it's probably less likely to be drawing ginned up outrage by the superficial-minded. We all remember the vapid abandonment of the concept by "free speech" by alleged intellectuals due to Charlie Hebdo's refusal to exempt Muslims from its list of targets, accused of "punching down" even after being murdered by people with guns.

Charlie Hebdo was attacked again just a couple of months ago by people who didn't bother to find out (or simply, more likely didn't care due to the chance to be offended on social media) what their cartoons even meant. Hebdo's target? The abandonment of Syrian refugees by the West. The cartoon presented the image of the Syrian toddler Alan Kurdi, the child who drowned off the coast of Turkey and whose body washed ashore. The image of his tiny, dead body for a time was a symbol of how the modern world was failing to figure out what to do with Syrian refugees.

Cartoonists used the image in their cartoons to essentially mock the privileged lives of First-Worlders. One showed Jesus walking on the water next to the drowned child. The text said that Christians can walk on water while Muslim children sink, and it was meant to mock the invocation of the Christian identity in the West and the fear of Syrians not integrating. Christians are perfect. Muslims are screwed up. (Please see: Mike Huckabee). The second cartoon showed a McDonald's billboard near the child's dead body with the caption "So close to the goal," obviously intended to illustrate the kind of easy access to the marketplace the Western world tends to take for granted.

Charlie Hebdo
Charlie Hebdo

And yet, people feigned offense for the representation of the dead child. I would argue that, more likely, people are offended because the cartoon is pointing the finger at them, the implication that our behavior contributed to the child's death. Feigning offense about the imagery of the dead child in a cartoon is an easy way to distance oneself with the issues it presents. Dismiss a cartoon for being offensive and then you don't have to actually engage with what it says.

Read more from Reason about Charlie Hebdo here

NEXT: Can State Governors Lawfully Reject Syrian Refugees?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Other than Scott has essentially said nothing in this article, I will engage with what the cartoons supposedly mean.
    The baby drowned offshore of TURKEY!! Not a “Christian” country. “Christian” Europe has taken in thousands (see the lines of them breaking down the fences). It is fucking MUSLIM extremists, killing mostly other MUSLIMS. And since UAE, Saudi, Kuwait, et al aren’t taking in any, why the fuck is this a problem of Jesus?

    1. Charlie Hebdo is published in France. France is theoretically a majority Christian (Catholic) nation. Christians are theoretically supposed to practice charity and compassion toward the needy, such as the people fleeing the war in Syria. I’m not sure what Jesus had to say about loving thy neighbor as long as thy other neighbor has also fulfilled his quota of the loving.

      1. He died off Turkey, not France.

        1. And if he were the only refugee to flee from Syria then those cartoons would make no sense. However, there is a form of sorcery known as ‘symbolism’ where an image can be take out of its original context and used to represent a similar or broader idea in a dramatic way.

          1. France let refugees in, that baby dying wasn’t because of France. Whatever the broader idea was it has nothing to do with France or Christianity so the cartoon is nonsense.

            The very idea is a false choice even if he died knocking on the door to France because charity doesn’t necessarily equal taking refugees. You could just as easily say ISIS is killing people, western countries have the ability to stop ISIS and they aren’t so they are not living up to Christian values to help them.

            1. The child and its mother and brother died because the father left a safe area of Turkey where he had an apartment and job to take a dangerous boat ride in bad weather so they could get free stuff in Europe.

              1. Regardless of this little side-debate, it can hardly be denied that CH’s treatment of the refugee incident is a form of hurtful, triggering speech, using the pretext of “satire” to provoke and offend millions of people around the world. It should, above all, be observed that the cartoon, because its intentions are not 100% clear and unambiguous, lends itself to possible misunderstandings that can result in public confusion.

                Indeed, New York legal authorities have not hesitated to criminalize “Gmail parodies” that are similarly open to interpretation (see link below). CH’s version of offensive “satire” should similarly be censored before any more harm comes of it. Documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case may be found at:

                http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

              2. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

                http://www.4cyberworks.com

            2. Again, the cartoon isn’t about that particular child, but the broader group he represents. Please put some effort into understanding abstract symbols.

              Those people have fled a civil war in their homeland. If charity and compassion don’t mean giving them a place to live and an opportunity at a better life, what other form would it take?

              Western countries don’t have the ability to stop ISIS. I would think anyone paying attention over the past 15 years would be able to figure that out.

              1. If by “don’t have the ability” you mean “don’t have the will”, yes I agree.

                However, 10,000 US troops teamed with 50,000 motivated/pissed off Kurds, well-equipped and with air support would do more than stop ISIS.

                I don’t support that course of action, but it could be done.

                1. BS. If it only took 10,000 troops to wipe out ISIS, we would have done it 6 months ago and Obama would be doing a victory dance right now.

              2. My complaint with the Jesus cartoon is it needed more labels.

                Anyone else?

                1. ditto

                  Also, I don’t get it.

                  1. Garbage, therefore perfect, Happy Friday.

                  2. Garbage, therefore perfect, Happy Friday.

                2. +1 Chester Gould

              3. Western countries could stop ISIS and turn the Middle East into a Walmart if they felt like it. ISIS can only gain ground against a populace that is basically unarmed because ISIS isn’t powerful. It’s why we say they are not an existential threat. The West generally doesn’t want to commit the forces to do that but it would be trivially easy with our technology.

                Your logic would have us believe that in WW2 we must invite French refugees over instead of expelling the Germans. Just because you can only think of one thing to do doesn’t mean there’s only one thing to do.

                1. But they don’t feel like it. The amount of guns or troops or cash on hand is irrelevant if the will to use them isn’t there. And after Iraq and Afghanistan, neither the electorate nor the politicians want to commit to the long-term full-scale operation that would be necessary to eliminate ISIS and occupy the region to prevent them or a similar group from resurging.

                  Not to mention the inevitable failure to impose democratic institutions from above on a populace that would result from such an action, which would lead to an identical power struggle the minute the West pulled out.

                  So in the medium term it’s impossible to destroy ISIS because there’s no political will. In the long term it’s impossible to prevent ISIS because you can’t impose a free democracy from the top down.

                  1. “In the long term it’s impossible to prevent ISIS because you can’t impose a free democracy from the top down.”

                    This presumes that ISIS exists because of a lack of free democracy, when it’s actually because of state sponsors of radical Islamism.

                    1. This presumes that ISIS exists because of a lack of free democracy, when it’s actually because of state sponsors of radical Islamism.

                      “State sponsors” are the least of it. Radical Islam is supported by wide swathes of the Islamic world’s populations.

              4. Again, the cartoon isn’t about that particular child, but the broader group he represents. Please put some effort into understanding abstract symbols.

                Yes the child has become a symbol of Europe’s cold hearted refusal of “refugees” like Tawana Brawley is a symbol of America’s white-on-black gang rape epidemic.

              5. Again, the cartoon isn’t about that particular child, but the broader group he represents.

                What broader group, if he doesn’t “represent” Syrian refugees desperately fleeing ISIS (which I gather is what he is supposed to symbolize)?

        2. And? I don’t think Christian charity is supposed to be constrained by national borders.

          1. If you are a Christian then why didn’t you help?

            If you are not a Christian what right do you have to define what a christian should do?

            1. Oh, just fuck off

            2. I’m not. And I’m not defining anything, just saying what I think is a common view of Christian charity. I’m not trying to tell any individual Christians how their charitable efforts are best applied. I was responding specifically to one comment.

          2. And? I don’t think Christian charity is supposed to be constrained by national borders.

            Within most national borders, people’s right to free association has been mostly collectivized to be exercised by the government on everyone’s behalf. Thus, we are in the unfortunate position where people opposed to taking in the refugees have some legitimate say-so about it.

            It’s unfortunate that some millionaire or some charity can’t just buy up some property and pool some resources to offer asylum to refugees. Or that you yourself can’t simply invite a family to fly here to live in your house. It’s also unfortunate that multiculturalists and egalitarian fetishists get to point a gun at someone to force them to accept refugees in their community regardless of the will of the community itself.

            1. What I like most about your post is how you denounce fetishists in the first clause of the last sentence and then in the last clause imbue a community with the magical power of will over and above that of the people who make it up.

              1. people’s right to free association has been mostly collectivized

                Individuals should no be forced to do business with people they don’t want to do business with. But people aren’t allowed to freely exercise that right. The prior residents of that town will be the ones to deal with the crime and many of the social services provided to those refugees. Thanks to the same statist system you would use to impose refugees on a community, those people now have a legitimate say on whether or not a refugee center opens up in their town.

                Lots of things in this world shouldn’t be subject to a vote or to political whims, but they are.

                1. Thanks to the same statist system you would use to impose refugees on a community, those people now have a legitimate say on whether or not a refugee center opens up in their town.

                  Why don’t they also have a legitimate say about who can move to their community from within the US, or about who in the community can have children they plan to rear there?

                  1. Why don’t they also have a legitimate say about who can move to their community from within the US, or about who in the community can have children they plan to rear there?

                    Because of how those rights were collectivized and which levels of government are exercising those rights on “the people’s” behalf.

                    1. Because of how those rights were collectivized and which levels of government are exercising those rights on “the people’s” behalf.

                      Why? My rights to free association have been collectivized at a level higher than my own household. Isn’t that what you’re saying legitimizes people in communities having a say over what happens in those communities?

                    2. Isn’t that what you’re saying legitimizes people in communities having a say over what happens in those communities?

                      I never said it’s ideal. I said that it’s unfortunate that this sort of thing is subject to votes or politics. But that’s because of government policy, the same government that takes property from it’s rightful owners to subsidize others. In this case, to subsidize the travel, housing and social services of people outside of “the collective”, i.e. the tax base.

                      In addition to property that has been stolen, they’ve taken a grocer’s right to do business with whomever he might choose, he is forced to do business with everyone within the group blessed with this “collective right” to his goods and services. Thus he has some skin in the game when it comes to deciding who gets to move into this group of people he is forced to associate with.

                      Under these bullshit artificial circumstances, a person has at least as much right to oppose the addition of the refugees to their community as a person has to support their addition.

                    3. Under these bullshit artificial circumstances, a person has at least as much right to oppose the addition of the refugees to their community as a person has to support their addition.

                      But why doesn’t he have the same right to oppose the addition of native-born children to his community?

                    4. But why doesn’t he have the same right to oppose the addition of native-born children to his community?

                      The parents have a right to reproduce. Just like they have a right to personally sponsor a refugee to live in their home. They do not have a right to force others to subsidize their natural born children, nor is there a right to force others to subsidize their refugee roommate. That’s where it becomes unjust.

                    5. They do not have a right to force others to subsidize their natural born children, nor is there a right to force others to subsidize their refugee roommate. That’s where it becomes unjust.

                      But others will absolutely be forced to subsidize their natural born children.

            2. Thus, we are in the unfortunate position where people opposed to taking in the refugees have some legitimate say-so about it.

              And, I suppose, the equally unfortunate position that people who support taking in MENA migrants have a legitimate say-so about it?

              Unless one group exercising its preferences through politics and the nation-state unfortunate, but another group doing the same thing is not unfortunate.

              1. And, I suppose, the equally unfortunate position that people who support taking in MENA migrants have a legitimate say-so about it?

                Unless one group exercising its preferences through politics and the nation-state unfortunate, but another group doing the same thing is not unfortunate.

                It’s all unfortunate. You could apply the same concept to roads.

                Yeah it’s bullshit that the government can use roadways as an opportunity to wage it’s drug war and set relatively arbitrary rules for it’s usage. But we’re stuck in a system where the government has a virtual monopoly of nearly all roads, so under the circumstances it’s actually preferable that there are at least some traffic laws, as ill-begotten as they are.

                Yeah it’s bullshit that the government can use immigration as an opportunity to achieve it’s political goals and they set up arbitrary rules for moving from one place to another. But we’re stuck in a system where the government has a virtual monopoly of setting association rights of it’s tax cattle, so under the circumstances it’s actually preferable that there are some kind of rules in place limiting the number of people eligible to exercise some kind of privilege to consume other people’s property and liberty, as ill-begotten as those rules may be.

        3. He died off Turkey, not France.

          To be clear, there are two separate cartoons with drowned or drowning children above.

          The one on the right reads, “Proof that Europe is Christian: Christians walk on water. Muslim children sink.”

          It’s pretty simple: to get to Europe, the Muslims have to cross a body of water. A bunch of them drown. But Jesus walked on water. That’s ironic “proof” Europe is Christian and the Muslims don’t belong there. Turkey and France are both 100% irrelevant to that cartoon which is very much not tied to the famous photo of the drowned boy on the beach.

          1. The other cartoon, meanwhile, does refer to that little boy but has nothing to do with France or Christianity. It says, as Scott notes, “So close to the goal,” and the billboard reads “Two kid’s meals for the price of one.” There, the irony is that to reach the goal, which is represented by the joys of fast-food consumerism, you lose (some of) the children who would have eaten those meals.

            1. Can you dumb it down a little more?

              1. Probably.

            2. Howsabout:

              Something that was done to a Muslim child, by Muslims, is the responsibility of Christians.

              1. … According to a bunch of non-Christians.

      2. As opposed to charity being an invitation to robbery, wreckage, rape, ruin, and murder, as is usually the case when the Muslim world is involved.

    2. Something about helping all mankind….charity…fuck it, I was never good at this stuff…

    3. Other than Scott has essentially said nothing in this article

      Yeah, there’s no news or information at all imparted in this post.

    4. It’s going to be a real bummer if Charlie goes full psycho moonbat and takes the “we’re to blame for the Islamonazis” view. I’ll lose all the respect I have for them if that happens.

      1. I’m sure they are terrified of that possibility.

        1. No one wants to lose the respect of Mike M. Block Insane Yomamma lies awake every night, agonizing over how he disappointed Mike.

          1. It’s much more effective to just ignore him, MJ.

            1. More effective, maybe, but rarely as entertaining.

    5. Chill out, Bear, it’s just cartoon snarkage. The point is the indomitable spirit of the plucky artists.

  2. They’re a brave bunch and the west could use more like them. That said, I hope their life insurance is paid up because they could very well be retargeted.

    1. More a question of when than whether.

  3. “emmerde” looks more like “enshit” (enshrining with shit) than “fuck” imo.

    1. That is the etymology.

    2. I think it’s more a translation of how it is used idiomatically rather than a literal translation.

        1. I’m enshitting you.

          1. Whoa, get a room, guys.

  4. Cue the butthurt in 3…2…1…

    1. I have a couple of bottles of really good Champagne at home. I guess I should get rid of my weapons and not worry about defending myself. Sure, the guy who breaks in has weapons. But I have Champagne. And that is enough. Right?

      1. No champagne in the house. But I do have mead and a broadsword. Am I covered?

        1. You shouldn’t as a general rule bring a knife to a gun fight. But, that is a really good knife. So maybe you are. I wouldn’t want to be on the other end of it.

        2. If it’s one of those foam-wrapped deals then no and you’re a huge nerd. If not you’re just a huge nerd.

            1. Do you keep them mounted or leaning innocuously against the hearth like you may need to pop out to behead centurions?

              1. In scabbards, next to my desk. Just in case.

            2. Do you wear your crown upon a troubled brow?

              1. No. But a torque is the symbol or a free man.

                1. I think you misspelled tuque, eh!

                  Hoser

      2. There’s this thing. It’s called “symbolism”. It can be used for a lot of purposes. Like this.

        1. Sure there is. But what is being symbolized here? Okay the French have a nice culture. ISIS has weapons. Since the guy is full of bullet holes, it would seem that the culture is of little value when faced with people with weapons and the will to use them.

          If it doesn’t mean that, then what does it mean? That your culture will save you from someone with the will and ability to murder you?

          1. I’d say it has nothing to do with saving or protecting anything or stopping attacks. It has to do with the reaction to the attacks and not letting attacks destroy their culture and values.

            1. Then why does it mention ISIS having weapons? If the point is about the reaction, why mention ISIS at all let alone talk about them having weapons? Why not just show the guy shot full of holes drinking champagne?

              1. I don’t know. Trying to be poetic? Isn’t “they have the ____, but we have the ____” sort of a common turn of phrase?

                1. A-bomb, kabuki theater

                2. smallpox blankets, Ghost Dance

                3. They have the plant, but we have the power.

                4. They have the plant, but we have the power.

          2. The French live in an alternate reality. Their symbolism has no equivalent meaning on this side of the Atlantic.

          3. The cartoon is pretty simple. It’s saying–and of course, this is only my interpretation–that even if you try and fill us with bullets, we’re not going to let you stop us from enjoying life. You may have guns, but we have champagne, and that is a symbol for enjoying life.

            It’s basically “fuck you”. A well deserved fuck you.

            1. The problem is continuing to enjoy your life, while good, doesn’t solve the problem. The fact that it never mentions the French having weapons implies that culture and enjoying life is enough. Sadly, it isn’t.

              1. The degree to which you miss the point because it isn’t specifically tailored to the exact message you want to see says a lot about how you perceive other points of view. It’s not enough to just get the message. If they haven’t said the exact message you want, it’s no good.

              2. How is this any different from the Israeli / Bush response of engaging in commerce and life as usual after a terrorist attack?

                It’s not a manifesto for how to respond. It’s a drawing.

              3. No, it implies that no matter how these people rail and fight against it – France has the things to which the majority of humanity aspires to have and so the jihadis *have already lost*.

          4. Since the guy is full of bullet holes, it would seem that the culture is of little value when faced with people with weapons and the will to use them.

            But he’s not dying, or suffering. He’s happy and celebrating. The bullet holes aren’t hurting him in the cartoon.

        2. See, I think that cartoon can be read as an indictment of the idea that being drunk and happy is any kind of adequate response to armed maniacs.

          As in: Me being drunk and happy didn’t stop any of these bullets, now, did it?

      3. I don’t think that the cartoon is trying to make a point about guns.

        1. Yeah, i see it as more of a celebration of continued Frenchness even in the face of deadly threats.

          1. Drinking Champagne while the bullets fly? The only problem with that symbolism is the bullets should be hitting other people while the French drink Champagne.

            I’m here all week.

        2. That’s what you think, but we all learned in the links this morning that John’s opinions and anecdotes are greater than actual fact. So shape up and fall in line.

          1. That is right. Anyone who observes something differently from you must just be lying or something.

            1. This may be the most epic projection ever seen here. I think we could power a drive-in theater with it.

              1. A drive-in theater is your go to reference? Jesus, how old are you?

                1. To be fair, a drive in theater would need a large projector. But with all the digital technology nowadays…

                  1. Many theatres use digital projection, but they still suck a lot of power. Not sure if the lamps are still incandescent or are LED.

                2. Oh really, smart guy? Do you have a better projection metaphor? Maybe a reference to the “Burning Down the House” video?

                  1. At least that one came out during my lifetime, although just barely.

                    As far as projection, they got this thing called IMAX now. Ask your grandkids about it.

                    1. Still a projector, Citizen. Still needs a light source. And IMAX isn’t all that new a technology.

                    2. Yeah, but my point is that it’s way newer than the drive-in theater concept, although i don’t really fault Epi for wanting to reminisce about the place where he first got to second base in 1953.

                    3. I know all about IMAX, I cringed to Prometheus in the one at Pacific Science Center. Damn you, Damon Lindelof! Damn you to hell!!!

                  2. You should have mentioned taking his mom to the drive-in, Epi. Sheesh, you’re slipping.

                    1. It was YOUR mom that he took to the drive-in, anyway.

                    2. Shut up, X! He doesn’t know that! What the hell is wrong with you?!?

                      Well, other than the obvious, that is.

                    3. If he ever met you he was gonna notice the resemblance!

          2. Just this morning? That genie left the bottle in like 2007.

            1. Dude, I wasn’t around here in 2007. I was 18-19 at the time and still considered myself a Republican.

              1. I hear ya. John is nothing if not consistent, though. I mean, Epi called it at 11:16, and Epi is technically a houseplant.

                1. Technically?!?

                  1. Ok, spiritually and emotionally. Happy now?

              2. I was 18 at the time and voted for Obama.
                *Hangs head in shame*

                1. I was on here…lurking..
                  *hangs head in shame*

                  1. I was here, saying roughly the same stupid shit that i say now. I hadn’t yet followed libertarianism all the way to its logical end in Ancapistan, but was on the way.

        3. I don’t think that the cartoon is trying to make a point about guns.

          Exactly. The first line simply means that they [terrorists] are bad guys. The cartoonists used a standard leftist/European stereotype that guns are bad* to draw a contrast with the good stuff in the third line. There’s also a symmetry in using “have” in these two lines. That’s it.

          *Only bad people** have and use guns. Normal folks don’t have them. That’s the way it is.
          **The law enforcement and military are ignored. However, more left-wing types may include the military in the definition of bad guys.

      4. Dude, it’s a joke. The guy has HOLES IN HIM!!!

    2. On the plus side, maybe all of the welfare state-loving nativist neocons around here will die from acute diaper rash.

      1. I thought Depends were hypoallergenic.

        1. I don’t know if you’ve noticed Epi, but their skin is thin and delicate as a gossamer soap bubble. Even the slightest pressure causes them to explode.

          1. Yes, I’ve observed that, Hugh. They like to explode right on you. Like me with your…oh never mind.

            1. …Hitler?

              1. Well, it is a French-themed post.

              2. *hugs Citizen X*

        2. It depends…

        3. Diaper rash comes from skin contact with the poop, Epi. But it’s actually comforting that you aren’t familiar with diapering.

          1. I’m willing to learn!

      2. Nativists and neocons don’t like each other. You still don’t understand what ‘neocon’ means.

  5. I would argue that, more likely, people are offended because the cartoon is pointing the finger at them, the implication that our behavior contributed to the child’s death.

    I would argue that most of the offended people lack critical thinking skills and reasoned “jokes about dead children = bad” without actually reflecting on the message

    1. Yeah, that seems more likely. Lots of people love to wallow in collective guilt.

  6. It is not clear at all what this cartoon means. Maybe they intend that. The fact that the guy is full of bullet holes, would seem to make light of the stupidity of thinking your culture will protect you against people with weapons who mean you harm.

    The more I look at it, the more I think that is what the cartoon means. It is making fun of the idiots who can’t grasp the gravity of the situation.

    That seems unlikely, but I don’t see any other way to interpret it.

    1. that’s what I saw. pure mockery.

    2. My first thought was that it was simply “fuck you, we won’t let you bring us down” to the terrorists. But that is an interesting way to look at it. I don’t know enough about Charlie Hebdo to really divine their intentions.

      1. My first thought was the same as yours. If that was the point, the cartoon is either incredibly naive because it thinks culture will save you from armed people meaning you harm or nihilistic because it understands culture won’t save you but figures better to just enjoy and die rather than fight back.

        1. There may be some element of nihilism to it (as I say above, I don’t think it is trying to say that the culture will protect anyone against terrorists). But I don’t think it really us nihilistic to declare that people shouldn’t let attacks like this ruin the culture or take all the fun out of life. Terrorism is all about the reaction.

          Of course, Europe does have some serious shit to deal with and ignoring the part where you have to fight back or do something about the problem is bad.

          1. “Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.”

          2. There is an element of self-absorption to French, particularly Parisian politics.

            After the French Army lost the Franco-Prussian war but before there was any armistice, the German armies approached Paris to get a peace negotiated. Instead they witnessed a civil war inside Paris as radicals decided to overthrow the Second Empire and establish the Third Republic.

            The Germans had to go fight more pointless battles and blockade Paris until the French could get their shit together enough to formally surrender.

            1. wow – that’s – fucked up!

              1. And also wrong – revolution and Paris commune came after the months-long Siege of Paris ended in humiliating peace enforced by Prussians on France. All the Prussian army had to do was sit on its ass where it was,while the French army broke through the ranks of Commune militia, then proceeded with mass executions.

                1. The Commune was revolting against the Third Republic which had revolted against the Second Empire. The Germans were still there – just very confused.

        2. Or it could be saying that a culture that allows for freedoms and produces things will outlive a culture that merely destroys and inhabits.

          1. And that is incredibly naive and untrue. No culture survives on its own virtues without having to defend itself.

            1. Of course they do, John. We adopt all sorts of things from cultures we have conquered. There is a difference between a culture and a society.

            2. Who do you admire more, Gandhi or Ferguson protestors?

    3. Yeah. Sort of “Paris is an urban playground, filled with fine food, champagne, entertainment, and culture. Oh, we forgot to notice the savages with weapons living among us, plotting our murder.”

      It’s a wake up call.

      1. I didn’t catch it when I glanced at the cartoon, but you’re right. And who better to give the wake-up call than those who’ve already endured the savages’ attack?

    4. Yes.

      What good does it do to cling to your “high culture” when barbarians are shooting you full of holes?

      Not really a subtle cartoon at all.

      1. But the inertia of high culture is unstoppable while the barbarians are a fly in the ointment. I don’t mean to say that they don’t need to be addressed, but that in the end, progress will prevail.

    5. That’s assuming there’s an intent beyond: “What’s the most outrageous thing we can do?”

      1. Yes. IT is ambiguous and perhaps it is meant to be so.

        1. I would posit that the cartoons are designed to be ambiguous. One way to get people to self identify is to let them project their own biases through art interpretation. This actually DOES start conversations where none would have existed because people often take for granted that their opinion is the majority opinion. The best political art has multiple possible interpretations and would ideally take two very close friends and demonstrate to them that they actually disagree.

          Or is could end in a bloody divorce but whatevs.

          Oliver Rose: And you better get yourself a damn good lawyer!
          Barbara Rose: Best your money can buy!

  7. Dismiss a cartoon for being offensive and then you don’t have to actually engage with what it says.

    I won’t dignify that opinion with a response.

    1. Ugh. I mean, it’s 2015. I can’t even!

      1. Did you just? Really? Really?

    2. I won’t respond to that opinion with dignity.

  8. Needs more labels

  9. People who buy black market products support death squads.

  10. Looks like Coco could use some body armor. Possibly a gun.

    1. Why? He’s happily dancing.

      1. Because all the goddamned champagne is leaking out onto the floor!

      2. some people not getting it is the artist’s point.

        1. aha. count me among the newly enlightened.

        2. Wait, so since i got it… does that mean i didn’t get it? [head explodes]

  11. These Friday Funnies are getting depressing lately.

    1. I’m really depressed that it’s not yet Friday.

  12. First cartoon: Cool. Charlie Hebdo is pro-gun.

  13. Also, where is the daily Soave article on campus madness? He probably doesn’t know where to start now, there is too much to choose from.

    1. Even Campus madness takes a back seat when people are being riddled with bullets. The college students are pissed their spotlight went dark but, priorities.

      1. Didn’t I see a completely (un)convincing denial that that was actually them complaining just yesterday. Never mind that they are still coming. Never mind that everything else they have said is a lie.

    2. Oh yeah, that and as of Friday, Twitter is now a questionable news source, so…

      1. #mizzoufeelingsmatter

    3. Rico probably just ran out of hair care products and had to run to the Salon.

    4. Robby will cover Dartmouth next.

  14. The only cartoon I admit I don’t fully understand is the one where the kid died trying to reach the fast-food consumerist society. Why would anyone risk their lives for such a thing when Walmart is a bigger threat than ISIS?

      1. People say a couple of inches of sea level rise won’t matter. Well it mattered to that kid!

    1. The savages are too dumb to understand that they’re trying to jump from the frying pan into the fire. They won’t know true brutality until they’ve been subjected to unbridled capitalism.

      1. Ronald McDonald will kill them with diabetes.

        1. Just wait until they find out that Ahmed can get something that Mohammad can’t afford.

      2. Replace ‘capitalism’ with ‘nationalist europe’, which is probably coming, and your comment goes from sarcasm to frighteningly correct.

    2. False consciousness.

    3. I played NPR-for-ten-seconds this morning.

      Low oil prices are apparently partly to blame for ISIS.

      1. You can say that again.

      2. Ha! I knew the KKKoch brothers were involved! I knew it!

      3. HuffPo has a piece up (critiqued here by Breitbart) blaming the Paris attacks on ISIS’ dependence on oil money.

        “Amongst these is the climate change issue, which will determine, in the long term, the survival of mankind, and, in the short term, the demographic balance. Because, contrary to what many people would say ?especially those who are excited about averting the dangers that an agreement on climate change may pose for them? there are definitely several undeniable links between these barbaric and fascist acts by radical Islamists and the climate”.

        Apparently undeniable is a synonym for unverifiable.

        1. Undeniable means “agree or else you fucking cretin!”

        2. They only said “undeniable” once. I’m not convinced.

        3. How did they square the fact that the attackers were, in fact, from France, not Syria?

          1. I think even huff huffpo isn’t denying the attack was directed by ISIS.

        4. Well, yeah. Climate change caused crops in Syria to dry up, which drove young men from rural areas to urban centers. This created unrest which led to the civil war, which led to the rise of radical Islamists. It’s all the fault of Big Oil and the KKKoch brothers. Duh.

          1. Wait, whut? Are you saying that global warming has caused Syria to turn into a desert?!

            Holy shit, it is real after all.

          2. *Bashar al-Assad tosses beer can out his limousine window, landing on the side of the road*

            PAN UP

            *Lone fighting age male looks at beer can and then to the camera with a single tear running down his cheek*

    4. I played NPR-for-ten-seconds this morning.

      Low oil prices are apparently partly to blame for ISIS.

  15. Jesus Christ, people!!! CHARLIE SHEEN IS HIV POSITIVE!!!!!

    PRI. OR. ITIES!!!!!!!!!!!1111111won1ing11!

  16. What a brave, scrappy magazine! There needs to be more people in the world like them. My favorite part of the Charlie he do episode is when they essentially told the National Front to go fuck themselves. As I said– a credit to humankind they are.

    1. Shouldn’t you be at Mizzou or Kent or UofK?

      1. No, I hate that shit. Listening to teenagers talk about safe spaces and microaggressions is almost– but not quite–as excruciating as listening to people tell me that the military is protecting my freedom.

        1. Well they are your useful idiots. Those people were brainwashed for the benefit of your preferred system. You should be orgasmic that the idiocy is spreading like fire.

          Get out there and stoke ’em up.

        2. Every once in a while you say something I don’t totally hate.

  17. I see some parallels between the intellectual madness preceding WWII and the madness of today. This worries me.

    A few years back I read Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society. If anyone hasn’t read it, they should. Then you should build your own bunker.

    1. How’s ’bout you and me go to the cabaret and drown our troubles? You’ll feel better!

      1. Wait a minute. You aren’t trying to trick me into going to Warty’s basement are you?

    2. “I see some parallels between the intellectual madness preceding WWII and the madness of today. ”

      Yeah. There was a lot of hysteria and hostility to immigrants and free trade in the late 20s/early 30s as well.

      1. Denial of reality. Loopy lefty bullshit being passed off as serious intellectual effort. Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time’ is symbolic of it but if you look into it that was the least crazy idea being passed off.

        Have you seen the news from Sweden lately?

      2. As well as a budding threat that was roundly ignored or minimized until way too late.

    3. No shortage of parallels between the current situation and China’s Cultural Revolution. Read the prologue of Liu Cixin’s “Three-Body Problem”, and see if anything looks familiar.

  18. Can we have some officially designated quarantine articles for the yokels to jack off to their deportation fantasies? So they can leave the intelligent people alone?

  19. OT from TerrifyingPostulations: Opposite Tuesday:

    http://thinkprogress.org/econo…..oking-ban/

    Policies that push low-income people into choices that the public has decided are better often draw stiff opposition from poverty advocates. When the government acts like it knows better than individuals and forces them to behave a certain way or lose access to safety net benefits, it can infringe both on poor people’s dignity and the very independence that poverty program critics tout as essential.

    But when it comes to smoking, that concern isn’t as prevalent. The influential National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) is embracing the move, Senior Vice President for Policy Linda Couch said in an interview.

    1. “government acts like it knows better than individuals and forces them to behave a certain way or lose access to safety net benefits”

      First it is pretended that these are two different things and then proves that they are not but remains clueless. Did Tony write that?

    2. “government acts like it knows better than individuals…”

      Never mind that this belief underlies basically EVERYTHING ELSE ThinkProgress has ever written.

  20. I have a question. Not a rhetorical one, but a real one. When it comes to the U.S. granting refugee status to any group, it’s not just about letting them in, is it? I mean, we’re paying to bring them over and support them, right? I have no idea how this works, so feel free to explain it to/correct me, but if we are paying for it, it’s not truly an open borders issue, it seems to me.

    1. You are correct. I have tried in vain to point that out a couple of times already. Having people immigrate here and actively pursue citizenship, despite the fucked up system, does not worry me. We should fix that system.

      Bringing people over in bulk, paying the whole bill and then giving them blanket amnesty without really knowing who they are is dumber than hell. Obama-level dumb.

      1. Those subsidies and social services induce people to come who would otherwise not come. This makes it a government directed migration of people, not a free and naturally (market based) occurring migration of people.

        1. Exactly.

          1. Then I don’t quite understand the debate among conservatives and libertarians. If it were about turning away people at our borders just because they were Syrian (and otherwise eligible for entry), that’s one thing, but if we’re footing the bill and bringing them here, that’s a different argument. What that argument is really about is humanitarianism vs. security, but it’s not really libertarian when it’s about spending government money, especially on a larger scale.

            We really need to get rid of the welfare state, or open borders are going to continue to be a battleground, whether on national security, political, cultural, or economic grounds. Heck, I oppose most if not all welfare for citizens.

            1. We really need to get rid of the welfare state, or open borders are going to continue to be a battleground, whether on national security, political, cultural, or economic grounds. Heck, I oppose most if not all welfare for citizens.

              Exactly. The whole issue of immigration goes away when people’s wealth and liberty aren’t stolen to make these policies work. Once immigration ceases to be a government policy, we can just call it “moving”.

              We don’t typically see British Columbians complain about issues surrounding immigration in California. Probably because British Columbians don’t live in the same legal environment and tax base as Californians. But you are much more likely to hear someone in New York complain about immigration issues in California despite that it’s further away than British Columbia. New Yorkers and Californians are paying into the same pool of resources and living under a mutual legal environment which necessarily means they have more at stake than the people of BC.

  21. Allan: That’s quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn’t it?

    Museum Girl: Yes, it is.

    Allan: What does it say to you?

    Museum Girl: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

    Allan: What are you doing Saturday night?

    Museum Girl: Committing suicide.

    Allan: What about Friday night?

  22. European governments […] have to reconquer and transform the lawless zones inside their borders

    Guy Sorman with as good and concise a summary as I have seen.

  23. I have been hectored by several leftist friends on social media networks lately on what true Christians should do. I am Catholic, and this annoys me. These people do not attend Church, read scripture, have any discernible ethic other than impromptu winging it post facto justification, or even know basic Christian tenets. And yet, we must (according to them) live by our Christian ideals. It is pure Alinsky trolling, and as I said, annoying.

    So what should Christians do? In my opinion backed up by Scripture, the first thing Christians should do is attempt to convert the refugees to Christianity. Our first mission is to love, and if you believe that Christianity is the true path to eternal salvation, than converting the Moslem refugees to Christianity is the least we can do to show love for our Middle Eastern brethren. And given how much more compatible Christianity has been to capitalism and freedom than Islam, I think most Reason readers would support this endeavor too, upon reflection.

    Alas, it seems my leftist friends are not too keen on this Evangelical effort. Perhaps my libertarian friends here would be more open.

    1. I run into these Mormon guys on campus every day. I keep telling them we’re not buying what you’re selling, but you should go to the Middle East and try to make a dent in the numbers of the explodey religion.

      1. Proselytizing in the Middle East is a good way to get murdered.

  24. They have balls. I’ll give it to them.

    Looks at other satirist publications.

  25. Re Charlie Hebdo continuing to poke fun …, thank heavens for small favors. By the way, what ever happened to the proposed English language edition?

  26. I wonder how many Parisians have recently had the brand-new, never-before thought that they might feel safer in public if they were packing.

  27. Fact is, the behavior of the west is maybe 2% responsible. The rest is the centuries-long history of fucked-upitude of that region.

  28. “Charlie Hebdo Remains Unflappable”

    Wrong.

    “Killing the actual staff of Charlie Hebdo in Paris did not stop the comic satire magazine from continuing to poke and prod and make fun of EVERY self-important sacred cow under the sun”

    No, it succeeded – the Islamists WON.

    The real story is the editor saying *back in July* they would no longer publish cartoons of Muhammad.

    Remember #JeSuisCharlie?

    Today, NOBODY is Charlie – even at Charlie Hebdo.

    So how should Reason publicize the fact that Islamists in Europe *successfully* accomplished censorship? By celebrating plucky survivors who can still draw *some* cartoons. You know, just not THOSE ones. “Unflappable”?

    “Killing the actual staff of Charlie Hebdo in Paris SUCCESSFULLY stopped the comic satire magazine from continuing to poke and prod and make fun of the FIRST sacred cow of Islamists under the sun”

    Oh, BTW they have a LOT of sacred cows.

    1. Totally correct. Reason has gone to unreason or has simply closed its eyes. Disappointing.

  29. They also remain unfunny.

  30. I don’t think this is very honest. The Hebdo attacks were very successful: no more Motoons. And the new cover is as limp as a dishrag. I suppose the champagne for adults is supposed to be what the flowers are to the child in the video that’s gone viral of a father lying to his son about candles and flowers effectively stopping guns. A wonderful thing… for a child. It isn’t so wonderful for an infantilized public. So… according to Hebdo’s warriors, we can die so shit-faced we don’t care. That’s prostration, not fighting back. Get those people off the street corners where people can’t go to their homes due to the public prayers (an act, not of piety, but of political will and military demonstration). Then end the no-go zones. That should be Hollande’s no. 1 issue, not bombing ISIS. Fuck ISIS. Let them do their best. Protect yourselves, France.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.