This article is a defense of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a Holocaust denier and ardent anti-Semite who uses his comedy routines as thinly-veiled calls for a new genocide against the Jews, and who has attracted a large following of Muslim immigrants plus a few extreme-right-wing Frenchmen -- fans of Vichy and the Nazi occupation. He's rather popular on white-supremacist websites in the English-speaking world, too. This is not the first time that this "comedian" has been arrested for promoting genocide, and it won't be the last.
The article also condemns France for arresting supporters of the recent, random ISIS attacks, and, I think, for arresting supporters of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. (I gave up on it before then, not really wanting to be reading the moral equivalent of Stormfront.org.) What the headline means by "free speech" is "anti-Semitism and support for terrorism"; if I had the karma to do it, I'd flag this. I'm not, personally, very fond of free speech as a moral principle; but I think that those who are, should feel no contradiction in saying that they support free speech, yet silencing calls to genocide against highly vulnerable minorities.
From the name, _The Intercept_ is probably an extreme left-wing magazine, and yet this article would fit in on an extreme right-wing website. Extremes meet, and that's how you get neo-Nazi content on Hacker News.
I've never heard of Green Greenwald; I'm judging him by the article he wrote: a defense of a genocidal anti-Semitic maniac, and of supporters of suicidal terrorism. (Suicide terrorism was originally a Nazi tactic, adopted by other societies who had Nazi influences; a suicide bombing of a federal building with an airplane is the climactic scene of _The Turner Diaries_.)
So, if you have some connection to Edward Snowden (not that I know what this guy's would be), it doesn't matter how vile the causes are that you go to bat for?
On suicide terrorism and Naziism, read up on the Nazi influences on the Middle East during and after the War. The Ba'ath Party is explicitly National Socialist; Sayyed Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood were influenced by them, as are organizations descended from them. Anti-Semitism in the Middle East is largely a Nazi import -- this is the same Middle East that the Jews fondly remember as a center of forbearance prior to the modern age. (Thus all those Orientalizing synagogues.)
Of course, suicide bombings and suicide terrorism are bad because they're bad, not because they're Nazi-associated. (Conservation, sustainable forestry, and high minimum wages were also Nazi causes, after all.) But there's a Nazi element in modern Islamic terror, which makes it particularly unsettling when a Westerner who's apparently on the far left defends supporters of Islamic terror and supporters of a new Holocaust more or less in the same breath.
Is there a term for this type of criticism? That is, when someone points out apparent inconsistencies within a common group of people, as if groups are 100% homogeneous and each man isn't individually accountable for his own personal ideology.
6 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadThe article also condemns France for arresting supporters of the recent, random ISIS attacks, and, I think, for arresting supporters of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. (I gave up on it before then, not really wanting to be reading the moral equivalent of Stormfront.org.) What the headline means by "free speech" is "anti-Semitism and support for terrorism"; if I had the karma to do it, I'd flag this. I'm not, personally, very fond of free speech as a moral principle; but I think that those who are, should feel no contradiction in saying that they support free speech, yet silencing calls to genocide against highly vulnerable minorities.
From the name, _The Intercept_ is probably an extreme left-wing magazine, and yet this article would fit in on an extreme right-wing website. Extremes meet, and that's how you get neo-Nazi content on Hacker News.
How about Edward Snowden, have you heard of him?
>Suicide terrorism was originally a Nazi tactic
I don't think that is the case, it appears to have lots of history behind it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History.2C_pre-...
On suicide terrorism and Naziism, read up on the Nazi influences on the Middle East during and after the War. The Ba'ath Party is explicitly National Socialist; Sayyed Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood were influenced by them, as are organizations descended from them. Anti-Semitism in the Middle East is largely a Nazi import -- this is the same Middle East that the Jews fondly remember as a center of forbearance prior to the modern age. (Thus all those Orientalizing synagogues.)
Of course, suicide bombings and suicide terrorism are bad because they're bad, not because they're Nazi-associated. (Conservation, sustainable forestry, and high minimum wages were also Nazi causes, after all.) But there's a Nazi element in modern Islamic terror, which makes it particularly unsettling when a Westerner who's apparently on the far left defends supporters of Islamic terror and supporters of a new Holocaust more or less in the same breath.