UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements. Rex. 446 stated “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Likewise, in 465, the Security Council called upon Israel to “dismantle the existing settlements.” Most recently, in February 2010, a resolution was introduced and supported by 14 members of the Security Council, “reaffirming that Israeli settlements (including East Jerusalem) are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. It also demanded once again that Israel immediately and cease all settlement activities. The U.S. was the sole dissenter, thus vetoing the resolution.
Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech. However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.
Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary. Again, this is easy to test: Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion? Of course not.
Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children. I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.
Charlie Hebdo says they are making a religious critique by displaying a Christian walking on water while a Muslim child drowns. In my opinion, Charlie Hebdo merely wants to display images of Muslim children drowning to desensitize Westerners to the death of Middle Eastern children.
Charlie Hebdo is creating imperialist propaganda. They know that most Westerners are still Christian and they are exploiting Christianity to turn Christian Westerners against Muslim Middle Easterners as a way to maintain imperialism. They are also trying to show that the life of a Muslim child is something that should be shrugged off.
Charlie Hebdo will say that they are critiquing Christianity.
Well we can test that.
Would Charlie Hebdo ever depict a French or American child who grew up in an atheist household drowning?
Why not display the words “Christians walk on water…children of atheist Westerners sink” as a way to critique Christianity?
The fact that Charlie Hebdo would never do the same with the children of atheist Westerners proves my point that they are merely trying to make Muslim children look expendable so it doesn’t matter how many of them are wiped out by Western militarism.
They are trying to imply that shamelessly letting a Middle Eastern child drown is acceptable.
Economic growth is not fundamentally important. For example, perfect egalitarian societies like many hunter-gatherer clans or the Hakka societies occupying the Fujian Tulou could experience zero economic growth and still be absolutely fine as long as they maintain the same standard of living from year to year.
Economic growth becomes far more important for backward societies that function off of hypocritical elitism, oppression, enforced poverty, and some form of forced labour. These are the qualities of inverse civilization which includes all slave-making civilizations.
Within slave-making societies, the easiest and most convenient position is to be a slave-maker. As long as you force others to work and constantly keep others busy and oppressed, you get to climb to elite ranks, don’t have to do much work yourself and can get away with it because everybody else is so tired and desperate for any crumb you throw at them that they can’t rebel against you.
Inverse civilization is as old as civilization itself. The characteristic traits of inverse civilization are detailed in The Epic of Gilgamesh:
“Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one-third man, is oppressing his people, who cry out to the gods for help. For the young women of Uruk this oppression takes the form of a droit du seigneur — or “lord’s right” to sleep with brides on their wedding night. For the young men (the tablet is damaged at this point) it is conjectured that Gilgamesh exhausts them through games, tests of strength, or perhaps forced labour on building projects.”
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo will pretend they are being satirical, utilizing free speech, and representing the truly radical when the reality is that they are driven by Western elitist and imperialist motives. To say they are obedient to Western imperialist forces is an understatement when they are the type that try to ignite such fires when they are not even burning.
The ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement was a complete farce and showed so many qualities of Western Devadom: being an excessive crybaby, blowing things out of proportion, putting on a grand display, simulating depth and sincerity, pretending to be a dissident while being squarely in line with elitist/imperialist agendas. Westerners involved in the movement behaved as if they were facing systematic oppression like the third estate of pre-revolutionary France. A single act of terrorism is not systematic oppression. If the French government were prohibiting free speech and using unjust violence to enforce such measures, that would count as systematic oppression and rebellion against such would constitute real defiance and rebellion. However, when the Western political elite (who have more blood on their hands than any independent terrorists) are willing to join the Paris march, what great oppressive monster are people truly standing up to? What bravery is there marching behind those who use the most advanced military weapons to slaughter and subdue the rest of the planet?
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo seem to love depicting the death of Muslims. They will make up excuses that they are actually pointing out religious hypocrisy or making a social critique. In my opinion, they are merely finding excuses to justify their juvenile desire to depict the death of Muslims as something trivial.
They are first and foremost trying to trivialize the death of Muslims to serve an imperialist agenda. It’s a form of propaganda. The cartoonists are fully aware that they are sending a subliminal message that Middle Eastern lives are expendable. However, they will then add extra accessories to the images to make it look like they are doing some type of social critique.
It’s easy to figure out whether or not such things are a tool for Western imperialism or not. One merely needs to ask: “Would these cartoonists ever depict French or American children in the same fashion?”
Western “civilization” has never qualified as true civilization—it’s always just been Spartan-style slave-making versus Athenian-style slave-making (which fundamentally rests on Spartan-style slave-making.) Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers are still present. Harper and Trudeau voting in Bill C-51 was an extension of their desire to maintain oppression for others and control for the slave-makers.
Dorianism (Spartan-style slave-making) includes both sophism as well as physical Spartanism. Western Devadom (Athenian-style slave-making) fundamentally rests on Dorianism and takes advantage of playing “good cop” to the Dorian “bad cop” while still enjoying all the privileges of being a fundamentally “bad cop” underneath it all. Athenian-style slave-makers pathologically use the tactic of sticking extremely close to Dorianism in all fields and sectors of society, but giving everything a tiny tweak or adjustment to impart an air of liberalism and progressiveness (that isn’t actually there.) Western Devadom is Dorianism with a phoney-liberal makeover.
For example, Justin Trudeau voted in favour of Bill C-51 but said he would make a few tiny adjustments. That way, he creates the appearance of liberalism while maintaining the same basic oppression.
The phoney-democracy of the Athenians was used to cover up what Athenian society fundamentally rested on: elitism, oppression, and slave-making. The Athenian slave-owners wanted democracy for themselves, a minority elite that excluded women and slaves. Free speech in the West was largely pushed through by the Western Deva-types (phoney-liberals/Athenian-style slave-makers) because the “masters” wanted the ability to say anything they wanted. For example, Voltaire defended free speech not because he wanted to support that which was morally right, but to serve his own elitist self-interest. Not surprisingly, Voltaire defended slavery.
The ability to vote in parliamentary elections and rights like free speech have been extended to include women and all citizens. There are no longer any slaves (formally speaking—wage-slavery still exists but there are no people formally categorized as slaves.) Athenian slave-makers aren’t truly interested in democracy or free speech, just slave-making. Thus, now that representative democracy and free speech are getting in the way of slave-making, they want to suppress even that.
If Voltaire was alive today, he would support oppressive measures like Bill C-51 which suppress free speech. Men like Voltaire don’t truly care about free speech except for themselves and other slave-makers.
Nobody disagrees that Israel is building illegal settlements on Palestinian land beyond the borders originally approved by the UN.
I think it was wrong for the UN to approve the creation of Israel in the first place. Thus, despite Israelis unfairly receiving their own state in the Middle East at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians who were left homeless, Israel still refuses to stay within UN-designated borders.
The UN fully acknowledges that Israel is unlawfully building settlements on land that does not belong to them. It should go without saying that the Palestinians are allowed to defend themselves from their land being stolen from them. Thus, the resistance of the Palestinians is justified.
Imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime holds an election and unsurprisingly wins with 99% of the vote.  Does anybody refer to this as democracy or even Democracy?
Of course not.
Does anybody use Democratic Kampuchea or The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as examples of democracy?
Of course not.
Every single human being is intelligent enough to figure out that authoritarian regimes lie about being democratic. Everybody is smart enough to know that dictators will stage phoney elections to create the illusion of democracy while having absolutely no intent of implementing true democracy.
Now imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime says they will implement socialism and says that they will redistribute wealth equally. Does that instantly mean they are telling the truth?
Of course not.
It’s very clear that there was no wealth equality in the USSR. Some people were 300 pounds while others starved to death. It’s also very clear that workers did not own the means of production. Thus, there was no socialism in the USSR.
The same is true for Democratic Kampuchea where the elites were fed, but many common people died of starvation. People were forced to move from urban centres to the countryside where they were forced to work on farms they did not own and where the output of their labour was controlled by an authoritarian regime rather than the workers themselves.
Just because an authoritarian regime forces people to work on farms does not mean there is socialism or collectivism the same way an authoritarian regime holding an election does not mean there is democracy. People were forced to work on those farms to create the illusion of socialism the way phoney-elections are used to create the illusion of democracy.
Thus, new terminology must be introduced. Referring to Democratic Kampuchea as socialist is as ridiculous as referring to it as democratic. However, one could use the terms inverse-socialism and inverse-democracy to describe it.
Inverse-democracy describes a situation where an authoritarian regime poses as democratic and tries to create the illusion of being democratic (by holding phoney elections or putting the word Democracy in the official title) but is actually the exact opposite of democracy.
(Note: The term inverse-democracy would not apply to authoritarian regimes that outright declare that they are authoritarian and not democratic. The term inverse-democracy applies to authoritarian regimes that go out of their way to create the appearance of democracy while maintaining authoritarian rule.)
Likewise, inverse-socialism describes a scenario where the exact opposite of socialism actually exists, but people in power work to create the illusion of socialism (by forcing people to work on farms, for example.)
The prefix inverse- is better than the prefix anti- because the prefix anti- sets up an ambiguity.
Anti-democracy could refer to inverse-democracy (a dictator pretending to be democratic) or it could refer to open opposition against democracy.
Anti-socialism could refer to inverse-socialism (non-socialist regimes pretending to be socialist) or it could refer to opposition to true socialist principles.
Thus, inverse- is the best prefix, in my opinion.
Additionally, many people refer to a parliamentary democracy with high taxation and welfare as democratic socialism. However, this is not true socialism either. It’s merely capitalism with high taxation and welfare. Welfare-capitalism would be more accurate.
Socialism does not necessarily mean there is perfect wealth equality either. It just means that the workers own the means of production.