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.
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.
Though it might be stating the obvious, I want to clarify my stance on Zionism vs. compensation for Aboriginals:
I disagree with Zionism, but support heavy compensation in land and resources for the Aboriginal people. Obviously, it would have made more sense had America and Western powers funneled everything they had into creating a Jewish state into creating a high-quality living environment for the Aboriginal people.
The reason I disagree with Zionism is the same reason I don’t agree with the Hakka diaspora annexing a plot of land near the Yellow River to create a state for themselves at the expense of the people currently living there: roughly 2000 years is just too long a period of time, in my opinion. The people settled there likely having nothing to do with those who were responsible for the original loss of land. It’s too psychotic to commit slow genocide against an innocent population for crimes they are not connected to.
However, the Aboriginal people are still being victimized by the same overall energy (ie. general diaspora of people, general cultural mentality, etc.) that caused untold destruction and suffering to their populations upon its arrival to the Americas not that long ago. It’s a circumstance where one group of people seriously damaged the lifestyle of another group of people, are able to provide compensation, and probably should.
Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of foreigners that they oppose limited interventionism by Western states? Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of Third World peoples that they want to unleash the violence and brutality of Western military states onto those people to save them?
Find me the person who cares so much about the lives of non-Westerners that they want to use Western Imperialism to liberate such peoples and I’ll show that all you’ve done is ferret out a shameless, villainous LIAR.
Rewards granted for subservience to unethical power structures:
Triple Pulitzer Prize wins
His entire career
As a servant of power only concerned with his own lot, what does he care whether others are ruled by authoritarian regimes or not? (·Outside of it being inconvenient for corporate expansion and domination, that is.)
There’s nothing wrong with blame as long as it’s directed at individuals who are actually at fault.
The worst personalities will pathologically blame everyone else to divert attention from themselves and the misdemeanours they are glaringly guilty of. And they refuse to stop doing this. They can’t take any responsibility and refuse to feel any guilt. Ariel Castro who kidnapped and raped multiple victims maintained that the sex was consensual up to the very end.
And worst of all, people like this who work their way into positions of power have managed to turn everyone else in society into clones of themselves. Notice how oversensitive and defensive everybody in our society is today despite the glaringly enormous problems we face.