We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Mohammed makes the cover of Charlie Hebdo again

The latest edition of Charlie Hebdo has a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on the cover. This is when we see who are the men, and who are the boys, so… well done to all the various newspapers who have shown some defiance to those who urged submission, and republished the image.


27 comments to Mohammed makes the cover of Charlie Hebdo again

  • Laird

    I’ve been looking at this cartoon all day and still haven’t quite figured out what they mean by it. Are they saying that Mohammad has forgiven Charlie Hebdo, or that Charlie Hebdo has forgiven Islamic terrorists, or what?

  • Chip

    ‘If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.”

    The Muslim mayor of Rotterdam tells it like it is. More so called leaders need to push back rather than this mealy mouthed nonsense we hear incessantly

  • Nick (Natural Genius) Gray

    Here in Australia, we have discovered that Charlie would be in serious trouble even getting published. Some of our laws seem like they could be used to ban it. And yet some of our politicians still claim to be in favour of FREE SPEECH. Especially the ones who put in the laws which could ban poor old Charlie.

  • lucklucky

    It is the same in England, Cameron says he is for Free Speech when he isn’t, neither most of establishment.

  • Brian Micklethwait (London)

    Like Laird, I don’t get it.

  • Laird, Brian: I think it’s a skit on how everyone and his dog has jumped on the bandwagon, and the emptiness of these facile slogans. Anyone can say they’re Charlie, even Mohammed. So I take the “Tout est pardonné” to be ironic. In English, rather than a direct translation, you might caption it, “Well, that’s alright then”.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to make sense like that.

  • James Waterton

    I think Sam’s right. Pick up a Je Suis Charlie banner, shed a few crocodile tears, and we can all move on, safe in the knowledge that we’ve defended our values even though we’ve actually defended nothing. I imagine the Charlie Hebdo people are rather contemptuous of their “new friends” – in fact, didn’t a Dutch contributor to the magazine say in a recent interview that “we vomit on our new friends”?

  • John Galt III

    “President Sisi is a hero for speaking out”

    “Muslim mayor of Rotterdam is a hero for speaking out”

    From 1942 – Volkischer Beobachter

    “Obersturmbannfuhrer Lingfelder is opposed to executing 1,342 Jews per day. He said that Obergruppenfuher Klingsmidt’s order of murdering 1,876 Jews per day is excessive and uses too many bullets”. Reichsfuher Himmler was unavailable for comment. In Untertraubenbach the temperature was 23C today with the sun blocked sporadically by US B-17’s”.

  • Brian Micklethwait (London)


    Yes, that does indeed make sense. Thanks.

  • Sam Duncan and James Waterton explain it well, I think. That was my interpretation, too,

    And the march? They marched not for Charlie Hebdo or the principle of free speech but for themselves, out of fear of change – any kind of change. They marched to uphold the status quo, and the rotten politics that brought this about in the first place. No wonder Hollande looked happy.

  • John Galt III, I have come to the conclusion you are an irrational arsewipe of the lowest order.

  • Tim, I agree completely. But then I too am supporting Charlie Hebdo not because I like Charlie Hebdo or the idiot lefties who wrote for it, but because I oppose seeing said idiots murdered because they dared to express themselves. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on western civilisation itself, nothing less. The merits of the victims or their publication scarcely merits a mention to be honest. If ever there was a moment to go full blast Voltaire, this is it.

  • hennesli

    The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on western civilisation itself, nothing less

    I fear that describing such events as ‘an attack on Western civilisation’ feeds the Jihadists delusions of glory and historical agency.

  • Perhaps so hennesli but that is clearly what it was.

  • Rob

    “The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack on western civilisation itself, nothing less”

    It was another attack in the war on western civilisation. Unfortunately Army HQ doesn’t believe this war actually exists, and shoots via a firing squad anyone who says it does.

  • Paul Marks

    Quite so Perry.

  • John Galt III


    Islam has been at war with the world for 1,400 years. That is what it commanded to do. There is not one Muslim organization worldwide that claims to speak for the actions of Muslims who are opposed to what happened in Paris. None of them despite their press releases.

    Please, Europe, keep importing millions of Muslims into your countries. You are delusional if you think that will have a happy ending. Then again Europe, including GB, has exiled Jews en masse, murdered them, shut their places of worship throughout the centuries while opening thousands of mosques. This is clever?

    You may find a ‘moderate’ Muslim here and there and say, “See, we can deal with these people”, but you are fooling yourselves. You are part of Dar el-Harb, and will always be. Islam can afford to lose battles but it will always be at war with you. Keep voting for the likes of Blair, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband and you will be sorry.

  • Tedd


    Here’s what I take from it: Your own profit would be disgusted with what you’ve done. A bit like Christ forgiving Judas Iscariot.

  • Tedd

    Sorry, prophet. I trust my spell checker too much.

  • jdm

    In conjunction with the interpretations given above, you might find
    the following
    interesting as well.

  • James Waterton

    Then again Europe, including GB, has exiled Jews en masse, murdered them, shut their places of worship throughout the centuries while opening thousands of mosques.

    Utter rubbish. Europe has not “exiled Jews en masse, murdered them, shut their places of worship throughout the centuries while opening thousa1nds of mosques”. If you don’t realise that the shameful history of the persecution of Europe’s Jews was not conducted alongside a rampant mosque construction programme – and in fact had virtually nothing (if not nothing) to do with Islam at that time, then there really isn’t a great deal that can be done for you, I fear.

    Keep voting for the likes of Blair, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband and you will be sorry.

    So many strawmen that it’s hard to begin. Hands up here who voted or intend to vote for any of these jellybacks?

    The doom and gloom about the “inevitable takeover of Europe by the Islamists” is just so ridiculous. Yes, Europeans by and large have become a bunch of supine pacifics who are much more likely to blame themselves for what they did to drive the extremists to their excesses.

    Yeah well just you wait and see how quickly that mentality lasts when they strike a major European city with – god forbid – a WMD, or carry out some kind of attack that sees tens of thousands of civilians dying horribly on national TV. A couple of deaths here or a dozen there – that’s terrible, but not bad enough to harden hearts. People can cheaply show their “solidarity” with the victims and move on, and nothing will have changed. But an attack that’s even much more bloodier than 9/11 will change everything overnight, and focus minds on what needs to be done. In that context, an Islamist insurgency will be crushed like a pea because, frankly, we know how to use the stuff we created to kill people much better than what they do, and if we use it ruthlessly, there will be no contest. The rest of the Muslim community will be forced to make a choice not dissimilar to that of the early LDS church in the US – renounce the practices that are incompatible with enlightened western society, or face the unpleasant consequences. Such is war.

    At present, we are fighting with both hands tied behind our backs, because certain observers feel that that’s only fair. There will be a – probably horrifying – turning point in the future when lots of people suddenly wake up to the fact that appeasement has not made society more tolerant, and

    After a lot of humming, ha-ing, and bickering amongst ourselves, when the west has identified and agreed upon it mortal enemy, it becomes one of the most ruthless and lethal fighting forces in the history of warfare – if not the most ruthless and lethal. We are not close to that stage yet.

    But to declare that we should toss in the towel now is utterly mad. The west is still a slumbering giant in regards to the threat from Islamic extremists, and even those within our midst.

  • James Waterton

    And the giant has yet to be woken.

  • James Waterton

    pacifists, not pacifics…

  • Slartibartfarst

    JW could well be right.
    If he is, then some people might say that mebbe France will still be asleep at the helm as usual, since it’s only a handful of cartoonists and Judes that copped it recently. They might add that it’s not like the jihadists let off some kind of WMD at any rate, is it? So no real harm done then, and the telltale warning light for the rest of Europe to be alerted won’t have lit up yet.
    Then again, they might say that mebbe France isn’t all that likely to be able to provide a timely telltale warning light about the situation, for the rest of the EU to be alerted. They could substantiate this by giving examples where the French could be said to leave a lot to be desired in the strategy department – the Maginot line and their arguably never actually having won a war being cases in point.

  • James Waterton

    Dear dear dear, I shouldn’t post so late at night. PIMF!