#charlie

Charlie Hebdo, du gauchisme potache au néo-républicanisme islamophobe, avec Alex Baladi et Dominique Ziegler
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQWSOd7bhiE

Pour l’anecdote personnelle, en 2019 @l_l_de_mars m’avait recommandé la Fabrique à Fanzine, en visite à #Montpellier chez En Traits Libres. Ça a été notre premier atelier fanzine avec ma gamine, expérience qui avait ensuite été pérennisée, quelques années plus tard, quand En Traits libres est devenue une belle librairie en centre-ville (fermée fin 2025).

Et j’ai retrouvé quelques photos : ma grande (à peine 10 ans et demi à l’époque) y était assise à côté de Baladi, qui lui avait expliqué le principe du fanzine, et l’avait gavée de chocolat suisse.

(Et le soir, ma grande avait montré ses fanzines à Fabcaro, qui lui avait dit qu’elle était très drôle, je sais pas si t’imagines le boost de confiance que ces gens ont donné à mes enfants.)

What Is Political Violence ?

Pundits and politicians conceal the truth: it’s all around us, perpetrated by our political system itself.

After Charlie Kirk was killed, commentators immediately condemned the act as “political violence.” Editorial boards and late-night shows wrung their hands about America’s overheated climate, warning that unless we “bring down the temperature,” democracy itself might begin to unravel—as if it has not already. The Trump administration and its allies condemned Kirk’s killing as an exceptional form of violence requiring an authoritarian crackdown on an amorphous “radical left” that they claim is responsible while conspicuously ignoring another near-simultaneous school shooting in Colorado. This joined over one hundred school shootings already perpetrated in the United States in 2025 alone, coming just months after Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota were targeted and shot by a far-right gunman—an event with which self-proclaimed “law and order president” Trump recently claimed to be unfamiliar.

The selective and enforced outrage over Kirk’s murder reflects a fundamental truth: violence is never judged only on the basis of lives lost or individuals harmed. It is judged—and narrated—according to whether it sustains or threatens a particular social order. What counts as “violence,” and what counts as “order,” are always political determinations made by those in power. The fact that so many Democratic politicians and influential liberal commentators have rushed to parrot the Trump administration, without the slightest hesitation about the uses to which Kirk’s posthumous and state-sponsored sanctification is being put, underscores how little they grasp—or how insistently they deny—this most basic political truth. By uncritically accepting the Trump regime’s definition of “violence,” many Democrats are actively legitimizing and deepening the very authoritarian order they claim to oppose.

Georges Sorel, writing in 1908, gave a very different account of violence in his classic, Reflections on Violence. Violence is not simply an act, he argued, but a myth: a story through which societies interpret force, project meaning onto it, and either mobilize or demobilize political communities around it. A strike is not just a withdrawal of labor; it is a myth of collective uprising. A riot is not just chaos in the streets; it is a myth of insubordination that terrifies elites and inspires the oppressed. Violence matters less for its immediate effects than for the imaginative horizons it opens or closes. “Myths are not a descriptions of things,” Sorel writes, “but expressions of a will to act.”

For Sorel, the work of such myths was above all to enable the working class’s development of a story for its own emancipation. “Men who are participating in great social movements always picture their coming action in the form of images of battle in which their cause is certain to triumph,” he reflects, and that picture that in turn motivates action arises out of the myths that support it. But, as is particularly salient in our age of billionaire-controlled media that saturates nearly every aspect of our lives, political elites, too, make intensive use of myths around events like Kirk’s killing in order to shore up their authority and power. At stake is not only the working class’s capacity to articulate its own interests but also the ability of any subordinated group—immigrants, women, racial and sexual minorities, colonized people—to generate counter-myths that contest their subjection. Myths of violence compete against one another either to build or to fracture solidarities, to enable or short-circuit shared struggle against oppression and exploitation across social differences.

Walter Benjamin sharpened this insight in his 1921 essay “Critique of Violence.” For Benjamin, a Jewish intellectual who would later take his own life as he anticipated deportation to a Nazi concentration camp, law itself is founded in violence—a primal conquest that inaugurates legal order. Once founded, law preserves itself through violence: police power, punishment, coercion. “Lawmaking is powermaking, assumption of power, and to that extent an immediate manifestation of violence,” Benjamin writes, while “law-preserving violence” maintains a given power structure. What liberal societies call “peace” or “law and order,” then, is not the absence of violence but its routinization. Whether or not one shares Benjamin’s implicit vision—that in an ethical social order, law itself might wither away—he makes a crucial observation. Violence does not disappear when order is established; it becomes diffuse or even invisible through its law-preserving functions, no matter how unjust, arbitrary, and cruel the law may be.

If Sorel shows how violence becomes myth, and Benjamin shows how law conceals and perpetrates violence, Sigmund Freud helps explain why people cling so tightly to the most fundamental myth of every ruling order: that the operation of the law is always just. Psychoanalytically, the distinction between “order” and “violence” can function as a collective defense. It reassures us that our world—and the symbolic authority through which it coheres—is stable, that our aggression is justified, and that the cruelties carried out in the name of the law, in our name, are not really cruelties at all. In Freud’s terms, civilization builds and sustains itself through the repression and redirection of aggression. “Civilization . . . obtains mastery over the individual’s dangerous desire for aggression,” he writes, “by weakening it, disarming it, and setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.” To identify as civilized requires that this aggressiveness be dissimulated or concealed.

The most pervasive means for doing so is projection onto an excluded other. “It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love,” Freud wrote just three years before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, “so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness.” The demonized other is marked for retribution through which one’s own mythical identity is stabilized and maintained. This is the elementary structure behind racisms, nationalisms, and xenophobias of all stripes, including the white Christian nationalism that Kirk represented and propagated so successfully. Aggression, in this form, is not repressed so much as dissimulated, conceived as the righteous reaction of civilization to an existential threat.

But a similar process can be seen even among those who recoil from such cruel and explicit othering. Many people come to be deeply invested in condemning the disruptive act that threatens to upend order—whether it be Kirk’s killing or a protest in the streets—even as they eagerly accept the far greater violence that structures their daily lives. In this case, what is repressed is the violence of order itself; what is disavowed is our own entanglement with it and ethical responsibility to confront it. What cannot be acknowledged, because it is too incriminating or compromising to one’s identification with order, is projected outward onto the system itself. In this scheme, “political violence” can only be what threatens this system, not what the system itself does.

Prominent reactions to Kirk’s killing appear to be operating in precisely this way, dwarfing the national reaction to the assassination of sitting Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman in June. From the White House to every single medium of mainstream media, it is Kirk’s death that has been narrated as singular proof that political rhetoric has gone “too far,” that democracy is collapsing under extremism, and that only “civility” can save us. The bipartisan vigils that followed—replete with solemn calls for unity, a unanimous Senate vote to make Kirk’s birthday a “National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk,” and a bipartisan House vote to honor Kirk’s “life and legacy” as “a courageous American patriot”—were less acts of mourning than rituals of political stabilization, gestures designed to shore up the legitimacy of the current order. Melissa Hortman didn’t get an executive order from the president “honoring” her “memory,” a congressionally approved day of remembrance, or a New York Times column from Ezra Klein proclaiming that she was “doing politics the right way.” This across-the-aisle mythmaking turns Kirk into a martyr and the far right into a respectable vehicle of reasonable disagreement while erasing the virulence of their rhetoric and the far greater violence that Kirk himself championed.

The flip side of this exceptionalizing is to further erase and excuse the slow and less spectacular violence of American political life itself. When ICE agents raid homes, when Medicaid is stripped from millions, and when unhoused populations are criminalized by Trump or Democrats like Gavin Newsom, both politicians and media speak of “policy,” not “violence.” The deportation bus, the eviction notice, the denied hospital bed, the forced pregnancy enforced by an abortion ban: all vanish into the myth of law and order. It is only when someone disrupts that order—whether through protest, resistance, or, in an extreme example, an attack on a public figure—that the act appears as “violence,” a breach of the civic peace and deserving of unequivocal condemnation and universal opposition. Sorel shows how such disruption becomes mythologized. Benjamin explains why the state insists on this distinction: its legitimacy depends on hiding the violence it does in its supposedly normal operation.

As is evident throughout U.S. history, the state has always depended on myths of violence to secure order and delegitimize dissent. After Reconstruction, white elites across the South fashioned the figure of the violent Black man to justify the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, the stripping of Black voting rights, the imposition of Jim Crow, and the eventual development of our still-growing, intensely racist U.S. policing system. The issue at play has never been about actual violence committed by Black communities; it was and remains about rendering Black freedom itself a threat to “order.”

The same logic animated the Red Scares of the twentieth century. Strikes, union drives, and antiracist organizing were routinely narrated as outbreaks of dangerous disorder requiring repression. COINTELPRO made this aim explicit, labeling groups from the Black Panthers to ministers like Martin Luther King Jr. as violent extremists whose mere organizing justified state surveillance, infiltration, and assassination. More recently, the bipartisan War on Terror inaugurated by George W. Bush, aggressively extended by Barack Obama, and now redoubled and repurposed under Trump, continues this tradition. The attacks of September 11 were turned into a narrative of perpetual looming threat that provided cover for torture, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, drone warfare with repeated mass murders of foreign civilians, and two decades of occupation abroad—all acts of overwhelming state violence that have never properly been counted as “violence” in official U.S. discourse.

Instead, violence is projected onto fantasies of Muslims and Palestinians, Latino immigrants, antifascist protesters, drag queens, trans people, or anyone said to belong to the infinitely fungible category of the “terrorist”—the term of choice in J. D. Vance’s and Stephen Miller’s vows to exact vengeance in Kirk’s name. In each case, what is condemned as “violence” is not what kills or inflicts harm. It is what threatens oligarchic control or challenges national mythologies upon which established order depends. The Kirk episode belongs to this lineage, where righteous outrage secures authoritarian stability by allowing for the transfiguration of all resistance into violence and violence into order.

King saw the same dynamic in his own time. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he famously chastised white moderates who are “more devoted to order than to justice.” They prefer “a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice,” he wrote. For King, as for Sorel and Benjamin, the problem was never simply violence’s existence. It was that social myths and legal categories transfigured the daily brutality of racial segregation and public abandonment of the poor into “order” while casting the struggle against them as disruptive violence. Unlike Sorel or Benjamin, King rooted his vision in nonviolence as a moral and strategic imperative. Simply suppressing conflict without addressing injustice, King argued, entrenches violence and makes future unrest inevitable.

We can see this double standard as well in the case of the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO last December. The act was instantly condemned as horrific, unacceptable violence, implicitly in contrast to the supposedly acceptable violence of the U.S. health care system. The official myth that crystallized around the event exhibited the same logic of all defenses of the liberal order in conditions of injustice: the executive became a symbol of violated order, while the industry he represented, which systematically denies lifesaving care to thousands of people every year to maximize profits, only briefly flickered into public view before vanishing again into our taken-for-granted national condition. The point is not that the killing was morally permissible. It is that one kind of violence gets portrayed as unequivocally wrong while another, far more frequent and banal kind gets condoned as simply a policy disagreement—not a form of “political violence” at all.

The stakes of these myths are not abstract. In response to Kirk’s death, Trump announced that he would designate “antifa”—an amorphous label for loosely affiliated antifascist protesters—as a “major terrorist organization.” There is, of course, no centralized antifa to designate: no leaders, no offices, no membership lists, no budgets. The closest the administration ever comes to naming a specific target is when it refers to George Soros—an antisemitic trope evidently designed to distract from the far right’s vast network of funders, including Charles and David Koch, Richard Uihlein, and the late Bernard Marcus (the latter two among the donors to Turning Point USA, the organization that Kirk founded). The vagueness is precisely the point. By naming “antifa” as a terrorist threat, Trump invents a useful specter and authorizes the state to decide at will who counts as an enemy. Any protester, labor organizer, or anti-genocide activist can suddenly be branded a terrorist and criminalized accordingly.

This is how the myth of political violence works: the far right elevates isolated, disruptive acts—whether Kirk’s killing or a protest that turns confrontational—into proof of radical chaos threatening the nation while simultaneously obscuring the far greater structural violence carried out daily through policy, policing, deportation, or war. To declare “antifa” a terrorist organization is not to name an entity that exists but to invent a mythological enemy whose supposed violence justifies the state’s own.

This tactic has been especially salient during Trump’s second term. His administration has overseen massive Medicaid disenrollments, expanded ICE to unprecedented levels and authorized its agents to enact violence with near-total impunity, destroyed USAID, deployed troops against U.S. residents, ordered—in violation of international law—repeated bombings of Venezuelan boats in summary executions of supposed “narcoterrorists” without provision of evidence to even pretend to justify such acts, and—like Joe Biden before him—given a green light to Israeli genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, where the label “terrorist” is deployed to license the systematic murder of children and the destruction of an entire people. These are acts of immense violence, with death counts almost certain to be in the hundreds of thousands, and likely millions globally.

While competing mythologizations of violence are nothing new, those operating today are increasingly monopolized by politicians and journalists who—in their devotion to political balance, regardless of the fascist norms they accept along the way—are complicit with it. When Kirk was killed, only that act was held up as proof that “political violence” threatens democracy and that “violence has no place in this country.” For the right, Kirk becomes proof that conservatives are under siege and that the repression they are leading, styled as self-defense, must intensify. For many liberals, hostility toward the prevailing order becomes suspect, while civility and restraint are deemed the only respectable path to saving democracy. Both myths point in the same direction—back toward order, the acceptance and normalization of systemic violence as the price of stability.

The stories we tell about violence matter immensely. When targeted, interpersonal attacks are the only acts identified as political violence, state and market violence vanish from view. The powerful kill with impunity while vulnerable populations are persecuted simply for speaking out against injustice. Political violence includes the lone gunman, yes. But it also includes the congressperson and bureaucrat who sign off on Medicaid cuts that will kill thousands. It includes the ICE officer who rips a child from her mother. It includes the president who deploys troops against civilians or signs off on yet another shipment of arms to enable genocide abroad. And it includes the corporate executive who designs insurance policies that deny lifesaving care working hand-in-hand with the politicians who allow such practices.

In this regard, it is unsurprising that historians, social scientists, and independent journalists—and now even comedians—are high on the list of the Trump administration’s declared enemies: they all work to undermine the ruling class’s myths by exposing their hypocrisy and incoherence. When a virulent figure like Kirk is canonized as a truth-telling patriot and emblem of democratic virtue while his critics are denounced as violent extremists, we are gaslit on a massive scale; the field of political meaning-making narrows until only submission to an authoritarian order appears reasonable. Counter-myths work to widen that field, calling our attention not to the martyrs of white supremacist empire but to its victims, not to those who uphold an oppressive order but to those who are its targets. Every refusal of the dominant myth, however spectacular or mundane, tells a different story: neither law nor order are necessarily right; violence is not always what the state says it is; and justice is not reducible to the preservation of a false peace.

If we want a democracy worth defending, we must insist upon identifying and opposing political violence everywhere it appears. To condemn it only selectively and conveniently is to align oneself with the far greater violence of our time. True peace will not come from denying where the high temperature of our political order is coming from. Nor will it come from specious appeals to civility or rational debate, as if support for fascism is built on reason and respect rather than resentment and rage. It instead requires identifying, confronting, and dismantling the ubiquitous political violence that our present order is designed to conceal. In other words, it will come from naming violence honestly and building the power—and the myths—that make justice imaginable and achievable.

▻https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/what-is-political-violence
#violence #violence_politique #Charlie_Kirk #ordre_social #ordre #Georges_Sorel #mythe #classe_ouvrière #mouvements_sociaux #Walter_Benjamin #loi #ordre_légal #pouvoir #paix #Sigmund_Freud #désordre #résistance #double_standard #injustice #ordre_libéral #antifa #extrême_droite #violence_structurelle
#à_lire

via @freakonometrics
ping @karine4

Sans titre
▻https://bsky.app/profile/gorekhaa.bsky.social/post/3lzfamnqsz22h

#CharlieKKKirKKK
Nous assistons simplement à un renouveau idéologique des racines amériKKKaines du nazisme.
Lire James Q. Whitman (en .pdf sur mes étagères...)👇
▻https://mega.nz/file/5VwhDIKB#YsBtzylYaPlkSqzwseAiPn6DdPu6qzHz_g09z37EK0M
Prez detaillée 👇
▻https://kolektiva.social/@gorekhaa/113019663838421859

Quel rapport entre la mort de Charlie Kirk et une mouvance d’extrême droite adepte de mèmes ?
▻https://www.france24.com/fr/am%C3%A9riques/20250915-rapport-entre-mort-charlie-kirk-groyper-obscur-mouvement-supr%C3%

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANE3G5khxzA

#groypers #Far-Right-VS-Right-Far #meme #Nicolas_Fuentes #Charlie_Kirk #Fascisme

croyait que ce serait à jamais « Mediterranean Sundance » du trio McLaughlin-Di Meola-De Lucia, « Baby I’m Gonna Leave You » de Led Zeppelin, « Summertime » de Janis Joplin ou « Ya Sidi » d’Orange Blossom mais non, ouste, détrônés, merci FIP, son nouveau morceau de musique préféré de tous les temps est depuis plusieurs minutes et pour quelques instants encore « Christo Redemptor » de Musselwhite. Une tuerie ! (C’est le cas de le dire.) Elle n’ose imaginer ce que cela ferait d’écouter ça sous diéthyllysergamide ou psilocybine ! C’est sûr, on aurait la clef de l’Univers, on comprendrait le fonctionnement du monde entier !

Bon, sous camomille et fleur d’oranger ça y perd un peu mais ça reste rudement bath quand même. Afin de ne pas trop surcharger visuellement ce flux SeenThis (ça fait sale, non, toutes ces images partout ?) elle vous met le lien en commentaire, si vous ne trouvez pas vous aussi que musicalement c’est ce que vous avez écouté de plus beau de toute votre vie elle ne vous parle plus.

(Enfin non, parce que vous prendriez peut-être la menace pour une promesse.)

#MamieMélomane.

Désormais en accès libre
(Offert par le vote des abonné.e.s)

Guillaume Erner, un « judéobsédé » face au charlisme - Par La rédaction | Arrêt sur images
▻https://www.arretsurimages.net/emissions/je-vous-ai-laisse-parler/guillaume-erner-un-judeobsede-face-au-charlisme

« Judéobsessions » : c’est le titre du livre que vient de publier l’animateur des « Matins de » "France Culture", Guillaume Erner. Ça tombe bien : je consacre moi-même un blog, ici-même, à mes propres obsessions. L’invitation allait de soi. Que faire de ces obsessions dans un exercice de journalisme, surtout au coeur d’une époque assez obsédante elle-même, du Proche-Orient au salut nazi de Musk, en passant par l’antisémitisme français ? En faire le matériau de son travail ? Les tenir à distance ?

L’émission a tourné très différemment de ce que j’avais prévu. L’invité a très vite attaqué sur mon propre livre, « Le charlisme », volant au secours de ses amies Caroline Fourest et Sophia Aram qui y sont malmenées, et j’ai eu le plus grand mal à le ramener sur une énormité, selon moi, contenue dans son propre ouvrage -une affirmation péremptoire sur le nombre de Juifs dans les instances dirigeantes de LFI.

Bien entendu, nous revenons dans l’émission sur un certain nombre de déconstructions des "Matins d"e "France Culture "dans les derniers mois, allant d’une interview assez « judéobsédée » d’un journaliste palestinien, Rami Abou Jamous, à l’épisode des « mains rouges » taguées sur le Mémorial de la Shoah, à Paris. Bien entendu, nous tentons de cerner au plus près ce que l’on nomme aujourd’hui « l’antisémitisme ».

Inévitablement, chacun des deux ramène l’autre à ce qu’il estime être ses points aveugles, la souffrance des Gazaouis pour l’un, la montée de l’antisémitisme pour l’autre. Je ne suis pas certain d’avoir laissé parler mon invité autant que l’exigerait le nom de l’émission, mais...lui non plus ! Et il me semble que se tient dans ce long échange, frontal mais toujours respectueux, un débat qui a cruellement manqué sur les chaînes mainstream depuis le 7-0ctobre 2023. DS

Charlie. « Je n’ai pas vu le ver dans le fruit » - Daniel Schneidermann
▻https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/charlie-je-n-ai-pas-vu-le-ver-dans-le-fruit,7888

https://ref.lamartinieregroupe.com/media/9782021583434/grande/158343_couverture_Hres_0.jpg

J’y ai cru. Les années fastes étaient revenues. Les gens étaient là, sauf les morts : Fournier, Reiser, puis Gébé. Choron avait refusé. Delfeil de Ton aussi. Je n’ai rien vu. Je n’ai pas vu le ver dans le fruit. Je n’ai pas vu que notre journal était devenu un marchepied pour ambitieux visant très haut. Quand Val vira Siné pour “antisémitisme”, je n’ai pas vu que c’était là le coup d’envoi d’une manœuvre minutieusement orchestrée qui, se déroulant suivant le plan prévu, devait amener Val dans les parages du pouvoir…

C’est Cavanna qui n’a pas vu ou alors trop tard. Delfeil De Ton a été beaucoup plus perspicace que son ami François sur ce coup là. Tous les deux, avec le professeur Choron, fondateurs de Hara-Kiri , puis de Hara-Kiri Hebdo et enfin de Charlie Hebdo. Ils ont aussi fait parti de la deuxième équipe du nouveau Charlie Hebdo en 1992 avec Gébé, Wolinski, Willem. Choron avait refusé de rempiler ne pouvant pas encadrer Philippe Val.
Gébé était directeur du nouveau Charlie de 1992 à 2004, année de sa mort, un an avant celle de Choron. C’est à propos des dix ans de la tragédie de Charlie Hebdo que j’appris la publication des souvenirs de Delfeil De Ton publiés dans L’Obs quelques jours après le massacre des frères Kouachi et la fureur qu’elle a provoqué à Richard Malka, P. Val et à leurs ami·e·s du printemps républicain, Caroline Fourest, Raphaël Enthoven, Sophia Aram...
la polémique raconté par Ariane Chemin dans Le Monde de 14 janvier 2015.
►https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/14/polemique-dans-la-famille-charlie-hebdo_4556428_3224.html

Vive Siné ! par DDT le 23/7/2008 dans le Nouvel Obs
▻https://www.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20080723.BIB1738/vive-sine.html

« Dans notre monde libéral, les idées finissent toujours par appartenir à ceux qui ne les trouvent pas. » Cette sentence est de M. Philippe Val, penseur contemporain.

DDT quatre ans plus tard, l’acharnement de la LICRA contre Siné
▻https://www.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20120411.OBS5956/abus-de-licra.html

LES LUNDIS DE DELFEIL DE TON. Où l’on voit que quatre ans après, la prétendue affaire Siné n’est pas encore terminée.

Si #Charlie_Hebdo est toujours vivant, #Siné_Mensuel publiera son dernier numéro le mois de mars prochain. Décidément le dessin de presse à mauvaise mine.
▻https://www.sinemensuel.com/numero-sine/n147-janvier-2025
#dessins_de_presse

X Is a White-Supremacist Site - The Atlantic
▻https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/11/x-white-supremacist-site/680538

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/mvtHBkvjC7q0t32CMDzwfMZUr4A=/0x43:2000x1085/1200x625/media/img/mt/2024/11/far_right_x_horz/original.jpg

Elon Musk has made one of Twitter’s most glaring problems into a core feature on X.
By Charlie Warzel

November 5, 2024

X has always had a Nazi problem. I’ve covered the site, formerly known as Twitter, for more than a decade and reported extensively on its harassment problems, its verification (and then de-verification) of a white nationalist, and the glut of anti-Semitic hatred that roiled the platform in 2016.

But something is different today. Heaps of unfiltered posts that plainly celebrate racism, anti-Semitism, and outright Nazism are easily accessible and possibly even promoted by the site’s algorithms. All the while, Elon Musk—a far-right activist and the site’s owner, who is campaigning for and giving away millions to help elect Donald Trump—amplifies horrendous conspiracy theories about voter fraud, migrants run amok, and the idea that Jewish people hate white people. Twitter was always bad if you knew where to look, but because of Musk, X is far worse. (X and Musk did not respond to requests for comment for this article.)

It takes little effort to find neo-Nazi accounts that have built up substantial audiences on X. “Thank you all for 7K,” one white-nationalist meme account posted on October 17, complete with a heil-Hitler emoji reference. One week later, the account, which mostly posts old clips of Hitler speeches and content about how “Hitler was right,” celebrated 14,000 followers. One post, a black-and-white video of Nazis goose-stepping, has more than 187,000 views. Another racist and anti-Semitic video about Jewish women and Black men—clearly AI-generated—has more than 306,000 views. It was also posted in late October.

Many who remain on the platform have noticed X decaying even more than usual in recent months. “I’ve seen SO many seemingly unironic posts like this on Twitter recently this is getting insane,” one X user posted in response to a meme that the far-right influencer Stew Peters recently shared. It showed an image of Adolf Hitler holding a telephone with overlaid text reading, “Hello … 2024? Are you guys starting to get it yet?” Peters appended the commentary, “Yes. We’ve noticed.” The idea is simply that Hitler was right, and X users ate it up: As of this writing, the post has received about 67,000 likes, 10,000 reposts, and 11.4 million views. When Musk took over, in 2022, there were initial reports that hate speech (anti-Black and anti-Semitic slurs) was surging on the platform. By December of that year, one research group described the increase in hate speech as “unprecedented.” And it seems to only have gotten worse. There are far more blatant examples of racism now, even compared with a year ago. In September, the World Bank halted advertising on X after its promoted ads were showing up in the replies to pro-Nazi and white-nationalist content from accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers. Search queries such as Hitler was right return posts with tens of thousands of views—they’re indistinguishable from the poison once relegated to the worst sites on the internet, including 4chan, Gab, and Stormfront.

The hatred isn’t just coming from anonymous fringe posters either. Late last month, Clay Higgins, a Republican representative from Louisiana, published a racist, threatening post about the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, saying they’re from the “nastiest country in the western hemisphere.” Then he issued an ultimatum: “All these thugs better get their mind right and their ass out of our country before January 20th,” he wrote in the post, referencing Inauguration Day. Higgins eventually deleted the post at the request of his House colleagues on both sides of the aisle but refused to apologize. “I can put up another controversial post tomorrow if you want me to. I mean, we do have freedom of speech. I’ll say what I want,” he told CNN later that day.

And although Higgins did eventually try to walk his initial post back, clarifying that he was really referring to Haitian gangs, the sentiment he shared with CNN is right. The lawmaker can put up another vile post maligning an entire country whenever he desires. Not because of his right to free speech—which exists to protect against government interference—but because of how Musk chooses to operate his platform. Despite the social network’s policy that prohibits “incitement of harassment,” X seemingly took no issue with Higgins’s racist post or its potential to cause real-world harm for Springfield residents. (The town has already closed and evacuated its schools twice because of bomb threats.) And why would X care? The platform, which reinstated thousands of banned accounts following Musk’s takeover, in 2022—accounts that belong to QAnon supporters, political hucksters, conspiracy theorists, and at least one bona fide neo-Nazi—is so inundated with bigoted memes, racist AI slop, and unspeakable slurs that Higgins’s post seemed almost measured by comparison. In the past, when Twitter seemed more interested in enforcing content-moderation standards, the lawmaker’s comments may have resulted in a ban or some other disciplinary response: On X, he found an eager, sympathetic audience willing to amplify his hateful message.

His deleted post is instructive, though, as a way to measure the degradation of X under Musk. The site is a political project run by a politically radicalized centibillionaire. The worthwhile parts of Twitter (real-time news, sports, culture, silly memes, spontaneous encounters with celebrity accounts) have been drowned out by hateful garbage. X is no longer a social-media site with a white-supremacy problem, but a white-supremacist site with a social-media problem.

Musk has certainly bent the social network to support his politics, which has recently involved joking on Tucker Carlson’s show (which streams on X) that “nobody is even bothering to try to kill Kamala” and repurposing the @america handle from an inactive user to turn it into a megaphone for his pro-Trump super PAC. Musk has also quite clearly reengineered the site so that users see him, and his tweets, whether or not they follow him.

When Musk announced his intent to purchase Twitter, in April 2022, the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein aptly noted that “Musk reveals what he wants Twitter to be by how he acts on it.” By this logic, it would seem that X is vying to be the official propaganda outlet not just for Trump generally but also for the “Great Replacement” theory, which states that there is a global plot to eradicate the white race and its culture through immigration. In just the past year, Musk has endorsed multiple posts about the conspiracy theory. In November 2023, in response to a user named @breakingbaht who accused Jews of supporting bringing “hordes of minorities” into the United States, Musk replied, “You have said the actual truth.” Musk’s post was viewed more than 8 million times.

Though Musk has publicly claimed that he doesn’t “subscribe” to the “Great Replacement” theory, he appears obsessed with the idea that Republican voters in America are under attack from immigrants. Last December, he posted a misleading graph suggesting that the number of immigrants arriving illegally was overtaking domestic birth rates. He has repeatedly referenced a supposed Democratic plot to “legalize vast numbers of illegals” and put an end to fair elections. He has falsely suggested that the Biden administration was “flying ‘asylum seekers’, who are fast-tracked to citizenship, directly into swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Arizona” and argued that, soon, “everywhere in America will be like the nightmare that is downtown San Francisco.” According to a recent Bloomberg analysis of 53,000 of Musk’s posts, the billionaire has posted more about immigration and voter fraud than any other topic (more than 1,300 posts in total), garnering roughly 10 billion views.

But Musk’s interests extend beyond the United States. This summer, during a period of unrest and rioting in the United Kingdom over a mass stabbing that killed three children, the centibillionaire used his account to suggest that a civil war there was “inevitable.” He also shared (and subsequently deleted) a conspiracy theory that the U.K. government was building detainment camps for people rioting against Muslims. Additionally, X was instrumental in spreading misinformation and fueling outrage among far-right, anti-immigration protesters.

In Springfield, Ohio, X played a similar role as a conduit for white supremacists and far-right extremists to fuel real-world harm. One of the groups taking credit for singling out Springfield’s Haitian community was Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi group known for marching through city streets waving swastikas. Blood Tribe had been focused on the town for months, but not until prominent X accounts (including Musk’s, J. D. Vance’s, and Trump’s) seized on a Facebook post from the region did Springfield become a national target. “It is no coincidence that there was an online rumor mill ready to amplify any social media posts about Springfield because Blood Tribe has been targeting the town in an effort to stoke racial resentment against ‘subhuman’ Haitians,” the journalist Robert Tracinski wrote recently. Tracinski argues that social-media channels (like X) have been instrumental in transferring neo-Nazi propaganda into the public consciousness—all the way to the presidential-debate stage. He is right. Musk’s platform has become a political tool for stoking racial hatred online and translating it into harassment in the physical world.

The ability to drag fringe ideas and theories into mainstream political discourse has long been a hallmark of X, even back when it was known as Twitter. There’s always been a trade-off with the platform’s ability to narrow the distance between activists and people in positions of power. Social-justice movements such as the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter owe some of the success of their early organizing efforts to the platform.

Yet the website has also been one of the most reliable mainstream destinations on the internet to see Photoshopped images of public figures (or their family members) in gas chambers, or crude, racist cartoons of Jewish men. Now, under Musk’s stewardship, X seems to run in only one direction. The platform eschews healthy conversation. It abhors nuance, instead favoring constant escalation and engagement-baiting behavior. And it empowers movements that seek to enrage and divide. In April, an NBC News investigation found that “at least 150 paid ‘Premium’ subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months.” According to research from the extremism expert Colin Henry, since Musk’s purchase, there’s been a decline in anti-Semitic posts on 4chan’s infamous “anything goes” forum, and a simultaneous rise in posts targeting Jewish people on X.

X’s own transparency reports show that the social network has allowed hateful content to flourish on its site. In its last report before Musk’s acquisition, in just the second half of 2021, Twitter suspended about 105,000 of the more than 5 million accounts reported for hateful conduct. In the first half of 2024, according to X, the social network received more than 66 million hateful-conduct reports, but suspended just 2,361 accounts. It’s not a perfect comparison, as the way X reports and analyzes data has changed under Musk, but the company is clearly taking action far less frequently.

Because X has made it more difficult for researchers to access data by switching to a paid plan that prices out many academics, it is now difficult to get a quantitative understanding of the platform’s degradation. The statistics that do exist are alarming. Research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that in just the first month of Musk’s ownership, anti–Black American slurs used on the platform increased by 202 percent. The Anti-Defamation League found that anti-Semitic tweets on the platform increased by 61 percent in just two weeks after Musk’s takeover. But much of the evidence is anecdotal. The Washington Post summed up a recent report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, noting that pro-Hitler content “reached the largest audiences on X [relative to other social-media platforms], where it was also most likely to be recommended via the site’s algorithm.” Since Musk took over, X has done the following:

Seemingly failed to block a misleading advertisement post purchased by Jason Köhne, a white nationalist with the handle @NoWhiteGuiltNWG.
Seemingly failed to block an advertisement calling to reinstate the death penalty for gay people.
Reportedly run ads on 20 racist and anti-Semitic hashtags, including #whitepower, despite Musk pledging that he would demonetize posts that included hate speech. (After NBC asked about these, X removed the ability for users to search for some of these hashtags.)
Granted blue-check verification to an account with the N-word in its handle. (The account has since been suspended.)
Allowed an account that praised Hitler to purchase a gold-check badge, which denotes an “official organization” and is typically used by brands such as Doritos and BlackRock. (This account has since been suspended.)
Seemingly failed to take immediate action on 63 of 66 accounts flagged for disseminating AI-generated Nazi memes from 4chan. More than half of the posts were made by paid accounts with verified badges, according to research by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate.

None of this is accidental. The output of a platform tells you what it is designed to do: In X’s case, all of this is proof of a system engineered to give voice to hateful ideas and reward those who espouse them. If one is to judge X by its main exports, then X, as it exists now under Musk, is a white-supremacist website.

You might scoff at this notion, especially if you, like me, have spent nearly two decades willingly logged on to the site, or if you, like me, have had your professional life influenced in surprising, occasionally delightful ways by the platform. Even now, I can scroll through the site’s algorithmic pond scum and find things worth saving—interesting commentary, breaking news, posts and observations that make me laugh. But these exceptional morsels are what make the platform so insidious, in part because they give cover to the true political project that X now represents and empowers.

As I was preparing to write this story, I visited some of the most vile corners of the internet. I’ve monitored these spaces for years, and yet this time, I was struck by how little distance there was between them and what X has become. It is impossible to ignore: The difference between X and a known hateful site such as Gab are people like myself. The majority of users are no doubt creators, businesses, journalists, celebrities, political junkies, sports fans, and other perfectly normal people who hold their nose and cling to the site. We are the human shield of respectability that keeps Musk’s disastrous $44 billion investment from being little more than an algorithmically powered Stormfront.

The justifications—the lure of the community, the (now-limited) ability to bear witness to news in real time, and of the reach of one’s audience of followers—feel particularly weak today. X’s cultural impact is still real, but its promotional use is nonexistent. (A recent post linking to a story of mine generated 289,000 impressions and 12,900 interactions, but only 948 link clicks—a click rate of roughly 0.00328027682 percent.) NPR, which left the platform in April 2023, reported almost negligible declines in traffic referrals after abandoning the site.

Continuing to post on X has been indefensible for some time. But now, more than ever, there is no good justification for adding one’s name to X’s list of active users. To leave the platform, some have argued, is to cede an important ideological battleground to the right. I’ve been sympathetic to this line of thinking, but the battle, on this particular platform, is lost. As long as Musk owns the site, its architecture will favor his political allies. If you see posting to X as a fight, then know it is not a fair one. For example: In October, Musk shared a fake screenshot of an Atlantic article, manipulated to show a fake headline—his post, which he never deleted, garnered more than 18 million views. The Atlantic’s X post debunking Musk’s claim received just 28,000 views. Musk is unfathomably rich. He’s used that money to purchase a platform, take it private, and effectively turn it into a megaphone for the world’s loudest racists. Now he’s attempting to use it to elect a corrupt, election-denying felon to the presidency.

To stay on X is not an explicit endorsement of this behavior, but it does help enable it. I’m not at all suggesting—as Musk has previously alleged—that the site be shut down or that Musk should be silenced. But there’s no need to stick around and listen. Why allow Musk to appear even slightly more credible by lending our names, our brands, and our movements to a platform that makes the world more dangerous for real people? To my dismay, I’ve hid from these questions for too long. Now that I’ve confronted them, I have no good answers.

About the Author
Charlie Warzel is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of its newsletter Galaxy Brain, about technology, media, and big ideas. He can be reached via email.

#X #Twitter #Charlie_Warzel #Elon_Musk

« Darmon n’est qu’une des pièces du #consensus-à-la-dictature que partage la #bourgeoisie-actuelle. Leur monde se meurt et ils ne voient d’autres solutions que de faire taire toute critique autour d’un homme fort. Après ils choisissent entre Macron et Zemmour. Rien de plus ! »

▻https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/darmon-plenel-pere-fouettard-qui-donne-des-infos-en-loucede_fr_61ff78

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/61ff81be2c0000b822df64c9.png?cache=SJdWuXfdsT&ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

MÉDIAS - Le ton est resté posé, mais les mots étaient tranchants. L’acteur #Gérard-Darmon et le patron de #Médiapart Edwy Plenel étaient invités de Laurent Ruquier sur le plateau d’ On Est En Direct sur France 2 , ce samedi 5 février. Interrogé sur ce qu’il pensait du journaliste, le comédien n’a pas retenu ses coups.

Gérard Darmon était à l’antenne pour parler de la pièce de théâtre intitulée Une situation délicate , dans laquelle il partage l’affiche avec Clotilde Courau et Max Boublil, également invités samedi soir. De son côté, Edwy Plenel a présenté son dernier livre À gauche de l’impossible . Après un entretien entre les deux présentateurs, Léa Salamé et Laurent Ruquier, et le patron de Mediapart, Gérard Darmon a été invité à prendre la parole. Très calmement, il a alors commencé à étriller le journaliste, lui reprochant autant sa façon de parler que ses “méthodes”.

“Edwy Plenel est un homme qui tremble quand il parle, c’est quelque chose d’assez troublant”, a-t-il déclaré en préambule. Avant de tacler son “discours Tartuffe” qu’il a “l’impression d’entendre depuis quatre siècles” et d’estimer qu’il se comporte “de temps en temps” comme “un juge, un policier” qui “donne des infos en loucedé”. “Vous êtes une sorte de père fouettard de la politique, même des rapports humains”, lance encore le comédien.

“Caricature” et “préjugé”

“Vous ne me connaissez pas”, s’est défendu Edwy Plenel avant de déplorer “une caricature et un préjugé” faits par son interlocuteur à son propos, mais surtout aux journalistes qui “apportent les mauvaises nouvelles”, “disent des vérités qu’on n’a pas envie d’entendre”. “On est habitués au fait que des gens nous voient comme des chiens qui aboient, des inquisiteurs, des persécuteurs”, a souligné le patron de Médiapart.

Edwy Plenel a ensuite demandé à Gérard Darmon de citer “une information publiée par Mediapart qui n’ait pas été d’intérêt public”, rappelant notamment l’affaire Cahuzac. Ce qui n’a visiblement pas convaincu l’acteur, qui avait apporté son soutien à François Hollande en 2012.

Ce dimanche matin sur Twitter, Edwy Plenel est revenu sur cette séquence qu’il a partagée, dénonçant une “attaque personnelle” qui “visait en réalité le journalisme, du moins celui qui enquête, cherche et révèle au service de l’intérêt public”.

D’autres journalistes de Mediapart sont revenus sur la séquence sur Twitter, ironisant sur “l’indignation” de Gérard Darmon qui leur reproche de faire leur travail ou laissant entendre qu’il pourrait y avoir un lien avec “l’amitié” de l’acteur avec l’actuel garde des Sceaux, Eric Dupond-Moretti.

#OEED #journalisme

« Entendre Ruquier, qui a fait le lit de la candidature de Zemmour depuis des années, et Léa Salamé enjoindre Edwy Plenel de s’expliquer sur sa responsabilité dans la place pris par Eric Zemmour dans le débat public, être mis en accusation par un acteur, ex soutien de François Hollande ...

un grand moment de #tartufferie ! »

#UnMondeSeMeurt !

Charlie Parker, Bird Songs | ARTE
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bROu7zuFwBU

En archives et séquences d’animation, une évocation du fulgurant Charlie Parker, dit « Bird » (1920-1955), génie du saxophone alto et improvisateur visionnaire, à l’origine du basculement du jazz dans la modernité.

Étoile filante née en 1920 à Kansas City, dans une Amérique raciste rongée par les violences sociales, Charlie Parker erre seul la nuit dès l’âge de 11 ans, s’étourdissant de cigarettes et bientôt d’alcool, avant de découvrir l’héroïne à 16 ans. Précoce, ce boulimique de musique écoute tout, blues, jazz, classique, soufflant dans son saxophone alto de onze à quinze heures par jour, en autodidacte virtuose et prodigieux conteur d’histoires avec son instrument. Mais les improvisations du « Yardbird » (le bleu) – son surnom avant le sacre de « Bird » −, enrôlé à 17 ans dans l’orchestre de Jay McShann, lui valent des humiliations, avant la révolution new-yorkaise du be-bop dont la furieuse énergie dope ses solos et son langage poétique dès 1940. Avec le pianiste Thelonious Monk, les batteurs Kenny Clarke ou Max Roach et surtout le trompettiste Dizzy Gillespie, frère d’âme, le génie visionnaire propulse le jazz dans l’ère de la performance, entre fulgurances et rivalités. Corps usé et costumes froissés, Bird jaillit, s’envole vers des sommets, atterrit dans des territoires inconnus d’une enivrante douceur, manque des sets, rattrapé par ses démons et ses addictions, pour reprendre à ses retours, comme une évidence, le fil de son odyssée lyrique. En 1949, lors d’une tournée en Europe avec Miles Davis, le compositeur de « Koko » conquiert le Saint-Germain-des-Prés de Juliette Gréco et Boris Vian, avant les enregistrements mythiques et la gloire. Mais la mort de sa fille de 3 ans le renvoie en enfer. Le 12 mars 1955, Charlie Parker s’étouffe dans un éclat de rire, devant un show de jongleurs à la télévision. Le médecin légiste note : « Homme noir, environ 53 ans ». Il a 34 ans.

Comète jazzistique

Mêlant archives – dont une émouvante interview radio de Bird −, séquences d’animation inspirées par les couvertures de ses albums et éclairages de Franck Médioni, auteur d’une biographie, ainsi que de musiciens (Géraldine Laurent, Steve Coleman, Antonin-Tri Hoang…), ce documentaire retrace la rupture parkérienne. Par ses innovations harmoniques, rythmiques et expressives, le saxophoniste, après Louis Armstrong et Duke Ellington, a réinventé le jazz, et l’a fait basculer dans la modernité. « Il reflète la rébellion des Noirs dans les villes et leur conscience qu’il faut trouver une autre identité », pointe le toujours avisé Archie Shepp. Irrigué par ses improvisations et des interprétations de ses héritiers, un portrait sensible de la comète Parker, superbement ressuscitée en 1988 au cinéma par Clint Eastwood, qui a nourri la Beat Generation, Cocteau ou encore l’art urbain de Basquiat.

Charlie Parker, Bird Songs

Documentaire de Jean-Frédéric Thibault (France, 2020, 52mn)
Disponible jusqu’au 10/03/2022

#musique #Charlie_Parker #jazz #saxophone #improvisation #bird

Rire avec les fafs. Êtes-vous prêt à accueillir un Afghan ? - Quiz #Charlie_Hebdo
▻https://charliehebdo.fr/jeux/quiz/quiz-etes-vous-pret-accueillir-afghan

Qu’est-ce qu’un réfugié ?
A Un homme qui vit d’amour
B Un assisté qui laisse des poils partout
C Un déserteur

#media #racisme

Charlie Watts, le batteur des Rolling Stones, est mort à l’âge de 80 ans
▻https://www.francetvinfo.fr/culture/musique/rolling-stones/charlie-watts-le-batteur-des-rolling-stones-est-mort-a-l-age-de-80-ans_

Un monument s’est éteint. Le batteur des Rolling Stones, Charlie Watts, est mort mardi 24 août à Londres à l’âge de 80 ans, a annoncé son agent Bernard Doherty, déplorant la disparition de « l’un des plus grands batteurs de sa génération » dans un communiqué. Le batteur anglais est "décédé paisiblement dans un hôpital de Londres plus tôt dans la journée, entouré de sa famille", a précisé son agent.

D’accord, c’est plutôt la génération de mes parents, mais quand même, zut.

« Tout pour l’industrie ! Ingénieurs et technocrates, au temps lointain de De Gaulle -1965- ont décidé de faire de l’estuaire de la Loire le paradis de l’industrie lourde et de l’air empoisonné. Saint-Nazaire et sa région ont été délibérément jetés dans les hauts-fournaux de la pollution extrême. La vérité sur les cancéreux est en train de surgir, mais personne ne veut bouger : ni l’administration ni les industriels, ni les politiques. Plongée dans la mort prématurée. »
Dans #charlieHebdo ce mercredi trois pages d’enquête par Fabrice Nicolino et Riss : Le grand mystère de l’air qui tue à Saint-Nazaire. La mortalité générale chez les hommes nazairiens est supérieure de 18 % à la moyenne nationale. Total, Cargill, Airbus, Air Liquide, Les Chantiers de l’Atlantique... la basse Loire (Montoir de Bzh) abrite 28 installations classées -susceptibles de polluer... dont 2 Seveso seuil bas et 3 seuil haut. Donges, sept installations classées. Préfecture, Sous-préfecture, DREAL, Direccte, muettes du sérail habituelles, of course ! A lire.

Raphaël Enthoven développe le point de vue de Charlie Hebdo, il appelle à voter Marine Le Pen si elle est face à Jean Luc Mélenchon :
▻https://web.archive.org/web/20210607210528/https://twitter.com/Enthoven_R/status/1401982087650058242
#Raphaël_Enthoven #Charlie_Hebdo #Marine_Le_Pen #Jean_Luc_Mélenchon #Extrême_Droite #islamogauchisme

Charlie Hebdo s’ancre à l’extrême droite :
▻https://web.archive.org/web/20210603103820/https://charliehebdo.fr/2021/06/politique/bientot-une-statue-pour-marine-le-pen

On peut se demander si la séduction qu’exerce Marine Le Pen sur les jeunes, et même sur des électeurs de gauche, ne trouve pas son explication dans un rejet de cette injonction d’adhérer systématiquement aux idées dites « progressistes », sans qu’aucun débat ni aucune critique ne soient possibles. La popularité grandissante de Marine Le Pen n’est pas due uniquement aux questions d’immigration et d’insécurité. Elle est aussi probablement alimentée par le ras-le-bol d’un progressisme primaire et simpliste qui n’a rien à voir avec le progrès, mais davantage avec le sectarisme. Le paradoxe est que le parti extrémiste de #Marine_Le_Pen va se présenter en rempart contre un autre extrémisme qui, cette fois, ne vient pas de la droite, mais d’une gauche pseudo-progressiste.

#Charlie_Hebdo #Extrême_droite

Willem 40 ans de unes ! Libération

https://www.liberation.fr/apps/2021/03/40-ans-willem/images/une.jpg

▻https://www.liberation.fr/culture/bd/willem-40-ans-de-unes-20210331_TEWDCDP4TZCGHMCNT4KPPKPLXI
A l’occasion de la dernière de Willem « Libé » revient sur une centaine de couvertures qui ont marqué l’actualité.

https://www.liberation.fr/apps/2021/03/40-ans-willem/social.jpg

#Willem #dessins_de_presse

La dernière Une de « Charlie Hebdo » crée la polémique au Royaume-Uni - Soirmag
▻https://soirmag.lesoir.be/360691/article/2021-03-14/la-derniere-une-de-charlie-hebdo-cree-la-polemique-au-royaume-uni

https://soirmag.lesoir.be/sites/default/files/dpistyles_v2/ena_16_9_extra_big/2021/03/14/node_360691/27969368/public/2021/03/14/B9726421671Z.1_20210314142819_000+GM1HP7OI0.2-0.png?itok=iS0SEe8O1615728505

Le collectif Black and Asian Lawyers For Justice a qualifié cette couverture d’« outrageuse et dégoûtante ». Selon un autre groupe, il s’agit d’« une réponse médiocre et mal conçue de #CharlieHebdo qui enflamme le problème. Cette forme de satire simpliste n’a pas sa place dans la lutte contre le racisme. Complètement épouvantable et profondément attristante », ajoute 20Minutes. D’autres internautes appellent carrément à la suppression pure et simple de « Charlie Hebdo ».

Pierre Fournier et Gébé - Notre Bibliothèque Verte (n°28 & 29)
►http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com/spip.php?page=resume&id_article=1477

C’est du 10 juillet 1971, voici 50 ans, un demi-siècle tout rond, et de Saint-Vulbas dans l’Ain (01), que l’on peut dater L’An 01 de la reverdie comme disent les trouvères, avec sa devise encore à accomplir : « On arrête tout, on réfléchit, et c’est pas triste. » Ce jour-là, à l’appel de Pierre Fournier (1937-1973) et de Gébé (1929-2004) dans Charlie Hebdo, ainsi que de leurs compagnons du comité Bugey-Cobayes, une sorte de croisade des enfants amena 15 000 marcheurs jusqu’aux grilles de la centrale du Bugey, pour la première grande manifestation anti-nucléaire et anti-industrielle de notre temps. C’est de cette marche au soleil et de ces deux jours au bord de l’eau que s’ouvrit La Gueule ouverte, « le journal qui annonce la fin du monde » ; et de La Gueule ouverte que jaillirent les mots d’« (...)

▻https://chimpanzesdufutur.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/pierre-fournier-et-gebe-notre-bibliotheque-verte-n28-29 #Documents
▻http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com/IMG/pdf/fournier_et_ge_be_-_notre_bibliothe_que_verte-2.pdf

Mais tu peux juste pas aller te coucher avec ça …
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js0u184Hhng

Un peu de poésie que diable ! Solitude / Charlie Schlingo
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUMStHRlp2A&feature=emb_logo

Source Tanxxx ▻https://twitter.com/TANXXX_/status/1359809104504631296?s=20

Le #rire du dominant

https://i2.wp.com/imagesociale.fr/wp-content/uploads/Gorce_LeMonde_Reperesfamiliaux_210119.jpg

#Xavier_Gorce a rendu un fier service au Monde en mettant fin de lui-même à la collaboration qui le liait depuis près de vingt ans au journal du soir. Le dessin de trop aura été celui où il se hasardait à se moquer des victimes d’inceste, publié sur la newsletter du quotidien, qui a provoqué la colère de nombreux lecteurs. Mais cela faisait déjà plusieurs années, notamment depuis la crise des Gilets jaunes, que le #mépris de #Gorce était devenu plus visible que son humour.

Il est significatif que ce soit sur la question des violences sexuelles que la satire ait trébuché. La vague de témoignages qui a suivi celui de Camille Kouchner a transformé la perception de l’inceste, qui apparaît désormais comme un problème de société effrayant et trop longtemps occulté. Prendre ce sujet à la légère, comme continuent de le faire quelques défenseurs anachroniques des droits du patriarcat, est devenu tout simplement insupportable.

En dépit de justifications laborieuses qui n’ont convaincu personne, l’embarras du dessinateur était perceptible. Il est donc regrettable de constater que le débat public à propos du dessin de presse soit devenu le théâtre d’une des pires pollutions intellectuelles, où s’empilent les sophismes les plus moisis sur le bon temps où l’on pouvait rire des victimes, la tyrannie de l’indignation, sans oublier la blague de la « cancel culture ». Legs de la crise des caricatures danoises de 2006, il est devenu impossible en France d’évoquer n’importe quel dessin sans plier le genou devant la mémoire des victimes des attentats de #Charlie. Les arguments brandis par Gorce lui-même constituent un festival de cette #caricature de débat sur les #caricatures, qui est devenu tout bonnement absurde – les soi-disant défenseurs de la liberté d’expression hurlant à la censure à la moindre critique.

Ce que démontre pourtant la passion qui anime cette posture faussement libertaire, c’est à quel point le rire peut être l’arme de l’imposition de la #norme, d’une rare #violence_sociale. Libérateur lorsqu’il représente la voix des faibles, il devient le plus effrayant instrument d’#oppression lorsqu’il leur impose le #silence. Au fil des ans, le dessin de Gorce était devenu emblématique de cette ricanante #raison_du_plus_fort. Que ses tristes #sarcasmes perdent un peu en visibilité est une bonne nouvelle.

►http://imagesociale.fr/9342

déjà signalé ici, je remets avec quelques tags en plus :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/897484

Voir aussi ce fil de discussion :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/887069

@karine4 et @cede, extrait :

Ce que démontre pourtant la passion qui anime cette posture faussement libertaire, c’est à quel point le rire peut être l’arme de l’imposition de la #norme, d’une rare #violence_sociale. Libérateur lorsqu’il représente la voix des faibles, il devient le plus effrayant instrument d’#oppression lorsqu’il leur impose le #silence.

Charlie Chaplin, toponymiste facétieux et tragique des bas-fonds
▻https://neotopo.hypotheses.org/3590

A un an d’écart, en 1917 et 1918, Charlie Chaplin tourne, parmi de nombreux autres, deux films fameux :Easy Street (Charlot policeman) et Shoulder Arms (Charlot soldat) qui ont pour point commun de mobiliser la...

#Billets #ExploreNeotopo #Toponobservations #Toponomo-Litterature

Charlie? Non merci!
▻https://lundi.am/Charlie-Non-merci

https://lundi.am/IMG/arton3645.jpg

Les millions qui affluaient dans les caisses du journal après l’attentat de janvier 2015 n’ont conduit qu’à des batailles entre rédacteurs-actionnaires et le refus de transformer l’entreprise en une coopérative de tous les employées, ce qui avait été revendiqué par le personnel. Depuis l’attentat, le journal a été confronté à de lourdes dépenses de sécurité, mais une bonne partie de celles-ci a toujours été couverte par des aides publiques. Bien que quatre millions d’euros reçus en dons ainsi qu’un million de fonds propres ont été versés aux familles des victimes, les actionnaires ont réussi à constituer une “réserve statutaire” de 15 millions d’euros pour s’assurer, eux, d’être rémunérés, même en cas de pertes.

Cependant, les ventes du journal ont de nouveau fort chuté. De 120.000 exemplaires fin 2015, elles étaient encore de 50.000 exemplaires début 2020, dont la moitié en abonnements. Deux ans après l’attentat, il ne restait qu’un chiffre d’affaires de 19 millions d’euros, deux ans plus tard encore 8 millions, et les résultats ne cessent de se rétrécir malgré l’augmentation du prix de vente de 2 à 3 euros.

Tandis que la “Je suis Charlie” crânerie se réclame de la liberté de la presse et plus encore de la liberté d’expression, elle ferme les yeux sur la dénonciation de voix critiques et les poursuites acharnées pour “apologie du terrorisme” contre toute déviation du mainstream. Elle ferme les yeux aussi sur la censure et autocensure qui pour la plupart des médias synchronisés de l’Europe ne sont que monnaie courante.

Let’s Be Brief | Charlie Bones (DO !! YOU !!!) : : Q&A
▻https://www.letsbebrief.co.uk/charlie-bones-do-you-qa

The Do!! You!!! show holds a unique proposition for breakfast radio. How would you describe your show and what inspired your approach?
Organized chaos: I was always drawn to the mistakes, background noise and throwaway comments of radio, interviews, recordings and TV.

I’m trying to get the show to the sound like Michael and the rest of the Jacksons doing the demo for Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough together. It’s the warmth: everyone is loose, laughing, stuff goes out of time, it gets started again but the joy is there. It’s alive, you can catch things half said. It’s not over produced, I think everyone is playing at their best.

This atmosphere is what I’m striving for: people passing by and dropping in, contributing, spontaneous things happening. With a bit of Studs Terkel, a man able to draw fascinating stories out of anybody. And Bob Fass, a guy who was able to just let people talk and open up. This is the ideal I suffer with every day.

The Do !! You !!! Breakfast Show w/ #Charlie_Bones (Prince Tribute) - 22nd April 2016 by NTS Radio | Mixcloud
▻https://www.mixcloud.com/NTSRadio/the-do-you-breakfast-show-w-charlie-bones-prince-tribute-22nd-april-2016

https://thumbnailer.mixcloud.com/unsafe/1200x628/filters:watermark(graphics/play-button-scaled.png,300,14,0)/extaudio/8/e/2/7/df2e-beee-414d-adf9-956440dda9f5

le type fait de super émission de « breakfast » (de musicien, ces salopiots se lèvent à 11h)

▻https://www.mixcloud.com/discover/the-do-you-breakfast-show