Author’s Notes: After the French Revolution of 1789, the means decided upon for capital punishment was ‘beheading’. Previously, beheading had been considered both a ‘quick’ and ‘noble’ method for despatching the condemned, but its use (usually delivered by a highly-trained swordsman) was reserved exclusively for the upper-classes. Ordinary people suffered all kinds of other execution methods designed to be slow, cruel and to prolong suffering as a public spectacle of entertainment. The killing of ordinary people was nothing less than a judicial form of deadly (judicial) ’entertainment’ for the French people – until after the Revolution and the instigation of the ‘Great Terror’! The ‘new’ France elevated all ordinary French people to the level of the ‘aristocrat’ when it came to the application of the Death Sentence – with all the condemned suffering exactly the same punishment (of beheading) regardless of social status. Indeed, the King and Queen of France died on exactly the same cutting device which had also been used to kill the poorest peasant. No distinction was made by the ‘National Blade’. The guillotine was abolished 1981 (with its last victim dying in 1977). It was abolished because just as in any capitalist country that practices the Death Penalty, only the poorest members of society were eventually subjected to its use once Revolutionary fervour had passed, and the bourgeoisie had consolidated its power, class interests, and political domination. As capitalism was not properly overthrown in 1789, new injustices took the place of the old. Yesterday, a French middle-school teacher was viciously murdered by an individual apparently reacting to the continued offence to Islam caused by the racist cartoons published in the distinctly ‘unfunny’ Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine. The media is behaving as if ‘beheadings’ have never happened in France… ACW (17.10.2020)
The French bourgeoisie is still persisting with the same old racist material – which also happens to insult a major world religion (that conveniently is not Judaism) – an amoral process somehow equated to ‘freedom of expression’! This is the crux of neo-liberalist ideology and typical of the inherent hypocrisy that is shot through to the very core of supposed bourgeois ‘morality’. This paradigm concretises White, bourgeois domination as being both inevitable and superior – and implies that to ‘resist’, ‘protest’ against or ‘expose’ in anyway is akin to possessing a depraved mental illness! In-short, the bourgeois system deploys a casual racism which teaches our children that it is ‘natural’ that this culture is perpetuated by a version of White Europeans and should dominate a) the countries where White Europeans happen to be the numerical majority, and b) this racist neo-liberal culture should dominate every part of the globe – even those ample geographical areas inhabited and controlled by non-Europeans. Of course, in the case of ‘b’, this involves the passive or forceful ‘replacing’ of the indigenous culture with this bourgeois derivative, whilst in the case of ‘a’, all genuinely working-class movements are denied validity and oppressed into oblivion, or at least irrelevant fringe activities, depicted as being pursued by the desperate and the stupid, etc. Now, as regards the ‘murder’, this is a product of Religious bigotry (fascism), and demonstrates the ideological problem religion poses for secular societies. Or, to put it another way, in this instance – ‘non-Islamic’ – societies. The bourgeois-controlled media informs us of a compelling narrative (full of archetypal images) that presents the victim (which most of us do not personally know) as being an intimate figure who is nothing less than a ‘perfect image’ – or an angel of neo-liberalism – whilst the murderer is depicted as a deranged ‘devil’ that represents everything bad that exists outside of European culture, European thought, European politics and European religion. If the masses do not ‘oppose’ this murderer, then they risk ingesting the same corruption and mania that infects this ‘monster’, and as dissenting individuals, deserve to ‘share in the blame’ of this crime, as if they had assisted the killer in his actions! It is ironic that the bourgeoisie will not label this religious ignorance as being indicative of the European fascism that generates it. This is because the Eurocentric powers that be do not want it widely known that that the US ‘invented’ Islamo-fascism as a means to incite an ignorant and violent resistance to a) a progressive and democratically elected ‘Socialist’ government in 1970s Afghanistan, and b) to fight the Soviet Red Army that came to the aid of this democratically elected government between 1979-1989. The CIA was tasked with recruiting illiterate tribal peoples, and indoctrinating these ignorant people with money and an ideology that integrated a distorted Islamic theology with notions of Western, racist nationalism! Hillary Clinton can be seen boasting about this policy on YouTube. When asked about whether America should ‘regret’ founding an Islamo-fascism that attacked the US in 2001, and has continued to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world, she said that it was worth it to see the collapse of Communism! So, what do we have in France? Possibly a Middle Eastern or Asian man, murdering a Frenchman – whilst applying a contrived US ideology concocted in the 1970s, but which is blamed as somehow being an implicit part of Islam! The White racists will now start bleating on how Muslims ‘do not condemn’ these attacks, (individual Muslims do not have to comment as the Holy Qur’an clearly forbids such actions), whilst the same White people never condemn the racism of Charlie Hebdo, the racism of the French State, or the ongoing anti-Muslim racism which is prevalent throughout Europe! Of course, the man in issue is always avoided as an innocent French teacher died as a consequence of the effects of French racism in the world, being resisted by one of its potential (or actual) victims! Lastly, the bourgeois system portrays the ‘knowing’ and ‘expressing’ of these narratives and paradigms as somehow representing an ‘agreement’ with one side and a ‘rejection’ of the other, when in fact I am ‘disinterested’ and treat both sides with indifference like a judge or police officer amassing evidence. Simply gathering proof does not equate to taking sides. The bourgeois system, however, tries to stifle debate by threatening to declare ‘those who see through their sophistry’ as being ‘traitors’, ‘terrorists’, ‘threats to security’ and all kinds of other unsavoury characterisations. This would imply that the bourgeoisie has ‘criminalised’ the simple ‘knowing of things’ as the latest strategy of retaining its grip on the means of production. Do not fall for bourgeois lies!