The supposedly comical “Jihadi Fool” channel is designed to ridicule jihadi pretensions, and thereby shame jihadis out of the jihad. “One satire shows a right-wing populist and an Islamic extremist bonding over sexism and homophobia while trying to convert passersby.”
Oh yeah, that’ll work. Once jihadis see themselves equated with the most evil people in the world, “right-wing populists,” they will desert the jihad in droves, won’t they?
The North Rhine-Westphalia government is here making the error of assuming that the jihadis share their worldview and basic assumptions. They don’t. This project is just $557,000 down the drain.
“German state fights Islamist extremism with YouTube satire,” by Louisa Wright, DW, August 25, 2019:
The state government of North Rhine-Westphalia is betting on wit and humor as an antidote to Islamist extremism. Extremists use YouTube to target young people, but NRW wants to fight fire with fire.
The German state of North Rhine-Westphalia has launched a satirical YouTube channel in the hope of stopping young people from becoming radicalized via the video sharing platform.
The project launched by the NRW Office for the Protection of the Constitution has two parts: a satirical YouTube channel and an accompanying factual channel.
The comical “Jihadi Fool” channel, launched on Thursday (22.08.2019) at the Gamescom computer games trade fair in Cologne, is a sketch comedy format that in NRW Interior Ministry words “satirically addresses the absurdity of radicalization, terrorism and Islamism,” while the educational channel refers to the satirical videos and counters Salafist propaganda with facts. It will be launched on Tuesday.
The name is a reference to the subculture “Jihad Cool,” used by extremists to rebrand jihadism as a fashionable lifestyle.
Over the course of a year, 32 satirical videos and 16 factual videos will be released through the €500,000 ($557,000) project.
One satire shows a right-wing populist and an Islamic extremist bonding over sexism and homophobia while trying to convert passersby; another shows a fictional TV show titled “Goodbye Syria,” in which a former extremist adapts to the mundane struggles of life back in Germany.
The channel’s videos have been watched more than 11,000 times in total and have received mixed reviews: Some viewers find them amusing, while others criticize the use of taxpayer money. At the time of publishing, the Jihadi Fool channel had 424 subscribers….
Historian and Islamism expert Christian Osthold told DW that while satirical videos can contribute to the fight against extremism, for this to succeed it is important to involve people who have authority in the Islamic community.
The drawback to countering Islamists’ messages on YouTube, Osthold told DW, is that the platform has mainly been used by Salafist preachers who now know very well how to effectively manipulate young Muslims….
Fred Dawes says
Islam is insane; evil is what Islam is all about with rape murder and enslavement is its real name.
James says
I would guess that the right-wing extremists and Muslims would have lots in common, such as anti-Semitism, lack of respect for women, hatred of society, Christianity, . May the videos would help bring these two groups together. The state could build cultural centers where the two groups could come together and that would make for more strength and diversity, inclusion. A good thing. Perhaps Merkel could come and give speeches there. After all, Islam is part of Germany.
gravenimage says
True. But of course, “populists” are more likely to be conservative patriots than neo-Nazis.
CRUSADER says
Society is so sick! Moral compass lost!
What explains psychopathy anyway?
Jamie Glazov wrote about the “JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH”…
Yet psychologists work with governments to release Jihadists from culpability.
Is all this based on mental illness? ideology? theology? demonic influence?
“EVIL” — new tv show presented by CBS network:
Skeptical female psychologist Kristen Bouchard joins David Acosta, who is training to be a Catholic priest, and a blue collar contractor as they investigate the church’s backlog of unexplained mysteries, including supposed miracles, demonic possessions and other extraordinary occurrences. Their job is to assess if there’s a logical explanation or if something truly supernatural is at work, examining the origins of evil along the dividing line between science and religion.
https://youtu.be/WFvo3fS4Zwc
CRUSADER says
(Perspective from 2015)
In Solidarity With a Free Press:
Some More Blasphemous Cartoons
============================
https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
Defending free speech and free press rights, which typically means defending the right to disseminate the very ideas society finds most repellent, has been one of my principal passions for the last 20 years: previously as a lawyer and now as a journalist.
So I consider it positive when large numbers of people loudly invoke this principle, as has been happening over the last 48 hours in response to the horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
Usually, defending free speech rights is much more of a lonely task. For instance, the day before the Paris murders, I wrote an article about multiple cases where Muslims are being prosecuted and even imprisoned by western governments for their online political speech – assaults that have provoked relatively little protest, including from those free speech champions who have been so vocal this week.
I’ve previously covered cases where Muslims were imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting “extremist” videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package.
That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or (much more dangerously and rarely) Judaism. I’m hoping this week’s celebration of free speech values will generate widespread opposition to all of these long-standing and growing infringements of core political rights in the west, not just some.
Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending.
One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.
But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”
Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens (left). Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery (above, right), and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.
But no matter. Their cartoons were noble and should be celebrated – not just on free speech grounds but for their content. In a column entitled “The Blasphemy We Need,” The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat argued that “the right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order” and “that kind of blasphemy [that provokes violence] is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good.”
New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait actually proclaimed that “one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice.” Vox’s Matt Yglesias had a much more nuanced view but nonetheless concluded that “to blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one, while the observation that the world would do well without such provocations becomes a form of appeasement.”
To comport with this new principle for how one shows solidarity with free speech rights and a vibrant free press, we’re publishing some blasphemous and otherwise offensive cartoons about religion and their adherents:
…..
CRUSADER says
…..
——
https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
——
Is it time for me to be celebrated for my brave and noble defense of free speech rights?
Have I struck a potent blow for political liberty and demonstrated solidarity with free journalism by publishing blasphemous cartoons? If, as Salman Rushdie said, it’s vital that all religions be subjected to “fearless disrespect,” have I done my part to uphold western values?
When I first began to see these demands to publish these anti-Muslim cartoons, the cynic in me thought perhaps this was really just about sanctioning some types of offensive speech against some religions and their adherents, while shielding more favored groups. In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies.
So it’s the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons – not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren’t part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.
Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.”
One should acknowledge a valid point contained within the Douthat/Chait/Yglesias argument: when media outlets refrain from publishing material out of fear (rather than a desire to avoid publishing gratuitously offensive material), as several of the west’s leading outlets admitted doing with these cartoons, that is genuinely troubling, an actual threat to a free press. But there are all kinds of pernicious taboos in the west that result in self-censorship or compelled suppression of political ideas, from prosecution and imprisonment to career destruction: why is violence by Muslims the most menacing one? (I’m not here talking about the question of whether media outlets should publish the cartoons because they’re newsworthy; my focus is on the demand they be published positively, with approval, as “solidarity”).
When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim commentary (and cartoons) are a dime a dozen in western media outlets; the taboo that is at least as strong, if not more so, are anti-Jewish images and words. Why aren’t Douthat, Chait, Yglesias and their like-minded free speech crusaders calling for publication of anti-Semitic material in solidarity, or as a means of standing up to this repression? Yes, it’s true that outlets like The New York Times will in rare instances publish such depictions, but only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing.
With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.
To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech – fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?
Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.
The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.
That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles – including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.
This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.
———————
gravenimage says
The idea that everyone in the West creates anti-Muslims cartoons, and that the burning need is for more antisemitic work is *very* strange, CRUSADER.
Angemon says
Angemon says
Also, how long until this is declared to be “islamophobic” and demand apologies and reparations?
CRUSADER says
How long till then?
eine Woche, mein Herr !
CRUSADER says
You have to understand the way I am, mein herr
A tiger is a tiger, not a lamb, mein herr
You’ll never turn the vinegar to jam, mein herr
So I do what I do
When I’m through, then I’m through.
and I’m through.
Tootle-oo.
Bye bye mein lieber herr
farewell mein lieber herr
it was a fine affair, but now it’s over
And though I used to care, I need the open air
you’re better off without me mein herr.
don’t dab your eye, mein herr
or wonder why, mein herr
I always said that I was a rover
You musn’t knit your brow
you should have known by now
you’ve every cause to doubt me mein herr
The continent of Europe is so wide, mein herr.
Not only up and down, but side to side, mein herr.
I couldn’t ever cross it if I tried, mein herr.
But I do what I can
inch by inch
step by step
mile by mile
man by man
Bye bye mein Herr.
Bye bye mein lieber Herr.
Auf wiedersehen, mein Herr.
Es war sehr gut, mein Herr, und vorbei.
Du kennst mich wohl, mein Herr.
Ach, lebe wohl, mein Herr.
Du sollst mich nie mehr sehen mein Herr.
bye bye mein lieber herr
farewell mein lieber herr
it was a fine affair but now it’s over
and though I used to care
I need the open air
You’re better off without me mein herr
Don’t dab your eye mein herr
or wonder why mein herr
I’ve always said that I was a rover
You musn’t knit your brow
you should have known by now
you’ve every cause to doubt me mein herr
bye bye mein lieber herr
farewell mein lieber herr
it was a fine affair but now it’s over
and though i used to care
i need the open air
you’re better off without me
you’re better without me
you’re better without me
bye bye
mein herr
mein herr
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=chdpiSX2ino
Mario Alexis Portella says
Humouring the argument that they’re both the same, isn’t it odd that the Prophet Muhammad’s raids, womanising, marriage to the little girl Aisha are never mentioned by the left? What about Islamic killing of innocent Christian and Israeli citizens? What isn’t that mentioned? This German propaganda is pure rubbish!!
CRUSADER says
Social Media ==> defining our era….
Suckerberg has his Farcebook, while Weinstein has his MeWe….
Does anyone here play on Mark Weinstein’s “Next-Gen” MEWE?
Whereas… Farcebook surveillance capitalism takes your data to target you ?
MeWe is supposedly not a data mining entity, but truly social media
with an emphasis on privacy:
You own your data
You never receive 3rd party ads
You have full control over news feed
MeWe won’t manipulate your news feed
MeWe won’t sell your personal info
You can’t be targeted for your opinion or voting choices….
MeWe competes with Farcebook which uses you as the product
Secret encrypted chat
Live Voice Live Video
Reach everybody without paying a boost as Farcebook transacts on you
Deals with influencers
5 million users so far
Growing toward 30 million
Constituencies are moving over in groups away from Farcebook
DHazard says
Hardcore EU citizens are unable to process the reality of Islam. The religion does not have multiple valid interpretations. The audience for this childish video would find it insulting. You can only stretch the “peaceful” verses so far before it becomes obvious.
Another whitewash. With the good deed done you can wash your hands and walk away feeling better about yourself. Later on, when your daughter’s Muslim friend Khadija is murdered by her mom and dad, you comfort yourself with the “no true Muslim” fabrications of ALL your friends and every other contact in your social sphere.
A sense of surreality pervades the whole German political landscape. It all stems from the paralytic fear that overwhelms many German politicians when confronted with example after example of Muslims acting indecently while trying to hold onto the belief that most Muslims think this way: “Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32).
James Lincoln says
dhazard,
Perhaps the hard-core EU citizens are unwilling to process the reality of Islam.
The reality is most disconcerting…
DHazard says
So unwilling that it amounts to won’t or can’t. There’s a choice in there but it’s fading fast.
gravenimage says
German state government spends $557,000 taxpayer money on YouTube satire likening “right-wing populists” to jihadis
………………
Suicidal insanity.
Lydia Church says
The motives behind this are most likely multi-pronged. But for one thing, it is a bit reminiscent of the movie: The Hunt. The theme is getting off the ground. “The right wingers are the enemy. We must go after them and eliminate them.” etc. etc. I sense in the upcoming US election that there will be a huge platform for this sort of sentiment. They are in the phase of popularizing it.
Jake Dasnake says
These Germans are clever moron
Meckerei says
Four “told DW”s in that article. I think that’s a record.