Let me be clear: the people responsible for murdering the journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo on January 7th were the men who pulled the triggers of the Kalashnikovs aimed at them. Moreover, we've no need to reach into our grab-bag of ethical epithets in order to find one that fits these men's characters; we don't need to speak of "barbarism", or a "complete lack of civilised values", or agonise about how they became radicalised – because we know the answer already – but what we can unequivocally assert is that these men, in those rattling, coughing, cordite-stinking moments, were evil. If by evil is understood this: an egotism that grew like a cancer – a lust for status and power and "significance" which metastasised through these murderers' brains.
The memorial issue of Charlie Hebdo will have a print run of 1,000,000 copies, financed by the French government; so, now the satirists have been co-opted by the state, precisely the institution you might've thought they should never cease from attacking. But the question needs to be asked: were the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo really satirists, if by satire is meant the deployment of humour, ridicule, sarcasm and irony in order to achieve moral reform? Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from HL Mencken's definition of good journalism: it should "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted". The trouble with a lot of so-called "satire" directed against religiously-motivated extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting.
все это неплохо, но еще лучше, если знать, кто писал, - сатирик за гранью хорошего вкуса, у которого британский подросток, подрастая, обучается некрофилии и другим идеям весело проводить время, поэтому дальше там читатель дополняет писателя, - очень хорошо опять же:
Dear Mr. Self,
Given that your writing purports to be based on a strong tradition of satirical writing which continually has attacked the boundaries of good taste - going all the way back to Swift and his Modest Proposal, I am surprised that you match the limitations of our daily lives with those of the comedic imagination. Surely - in principle - that should have no limits? Of course we live in a world where we must argue and make the case for our right to say things in a certain way. That is after all why satirical writing often employs the essay form. The writer undertakes an apparently logical argument which tests the boundaries of perceived logic and morality, for example your essay here: http://will-self.com/2011/
Кстати и вот это тоже хорошо, и даже очень: