Here is a sobering thought. How many of those left-wing defenders of free speech who stood to remember the victims of Charlie Hebdo also condemned the PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West) anti-Islamification rallies in Dresden over Christmas? How many would have supported the counter-rallies in which the German government is doing so much to encourage?
What would the reaction of those same people have been if the targets had been members of anti-immigration Front National or any other right wing or nationalist group. We know the answer because of their reaction after the murders of Dutch anti-Islamisation campaigner Pym Fortuyn and film-maker Theo Van Gogh; sneers, contempt and an undisguised glee that the right-wing had got what it deserved.
And what of the victims themselves? Indeed they were in many ways caricatures of the antifa campaigners who would go to the barricades to preserve mass immigration and the end of France.
Take Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, and one of the victims. He is of a kind you can find in every White country in the West. A dedicated “antifascist” who occupied a crucial opinion-shaping position in the French media. In fact, as Joshua Bonehill points out, everybody killed in the attacks today would have almost certainly have been anti-White and left-Wing and there’s a great irony behind that as well.
Another victim was cartoonist Georges Wolinski who had a strong Jewish identity and whose work appeared in a number of left-leaning publications besides Charlie Hebdo, including Liberation (which has agreed to allow Charlie Hebdo to use its offices in the wake of the murders).
And it fell to one of the most unlikely voices to make a penetrating and uncomfortable observation. Andjem Chaudhary is Fleet Street’s favourite firebrand Islamic preacher and a man said to have encouraged thousands of young Muslims to go on Jihad.
He tweeted: “If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising incitement and hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?”
He has a fair point. Why are we free to sneer and disparage Islam while criticism of the secular religion of the Holocaust is out of bounds? In Britain Simon Sheppard has spent years behind bars for merely distributing Holocaust revisionist literature.
And not just the Holocaust, criticism of gay marriage, women priests, abortion and much else are also off limits. Only a few months ago in Britain, Garron Helm, a 21-year-old Liverpool man, was jailed for insolence after he got into a Twitter spat with Luciana Berger, a Jewish female politician.
She had defended the previous Labour government’s policy of mass third world immigration against the wishes of the population. He had responded that you could always trust a Jew to show their colours eventually. For that he got a month in prison. If he had criticised Islam in such stark terms it is unthinkable he would have been prosecuted. One law for them, one for us.
And what use was Western freedom of speech to the people of Gaza when 3,000 were killed in the Israeli bombardment last year. How many know that seventeen journalists were among the dead? Freedom of speech is not an issue when you can decide which stories are covered and which are not.
In a Europe where the mildest criticism of gay marriage or immigrants brings with it media-led howls for prosecution, the double standard towards Islam is glaring. In the end, as regular readers of the Occidental Observer will be only too aware, the freedom of speech issue is a complete red herring.
What matters is ethnic group power and as Lenin said “who? whom?” — which group is in a strong enough position to dish it out, and in the West these days there is no doubt who that is. A crisis like this is too good to waste. Before the blood has been swept away Jewish journalists were maximising this heaven-sent opportunity to stir up enmity.
The Jewish media and their puppets will be working hard to make sure that the debate stays framed around the issue of “extremist religion” by which they means both Christianity and Islam. They are desperate to avoid an ethnic dimension emerging, or that people start questioning the role of Jews in creating Third World immigration into the West. Or calling attention to the strong support that the organized Jewish community has giving to implement laws censoring free speech related to ethnic conflict throughout the West. Heavens knows where those questions would lead.
In the Spectator (UK) Nick Cohen was working hard at this. “Undoubtedly there are white racists and Hindu nationalists who treat religion as a race and hate Muslims because they are Muslims. Their existence ought to present no problem to principled people, who should fight, criticise and satirise them with the same force and for the same reasons they fight religious obscurantism.”
One of the most penetrating observations came from TOO writer Mark Green in yesterday’s comments. It is worth reading again.
Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …
These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.
But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.
In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.
What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?
Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.
These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.
Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.
If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.
Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.
Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.
If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord.
It’s really the difference between an elite strategy versus a non-elite strategy for controlling public discourse. As noted, the organized Jewish community has been the major force behind hate speech laws throughout the West. This implies influence over the legislative and executive process, dinners and rallies attracting prominent non-Jewish spokespeople, financial and career support for those who make alliances with them and strong, effective economic and social pressure on those who oppose their interests. In the U.S., where “hate speech” laws have made only minor inroads because of the First Amendment, there are dozens of cases of where activist Jewish organizations (mainly the ADL and the SPLC) have attempted to get people fired from their jobs for saying the wrong thing about Jews (“Jews control Hollywood“) or other non-White groups or about sexual non-conformists. Or saying things or having associations that edge too closely to explicitly advocating for White interests, as in the recent Steve Scalise/David Duke furor.
But these mechanisms are only open to an elite group. A non-elite group like immigrant Muslims in France has little choice but to engage in violence if they want to shut down speech they don’t like. Muslims can’t control the legislative process to put Charlie Hebdo out of business. Nor could they exert financial pressure on them or get them fired from their jobs.
So we will continue to be forced to listen to hypocritical media and politicians spouting sanctimonious encomiums about free speech (e.g., Jeffrey Goldberg’s (“Europe is under siege“) while continuing to favor restrictions on free speech that they don’t like. And the element of racial/ethnic conflict of interests that is at the heart of the problem of massive non-White immigration to the West, whether by Middle Easterners, Africans, or Latin Americans, will be obliterated from public consciousness. Welcome to the Orwellian West of the twenty-first century.