10 thoughts on “Heebdo”

  1. In Free speech vs. hate speech: Why is it legal to insult Muslims but not Jews?, jew William Saletan asks:

    Libertarians, cultural conservatives, and racists have complained about these laws for years. But now the problem has turned global. Islamic governments, angered by an anti-Muslim video that provoked protests and riots in their countries, are demanding to know why insulting the Prophet Mohammed is free speech but vilifying Jews and denying the Holocaust isn’t. And we don’t have a good answer.

    In other words, when Whites complain, no problem. But when the “new jews” complain, the real jews don’t have a good answer.

    How can you justify prosecuting cases like these while defending cartoonists and video makers who ridicule Mohammed? You can’t. Either you censor both, or you censor neither. Given the choice, I’ll stand with Obama. “Efforts to restrict speech,” he warned the U. N., “can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.”

    Same old song and dance. “Free speech”, not “hate speech”, with “minorities”, first and foremost jews, defining “hate”. That’s the status quo. Saletan is waving his hands about it, not calling for any change.

  2. Here’s some especially chutzpathic pre-Hebdo heebdo from jewess Tanya Cohen. Here Is Why It’s Time To Get Tough On Hate Speech In America:

    Nobody has the right to take away rights from others. Nobody has the freedom to take away freedoms from others.

    Anyone guilty of hate speech – which should carry criminal penalties of 25 years to life – should be sent to special prisons designed to re-educate them and to instill values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and human rights in them. Prison is about punishment, but it’s also about changing the behavior of criminals. We often tend to forget this in our country. Merely sending bigots to ordinary prisons is not good enough – they need to be sent to special prisons for bigots, which will re-educate them.

  3. Daily Beast jew Thane Rosenbaum, Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?:

    No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon.

    Naturally Rosenbaum is advocating impeding and trampling on others out of concern for the sensitivities of jews. Why not just move to Israel? Because Rosenbaum, like Tanya Cohen, assumes jews, wherever the are, can dictate to everyone else how they should behave.

  4. “Shapiro professor” jew John Turley at The Washington Post, The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the government:

    The greatest threat to liberty in France has come not from the terrorists who committed such horrific acts this past week but from the French themselves, who have been leading the Western world in a crackdown on free speech.

    That’s the suicide meme folks. And Turley, knowing that some “anti-semite” is going to point it out anyway, fingers the “French themselves” who are actually driving the crackdown:

    Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, “We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized.” The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn’t feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was “making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites.” The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.

    The biggest threat to the French, and Whites generally, is the jews. But of course the jews are in overdrive at the moment, trying to convince everyone the threat comes from someone and somewhere else.

  5. Hyper-jew Jonathan Chait writes in Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Commit Blasphemy:

    The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.

    The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.

    That’s basically correct – “one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism” isn’t actually practiced. But “liberal” jews are spewing plenty of heebdo, coupling a real attack with a false defense. Chait, like Saletan, obscures rather than clarifies. Read closely however, and you can see what they’re defending is heebdo.

  6. Hyper-jew Jeffrey Goldberg, Europe Is Under Siege:

    We in the West believe that blasphemy is a right and not a crime. And we in the West believe that Jews (and everyone else, for that matter) should be allowed to remain alive and have museums. (I would note, for those who believe that recent anti-Semitic attacks in Europe were caused by specific actions of the Israeli government, that a) anti-Semites cause anti-Semitism, not Israel; and, b) the Brussels attack occurred in May, well before the summer war in Gaza.)

    Blasphemy is a right, but not against Israel? That’s heebdo.

    Who exactly is this “we” Goldberg arrogantly speaks for? The jews have their Israel. Israel excludes, deports, assassinates and bombs who they please. Goldberg is demanding more. What Goldberg is insinuating here is his belief that jews have a right to live and build their ghoulish monuments to themselves wherever they please, but specifically to insinuate themselves amongst Whites, above Whites, where they dictate what is or isn’t a right, a crime, or blasphemy.

    Such arrogance is perfectly typical jewish behavior. Europe is indeed under siege. Jews preceded muslims (and everyone else, for that matter) by centuries. Today jews still lead the assault.

  7. Je ne suis pas Charlie is a fine pile of heebdo from someone signing as “Karen Rosenbaum/@Rosenbauminator”. It’s the usual “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” argument with an especially conspicuous emphasis on specious assertions as to what “everyone” wants and believes.

    The Rosenbauminator repeatedly claims to speak for “everyone” while admitting that she’s arguing against the “general consensus”. The crux of that argument is that since “everybody” agrees that “hate speech” is defined so as to protect jews, as a race, therefore muslims, as a religion, must be protected too.

  8. In In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons “liberal” jew Glenn Greenwald argues:

    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.

    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.

    Greenwald is describing himself as well as Maher or Harris. The vast bulk of Greenwald’s attacks are focused on “the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture” without mentioning the special role jews play in creating it. Even here Greenwald pulls that punch.

    Greenwald’s defense of “free speech” is a pretext. His inclusion of “anti-semitic” cartoons is in defense of jews. More than that, he is affirming that “hate” is literally defined by jews and spelled out in terms of them. His purpose is “only to document hateful bigotry and condemn it – not to publish it in “solidarity” or because it deserves a serious and respectful airing”. That is his primary goal and the outcome.

    Note also how Greenwald coyly plays along with the jews-as-religion-not-race game. The main difference between the cartoons he calls “blasphemous” “offensive” “trash” and the Latuff cartoons he calls “brilliantly provocative” are that the the latter are against Israel/zionism in defense of Palestinians while the former highlight the stereotypical behavior and appearance (i.e. long-term, heritable, racial traits) of jews.

  9. Speaking of religion – Greenwald also doesn’t mention let alone reproduce anything that mocks the most holy of all icons of jew-worship – the Holohoax – mockery of which the jew-worshipping governments of the UK, France, Germany, etc criminalize and punish.

  10. so blasphemy is an attack on religion which is ok and protected by free speech. antisemitism is hate speech which is an attack on persons so its not ok, not protected and should not be tolerated.

Comments are closed.