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.

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.

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.