As of my writing this the Google news search of Charlie Hebdo shooting nets “About 21,700,000 results“. Rotherham abuse nets “About 27,800 results“. Rotherham rape “About 9,520 results“. The latter story has had four months for stories to be written, the former a couple days.
Here we can see the West’s priorities: a dozen left-wing journalists get killed by the same people they fought so hard to import and it is an international crisis that everyone must care about. 1400 innocent children get raped by those same imports and nobody gives a shit.
You should have been angry months ago.
Anyway, here’s my opinion on Charlie Hebdo: they got what they deserved the natural consequences of their pro-immigration beliefs (Ed: Ill-phrased and added a clarification) and I’m not going to shed a tear. May God grant them mercy in the next life.
Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘. The Muslims aren’t us, but neither are Charlie Hebdo. If our enemies want to start killing each other, why should we involve ourselves? Let them take each other out.
I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech. From Charlie Hebdo’s wiki:
In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné’s sacking by Val. Siné sued the newspaper for unfair dismissal and Charlie Hebdo was sentenced to pay him €90,000 in damages. Siné launched a rival paper called Siné Hebdo which later became Siné Mensuel. Charlie Hebdo launched its Internet site, after years of reluctance from Val.
Charlie gutlessly sacked a cartoonist for violating a more-untouchable taboo. I guess they fear Jews more than Muslims. They are not pro-free speech, they are simply anti-religion. Why should I, or any religious person, support them in this?
To add is this:
On 26 April 1996 François Cavanna, Stéphane Charbonnier and Philippe Val filed 173,704 signatures, obtained in 8 months, with the aim of banning the political party Front National, since it would have contravened the articles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
The people at Charlie loved free speech and free assembly so much, they literally tried to ban a political party* and silence 15% of the population. (I wonder if they would/will reconsider their dislike of FN now?)
There is no reason to support Charlie. All this is is a left-wing organization, a supporter of diversity, receiving the natural consequences of diversity. If you invite savages into your country, do not be surprised when savagery results. Mourn not for those who helped engineer the invasion, but for those innocents who suffer due to it.
****
* Mike Anissimov indicated on Twitter that it may have been a joke (as did another rude person), but I haven’t been able to find a source for that. Wikipedia and the article wikipedia sources seem to be playing it straight (‘pilon’, translated ‘drumstick’ at the end, also means to pulp a book). Other sources than wiki seem to take it seriously as well. The translations of a random set of these forum members seem to take the attempted ban seriously. Now, I can’t read French very well, so I would miss any subtleties to these stories that would indicate humour and this story is from two decades ago, before the internet went mainstream, so I am having a hard time finding much. It’s possible that this is a joke, but 173k signatures is a long way to go for a joke, and there was an official inquiry into banning FN that followed soon after. I’m accepting it as legitimate until such someone shows otherwise.
I agree with everything you’ve wrote here, except this bit: “they got what they deserved”. As much as it pains me to defend a scum bag like Charlie Hebdo, I dont think blasphemy should be punished with death, and certainly not prosecuted by the other scum bags in this story, the Muslims.
While the Rotherham story should have gotten more press, The two stories are not equivalent.
First of all, Rotherham was not a “Now” story. It was a crime perpetrated over many years. By the time it had come to light, the smoke had already cleared. Nothing to see here, folks, move along…
Second, while the “imports” committed this crime, the the true villains of the piece were the government jobsworths who looked the other way in the interest of “racial harmony” while these youngsters were being trafficked and raped. Given that they are all pointing fingers at each other, finding and charging the person responsible will be difficult, and hence is not newsworthy.
I am not saying that Rotherham was trivial, I am saying that it was not that newsworthy. “If it bleeds, it leads”.
While I may not agree with Charlie Hebdo’s politics, I admire their courage. In a culture that is tying itself into knots trying to avoid upsetting Muslims, it takes guts to speak out knowing that your words will attract death threats from religious extremists. Charlie Hebdo may be Left Wing Scum, but as the above commenter stated, they did not deserve this.
To quote Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire didn’t say that.
Agree this is not new. To care only now is cowardly and irresponsible.
And I am not Charlie either.
A leftist, aniti-white who was quite fine with all of France being a victim to Genocide.
I do not want to be Charlie. A passive victim who was willing to go along with PC rhetoric right up to the point of a gun.
NO WAY. Parasites OUT. OF my nation, of my government.
@cecilhenry
you are writing as If Charlie was a person….news for you, it was a magazine.
they were decidedly not passive, but courageous people with humanitarian values.
And the last thing they were was PC.
Their cartoons had to be read with a lot of distance, and demanded a lot of culture.
Anyway I doubt any of you on this site ever read Charlie Hebdo.
amazing how so many people worldwide have opinion on books and magazine they have never read, written in languages they dont speak.
And by the way, just being being white is not a quality , nor a license to talk rubbish.
I am not sure what your nation is, but it must be pretty unoleasant…
I’ve been lurking here for many months. And this is about the dumbest article I’ve read.
they got what they deserved and I’m not going to shed a tear.
So, getting murdered for offending some savages with some cartoons is just fine? What a pathetic version of Christianity.
Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘.
So let me get this straight. Muslims killing people that blasphemy = Bad. But if they defame your god, that’s bad and they deserve what they get? If so, fuck you and your god.
I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech.
So you only support free speech IF someone agrees with your point of view, huH? So then, what is the fucking difference between you and these terrorist? That you are just unwilling to murder those you disagree with. Free speech for me, and only thee if your are ideologically consistent? Fuck that.
Charlie gutlessly sacked a cartoonist for violating a more-untouchable taboo. I guess they fear Jews more than Muslims. They are not pro-free speech, they are simply anti-religion.
First of all, they fired him, they didn’t kill him. Yes, they are hypocrites. Yes, they are vile leftist. But that doesn’t justify their murder. And not being ideologically pure or consistent does not abbrogate their free speech rights and is fucking irrelevant to this tragedy.
12 human being were murdered. It doesn’t matter what they believed in. I think there was a story out of Pakistan were these muslims fucks killed 100+ children.
I am begginging to think that you believe all people are equal. But some [christians] are more equal than others. And their lives matter more.
Free speech means nothing, fucking nothing, if I have to worry about “the Feelz”
Jesus, I feel like I just read Jessica Valenti screed. I need to take a shower.
@ Hara Kiri
“courageous people with humanitarian values”? Did you not read the parts where they cravenly fired an employee to appease Jews, or tried to outright ban a major political party and disenfranchise millions of people? It sounds like the only gutsy thing they did was poke Muslims in the eye, and as for that it looks like they could dish it out but couldn’t take it. Obviously the perps are savage animals and got put down like such, but that doesn’t mean decent people are obliged to feel any solidarity with these shit-flinging leftist totalitarians.
@Troy
“So, getting murdered for offending some savages with some cartoons is just fine? What a pathetic version of Christianity.”
Obviously you don’t know this, but the Bible has plenty of examples of blasphemers and wicked unbelievers meeting God’s wrath (often put to the sword by foreign enemies), and this was meant as a warning to the faithful, not an opportunity to show self-aggrandizing “solidarity” or question whether maybe God was a little too harsh. These cartoonists promoted multiculturalism at the expense of their countrymen, and apparently God saw fit to turn this evil back on them. The dead cops are the ones I have sympathy for.
I’m with troy. This was a truly disgusting post, and this is also the last time that I will visit the site.
Excellent article Free Northerner. I agree 110%.
I honestly don’t care about the cartoonists (although I do care about the police casualties). F*ck ’em!
Those cartoonists would not have hesitated to harm me and mine.
@ WP:
“I am not saying that Rotherham was trivial, I am saying that it was not that newsworthy. “If it bleeds, it leads”.”
And that’s the problem.
@ “So, getting murdered for offending some savages with some cartoons is just fine?”
It’s not good, but neither is something the right should be worked up over. There are more important things to mourn.
“So let me get this straight. Muslims killing people that blasphemy = Bad. But if they defame your god, that’s bad and they deserve what they get? If so, fuck you and your god.”
Deserve was an ill-considered choice of words. I’ve edited that line to be more clear as to point. Charlie Hebdo was a pro-immigration rag; they received the natural consequences of their pro-immigration stance. I’ll mourn their innocent rather than them.
“So you only support free speech IF someone agrees with your point of view, huH? So then, what is the fucking difference between you and these terrorist? That you are just unwilling to murder those you disagree with. Free speech for me, and only thee if your are ideologically consistent? Fuck that.”
I stopped caring about the free speech of leftists when they started attacking the free speech of right-wingers and persecuting us. If they wish to go back to a mutual cease-fire, I’ll start caring, but as long as right-wingers are dragged before human rights courts, I don’t give a shit about their free speech.
“And not being ideologically pure or consistent does not abbrogate their free speech rights and is fucking irrelevant to this tragedy.”
If people attack free speech, why should others care when those same people lose it?
“I am begginging to think that you believe all people are equal. But some [christians] are more equal than others. And their lives matter more.”
People aren’t equal, except in the metaphysical sense that they will all have to give an account before God.
@ Iowa Jim:
That is your prerogative.
This is great stuff FN. Ignore the concern trolls. If they leave then great, better a smaller good audience than a larger bad one.
Did any of you see their catoon of Mohammed naked? I for one can’t endorse this kind of gutter humor. Nakoula’s “The innocence of Muslims” also comes to mind in this category.
At least the Jyllandsposten cartoons were funny and conveyed a message other than “We simply want to offend as much as possible”.
Je ne suis pas charlie hebdo, je suis Charlie Martel.
And before all, I anathematize the idol of Mahomet about whom he, the false-prophet, the raving-mad lunatic says, “He is God alone, God made of solid, hammer-beaten metal; He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him any one.”
While I do not particularly care for Charlie Hebdo or its foul junk that passes for “satire” these days (apparently, humor is impossible outside of the gutter these days), this might be a rallying point for more right-wing folks. It might lead to one or two Leftists and Right-Liberals waking and realizing their silly policies of mass immigration and national suicide will kill them first (which has been a right-wing point for years), and that can only be a good thing. I doubt it will lead to the Great Reaction, but one can only hope.
Echoing sentiments posted earlier, ignore these trolls. Perhaps what you wrote the first time can be taken the wrong way, but these folks coming on here want to take things the wrong way. That’s just what secularist types do.
http://www.dehavelle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/behead_those_who_insult_islam-cartoon.jpg – is this too beheading-worthy?
Grrr… I meant:
‘is this beheading-worthy too?’
(I know ‘they’ were shot)
Another one, supposedly blashemous: A line of deceased suicide bombers approaches heaven and faces the prophet shouting with spread arms: ‘Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!’
Is it truly forbidden in Quran to produce images of people? I thought the prohibition was about Allah, not anyone else.
^
Heh. Blasphemous.
well said Free
I’d like to see the French rescue themselves but its doubtful they will do anything but rush into the destruction of multiculturalism and diversity
they got what they deserve because they fully supported the muslim invasion of France. The responsibility for every French man or woman or child injured by a non French man in France is on the hands of those who support diversity, multiculturalism etc