After Charlie Hebdo, Balancing Press Freedom and Respect for Religion

Jeffrey Gottfried and Michael Barthel, Journalism, January 28, 2015

About three-in-four Americans (76%) have heard at least a little about the attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, conducted January 22-25 among 1,003 adults. Of these, a majority (60%) says that it was okay for Charlie Hebdo to have published cartoons that depict the Prophet Muhammad, but nearly three-in-ten (28%) do not support the magazine’s decision to publish this material–saying it was not okay.

{snip}

Opinions about the appropriateness of publishing the cartoons vary considerably among demographic groups. One difference that stands out is between whites and non-whites.

While seven-in-ten whites who have heard about the attack support Charlie Hebdo’s decision to publish the cartoons, this is true of just 37% of non-whites. Instead, about half (48%) of non-whites decry the cartoons–saying it was not okay to publish them.

{snip}

Hebdo

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Luca

    All these contrasting opinions on all these polls along racial lines can be drawn to one conclusion. Non-Whites do not think on the same level as Whites and are therefore too different to be assimilated into White-Euro societies. Please admit the diversity experiment was a failure and let’s work on some real solutions. We simply ALL can’t get along.

    • Jon Robbins

      So enslaving Africans and dragging them over in chains because whites didn’t want to work in the tobacco fields was “an experiment in diversity?”

      Talk about Orwellian!

      • JP Rushton

        That was the biggest mistake in US history.

        • Jon Robbins

          A mistake, yes, but born out of greed and hypocrisy.

          • Daniel McGrath

            The castration of the slaves should have been mandatory. As it was in Arabia.

          • DAWNOFNEWDAY

            Less than 5% of the whites in the US owned slaves. You had blacks that owned slaves, too.

          • Magician

            and some of us whites wonder why the blacks are more than 10% in the entire country today instead of the ratio of blacks and whites when the slavery was over…

            simple!

            black men love giving births to 5+ kids! ( and not give a d*mn about supporting them after their births)

          • Reverend Bacon

            And politicians (of all stripes) love paying black women to do it. Stop the funding, make birth control mandatory for welfare recipients and free for everyone.

          • Philnumber3

            First mistake: nothing is free except rain and sun.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Around 500,000 blacks were shipped to the 13 colonies and then the US. Today they number 45,000,000. They were certainly not oppressed indeed they thrived. Oppressed populations shrink and or vanish.

          • Cobbett

            But only of the capitalistic class – the majority of people didn’t own slaves(also there were plenty of white slaves)

          • dd121

            At that time whites didn’t think the slaves were sub-human. They knew it.

      • Luca

        The Africans were already enslaved when they were captured by other Africans and Arabs in Africa. They were sold, transported and kept slaves as an experiment in farm production. That was a different failed experiment. It had nothing to do with diversity. The experiment in diversity really started 50 years ago. I don’t see how you could have misinterpreted that.

        The bigger mistake was not following through and re-colonizing them to the Caribbean or back to Africa.

        • Jon Robbins

          Yes, yes, I’m aware that blacks were the first step in the enslavement chain (and that blacks don’t like to recognize that fact) but what are you talking about? Does an “experiment” justify slavery?

          Do you believe that enslaving other humans is wrong or not?

          The fact is that the “experiment in diversity” is the product of two things:

          1. The search for cheap labor (African slaves and open borders for illegal Mexican labor beloved by the construction and agribusiness industries.

          2. The left-liberal diversity fetishists–spearheaded by organized Jewry–who wanted to dilute what they imagined to be the inherent fascist aspect of white European culture.

          The alliance of the greed-monger and the diversity fetishists is the source of the problem.

          • Daniel McGrath

            This doesn’t explain the nigfuxation in Europe…

          • Daniel McGrath

            The blacks were the only species of hominid that could survive the malarial zones in the Deep South.

        • Jon Robbins

          “The bigger mistake was not following through and re-colonizing them to the Caribbean or back to Africa.”

          By “recolonizing” them, do you mean deporting them? I mean, let’s be honest here.

          • Luca

            We recolonized about 50,000 to Liberia. Same concept. This is what Lincoln wanted as a form of reparations. A much better concept than the Freedman’s Bureau.

          • Jon Robbins

            Maybe, but it wasn’t done so we are where we are.

          • But we don’t need to compound the problem by bringing more Third Worlders here.

          • Awakened Saxon

            Luca: This is what Lincoln wanted as a form of reparations.

            Actions speak louder than words. Lincoln deported no blacks.

          • John Smith

            He died before he got the chance. Thanks John Wilkes Booth.

          • Awakened Saxon

            John Smith: He died before he got the chance. Thanks John Wilkes Booth.

            Do you really believe that? He was president for four years. He had the chance to wage total war against a white country, but you’re telling me he did not have the chance to load blacks onto ships? Besides, who said he was guaranteed a second term? His entire plan hinged on getting re-elected and deporting them in his second term? In 1865, racialism was defeated and equality had the momentum. There was no political will – with or without Lincoln being around – to deport the blacks.

            You sarcastically thank Booth, yet are you not aware that what triggered Booth to finally act was Lincoln’s call for black voting? Who calls for black voting right before supposedly deporting blacks?

            You have a lot of history to learn.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Lincoln was a Negrophile…

          • Anna Tree

            If you are talking about the claim of his relation with that slave woman, don’t believe the propaganda. There is no proves for this beside that there is a lot of facts hinting the claim is false.

            Yes, the slave was with a Lincoln, but it was logically and certainly Abraham’s brother. Please read:
            amren com/features/2012/12/did-jefferson-sleep-with-his-slave/

          • He was directly responsible for the senseless slaughter of strong, brave American children. He took a scythe to an entire generation of men and women and then left them rotting in the fields. And for what? The freedom of some kind of half evolved, almost-humans?

            Lincoln was filth.

          • Travis Lee

            Lincoln waged war against the Southern states for the financial benefit of the Northern interests. Slavery was a pretext.

          • Philnumber3

            Actually, even Lincoln’s own words prove he was not anti-slavery. His ONLY ambition was to force people to obey and remain subjects to his group of tyrants.

          • The fact that there are still people here and on other race realist, nationalist, and outright racist sites who think Lincoln was some kind of hero is absolutely baffling.

            He was one of the key players who led us down the path of filth and depravity to where we are now, and as such he deserves nothing but cold hatred and disdain.

          • Anna Tree

            I don’t know enough to judge Lincoln. I pointed to one fact. Thanks for your and @Philnumber3:disqus’s comments.

          • Fair enough!

          • John Smith

            Hell yes!

        • JohnEngelman

          After the slaves were freed, most did not want to leave the United States. No other country wanted them, with the possible exception of Liberia. Liberia could not have absorbed all of them.

          • Luca

            Of course the freed slaves did not want to be relocated, but it would have had to have been a forced relocation for their sake as much as for the Whites. Lincoln was also looking into Panama or the Caribbean. You’re right, no country really wants them but money talks.

          • Awakened Saxon

            A few colonies were established during Lincoln’s first term. They existed on a voluntary basis, they failed, and the colonists were returned. That is the extent of Lincoln’s repatriation. It is nothing more than a myth that Lincoln was ever going to round blacks up and force them onto ships.

          • Luca

            Clearly your mind is made up, so I have no desire to try and convince you of anything. But in my mind, slavery and the Africans were a massive social problem not solved even to this day. During Lincoln’s war administration there were other priorities, there was a mixed opinion among the Congress on what to do, some Africans wanted to leave, others didn’t and the funding was nonexistent due to war debt. Like today, political will was mixed. This was an issue he would have dealt with after the war. He would have handled Reconstruction far different than the Johnson administration. I base my opinions having read Lincoln’s own words and the history during that period.

          • Awakened Saxon

            Luca: This was an issue he would have dealt with after the war.

            Lincoln’s last public words were in support of black voting rights. I have never heard a word from Lincoln about deporting the blacks except on the issue of the voluntary colonies. Can you point me in the right direction?

            The ‘other priorities’ you mention were killing white men, arming blacks, encouraging black insurrection and rape of Southern women, and burning the South to the ground. Do you consider those to be the priorities of someone who wanted to throw the blacks out and had no guarantee of a second term in which to do it?

          • Daniel McGrath

            Lincoln was anti white

      • Who Me?

        You need to re-check your history books, or read some good ones that tell the truth.. Obviously what you learned isn’t what really happened. Africans were already enslaved by other Africans and sold all over the world. It was a monetary gain, not a social experiment in “Diversity”.

        • Jon Robbins

          See my answer above.

      • JohnEngelman

        Let’s all of admit that allowing the slave trade was the worst mistake the thirteen colonies and the United States ever made.

        • Daniel McGrath

          It was a product of malarial zones. Whites couldn’t have farmed the swamps like blacks proved capable of. Nature’s cruel joke on YT.

        • Awakened Saxon

          How so? Countries in Europe that have no history of black slavery are being flooded with blacks and other non-whites. The problem is egalitarians. In an egalitarian society, there will be racial backwardness. In a racialist society, racial aliens can easily be dealt with.

          • JohnEngelman

            There are two reasons the slave trade was unfortunate. The first, which you should agree with, is that it brought Negroes to the thirteen colonies and the United States.

            The second is that slavery violated America’s commitment to freedom and equality under the law.

            During the American Revolution Samuel Johnson wrote, “We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

          • Daniel McGrath

            Look, America isn’t the only place getting flooded with Africans. You are a fossil.

        • mikey7777

          Well at least we,WHITES. were the only ones to massacre each other and destroy our blood lines and tear apart our families to set them free.Not AFRICA OR THE MIDDLE EAST ,who still practice slavery to this day and care not one iota what anyone thinks and have not for 100s of years.Imagine that.Whitey always sacrificing hers for everyone elses.

      • Did Luca even mention slavery? He said the experiment in diversity. I think that was clear enough: The notion that White societies can continue to assimilate people regardless of racial background. That is the experiment that is clearly a failure.

      • John Smith

        It was more about selfish monied interests importing as cheap labor exploitable, culturally-incompatible and prolific minorities, same as they’re doing now with illegal Hispanics. White Americans have, are and will continue to pay the price.

        • Awakened Saxon

          I see far more condemnation here of slave owners than of the egalitarians who set them free. The slave owners are the ones who established a formalised racial caste system. Only a small number of them were as greedy as they are made to be. Most genuinely cared about racial well-being.

          • John Smith

            I don’t support slavery, which is morally wrong, and have no problem with them being freed, but that still left us with the same problem – the negro being here. Many whites of the time saw freedom as the first step in their removal back to their home continent and the final solution to the problem of their continued presence. Blame the most radical of the abolitionists, who would be the forefathers modern day progressives, for believing in equality, citizenship and civil rights for them.

          • Awakened Saxon

            No one with a functioning brain in 1865 saw black freedom as a prerequisite to their removal from the continent. Everyone understood that the way freedom manifested itself in the 1860s was by the design of egalitarian elements.

            Slavery would have eventually run its course and it is likely that many – or most – would have been repatriated. Instead, do-gooders from the North intervened and overthrew the entire system while doing nothing to remove the blacks. This is what caused the present race problem, not slavery.

          • John Smith

            So, importing blacks as forced labor DIDN’T create the problem? Kinda hard to have a negro problem with no negroes.

          • Awakened Saxon

            Without slavery, the egalitarians would have simply imported blacks as refugees (just as they are doing now with Mexicans here and with Africans and Asians in Europe). It is the egalitarians who have always been the problem, not the racial hierarchy system that once existed in the South. Slavery gave the egalitarians something to work with, but it was never the problem in and of itself.

          • John Smith

            It would’ve taken to the 20th C. for that to happen, as it has in Europe (and they’re closer to Africa than we are). That would’ve left far less time for them to proliferate and overrun our country like they have now.

          • Daniel McGrath

            It’s happening simultaneously in the Americas and Europe. Half of the French Army used in ww1 appears to have been Africans brought in to kill Germans. We are witnessing Armageddon and Ragnarok.

          • mikey7777

            kinda of hard to have a CIVIL WAR without them as well.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Truth be told much of America (the tropical and equatorial zones) were only possible to colonized by Africans. What we are seeing is the spread of a Black Plague from the Equitorial and Tropical areas in both the Americas and Europe.

          • John Smith

            Yeah, the indians died too easily, so they needed Africans to deal with the tropical conditions under hard labor.

          • Whiteplight

            I think you’re imagining these scenarios. Slavery has existed since before written history because it was present at the time of Herodotus’ histories and it has been found among primitive peoples around the world, including among Amerinds in North America. Formalized racial caste systems also existed long before the American Colonies, as far back as ancient Egypt. Slavery in the American colonies and elsewhere during the settling of the New World was done for profit by greedy individuals and nations. My own ancestors were the Virginia Carters, and Robert “King” Carter was the richest man in the colonies in the early to mid 18th century. A remnant of his once huge “Shirley Plantation” exists today as the landmark known as Carter Hall in Virginia. What they did was set up a medieval farm system with slaves as the replacements of serfs. it was a backward move because Europe had evolved away from serfdom by the 13th century and peasants gained more power after the 14th century Black Plague that saw many nobles forced to farm their estates themselves due to the resultant labor shortages. The New World gave many landless nobles and chance to regain lost wealth and status. The Dutch, and British empires were built on the wealth gained from shipping tobacco to Europe and returning to the New World with more and more African slaves. It was a huge economic boom in Europe. The fur trade actually built American wealth more than cotton or tobacco production, but later on, and it (fur trade disputes with Britain) was the actual cause of hte War of 1812. READ HISTORY

          • mikey7777

            yup and just as many slave owners were black ….and they already knew all about the institution of slavery since they came from the slave capital of the world AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST,which are still practicing slavery at this very moment .So all we need is to send over bleeding heart whites and let us kill each other over there to save them from themselves.It will be just like home.

      • Daniel McGrath

        Well, there are theories about it. The slave masters were oddballs and playing with fire. Anti-slave sentiment was just as racist. I wouldn’t be shocked if a few Talmud types saw that blacks would magically multiply and torment the whites.

      • Hy Alldredge

        A minority of blacks living in the country today are descendants of American slaves. The vast majority of the non-white population came here after the change in immigration policy in 1965.

        • LHathaway

          Actually, blacks were immigrating to the USA from LAmerica and the Carribean continually even before 1965. The were entering as part of ‘South American’ immigration. Most probably did not know these were (mostly?) blacks moving here, as even racists do not know blacks were immigrating to the USA before 1965.

          • Hy Alldredge

            I didn’t mean to make that claim, though I can see my writing wasn’t clear. Obviously blacks, Mexicans, Chinese and Indians immigrated to the US prior to 1965, but the great “experiment in diversity” wasn’t slavery, it was the immigration act of 1965 plus forced bussing, section 8, affirmative action, etc. The majority of the non-white population did come after 1965, and the majority of the non-white population is also not black.

      • Daniel McGrath

        No one dragged Africans into France…

      • Andy

        I suspect that the “diversity experiment” Luca was talking about is the recent massive immigration into white countries and devotion to “multiculturalism”, not the slave trade of centuries past.

    • Rossbach

      Whether diversity has succeeded as an experiment is a moot point. Diversity was never intended to be an experiment conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether and to what extent a multicultural society is possible. Diversity is – and always has been – an institutional mandate, first by government, and now by virtually all major political, social, and economic organizations in Europe and North America. Even though everyone, including those who mandated it for us, knows that it does not produce social harmony, that is irrelevant because that was never its intent.

      In tandem with mass immigration, diversity was established as a tool to promote a rapid disintegration of Western bourgeois society. Cultural Marxists are aware, as we should be, that the economic and political institutions of a society are emanations of its culture. Marx and Engels mocked Western Civilization and regarded its ultimate destruction as a goal as important as the overthrow of capitalism. That is the basis of the attacks on traditional marriage, the family, the church, and other components of our culture.

      Whatever you call it (affirmative action, positive discrimination, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion), this is the tool that has been chosen to rot our society from within.

      Because diversity appears to be achieving its intended goal, is there any reason to conclude that it has failed?

      • Luca

        I agree. For the Liberal elite (Cultural Marxists), it is a tool of destruction to undermine the White-Euro, Christian male power base. For their useful idiots, they believe it to be an experiment and a way of life that must be instituted for Whites. For the ignorant masses it is a short-sighted benefit that they are more than happy to partake in.

        I’m happy to see your comment. Too many here are re-fighting the civil war, re-writing history and blaming everything on blacks and browns. I have said repeatedly the true enemy are the liberal elites. Without them, the ignorant, the destructive and the gullible would not dominate or control anything.

  • Publius Pompilius Quietus

    The imposition of human rights on non-Western peoples and their reaction to it shows the innate difference between the peoples of the world. In so many words, human rights takes a Western standard for behavior and expects all other peoples to conform to such aforementioned standards. Islamic terrorism is a rational reaction to

    • Anna Tree

      And slowly, only non-whites get to enjoy those Human Rights (freedoms and rights our ancestors fought and died for their descendants to enjoy): freedom of speech, the right of self-determination, freedom of association etc etc are more and more forbidden to whites only.We shouldn’t be confused, when we protests our rights and freedoms are destroyed to family, friends or on-line, we should precise that it is only the Whites whose rights and freedoms are destroyed: only Whites cannot have their own student associations, only White countries have diversity imposed on them, only Whites cannot call a spade a spade, like saying that there are more cops in black neighborhood because there are more crimes there (Giuliani vs David Clarke).

      So yes they are imposed on people who don’t understand or don’t want them and they are stolen from the people who praise and need them.
      It’s like some crazy antropological experience with animals, like as if aliens are experimenting with us.

      • Publius Pompilius Quietus

        I hadn’t thought of that angle, but it certainly seems to be the case: We are setting standards for everyone, and when certain peoples reject them, we compromise them for ourselves . Alain De Benoist’s “Beyond Human Rights” (2011) is an excellent treatise on this.

    • throttler

      I would not call it “imperialism” because they choose of their own free will to come to white countries. It is only natural that they should have to follow the rules of the white countries.

  • pcmustgo

    Yup, I already knew this without even knowing the stat. Most the pro-Hebdo protesters worldwide, in France, and in the USA and elsewhere were lily white. Plenty of French African Christians just didn’t show up to support this cartoonist. Ditto in the USA. Already the PC and “POC” crowd is posting that #jesuischarlie is like writing #whitelivesmatter terribly white supremacist. See, the angry non-whites of the world have NO RESPECT for Western Civilization. They hate it, resent it and envy it almost as much as Muslims. It’s like Blacks who support illegal immigration even if it hurts them- well at least it’s hurting the white man too! Europe = White people. Western Civilization is evil to them. My take on this is that there’s this “diversity coalition”… if we remove Muslims from immigration and the diversity coalition, we might just start removing other groups too. It’s not that these groups- Asians, Blacks, Latinos, etc, all like each other, it’s that they know “Diversity” is their best shot in America. These people worship at the alter of Diversity. Also, Muslims are mostly Brown people and offending Muslims is “stereotyping” and that’s wrong, right? Many Liberals and non-whites don’t like anyone who calls attention to any differences, whether between Islam and other religions or Africans and Asians or Whites. We’re all the same in their book. Muslims are making Europe more “diverse”- and that’s all that matters!

  • dd121

    Why should we be forced to pretend we “respect” their religion? It’s obvious they hate the West and work toward our destruction. What sane person could have anything but contempt for that?

  • Samuel Hathaway

    There may be some overlapping in how respondants view the “okay to publish”, “not okay to publish.” Those say it was okay to publish would never seek censorship laws to ban such drawings, but neither do they believe the content is helpful, dignified or useful toward adherents of Islam. This is the view of, “I disagree with the content but I defend your right to say it or publish it.”

    Then you have the side “it is not okay to publish.” Some of them seek government, state-controlled censorship and punishment, but there are also those from the standpoint of manners and respect, who don’t believe such content aspires to best talents an artist is capable of. The latter, while disagreeing with the content, don’t seek to punish or censor, either.

  • IstvanIN

    They should have asked two very different questions:
    1) Was it appropriate to publish the cartoons?
    2) Should it be legal to publish cartoons such as those?

    The answers would be much more telling.

    • Samuel Hathaway

      The one i liked best was the Danish cartoon depicting the tip of Mohammeds turbin as a bomb fuse.

  • Biff_Maliboo

    Don’t hurt muh feels, homie.

  • LHathaway

    Whites are idiots. Official confirmation in.

  • wildfirexx

    Okay, so now that’s it’s acceptable by western standards to critcize or question the Islamic religion or post images of mohammad, it should then also be acceptable to critize or question other religions, like the jewish religion or the holocaust …but it’s not!
    Why the double standard! After all free speech should be free speech!

    • Jon Robbins

      Right on the money, Wildfire. The hypocrisy is endless. Blacks may not be the sharpest tools in the shed on average, and they may be disproportionately violent, but they aren’t the ones trying to take over the culture and use it for their own ends. They wouldn’t know how!

      Organized Jewry and the problems it poses is clearly a huge taboo here. Criticism of Jewish conniving is regularly deleted. Meanwhile, you can say practically anything you want about blacks. Some people seem content with this arrangement. I have no idea why.

    • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

      Or the holocaust??? Making fun of dishonest superstitious fairytales and making fun of mass murder are just alike in your mind? That’s funny.

      • Tim

        As a historical event it is entirely open to the freedom of doubt without punishment, just as one may question whether dinosuars existed or man ever walked on the moon…

      • wildfirexx

        Just questioning the number of (6 million jews) that they claim to have died or been gassed during the Holocaust… is a hate crime under holocaust deniel laws in Germany, France and other european countries.
        You actually consider that free speech ???
        What other historical facts or data do you know of, that is not open to questionable debate in our World History ?

  • Jon Robbins

    Hey Kafkaesque censors at Amren,

    Why did you just delete an exchange critical of Jewry while you have no problem with Luca below saying that “non-whites do not think on the same level as Whites.”

    You’re obviously not offended by these comments. Are you just obedient shabbasgoyim?

  • Jon Robbins

    Hey Kafkaesque censors at Amren,

    Why did you just delete an exchange critical of Jewry while you have no problem with Luca below saying that “non-whites do not think on the same level as Whites.”

    You’re obviously not offended by these comments. Are you just obedient shabbasgoyim?

  • Jon Robbins

    Hey Kafkaesque censors at Amren,

    Why did you just delete an exchange critical of Jewry while you have no problem with Luca below saying that “non-whites do not think on the same level as Whites?”

    You’re obviously not offended by these comments. Are you just obedient shabbasgoyim?

  • Jon Robbins

    Dear Kafkaesque censors at Amren,

    Why did you just delete an exchange critical of Jewry while you have no problem with Luca below saying that “non-whites do not think on the same level as Whites?”

    You’re obviously not offended by these comments. Are you just obedient shabbasgoyim?

    • One never knows exactly what might hurt Amren’s feeeeeelings.

      • Jon Robbins

        Well in this case, it appears that all that happened was that the comment string sort somehow jumped from Newest to Oldest.

  • Jon Robbins

    Why did you just delete an exchange critical of Jewry while you have no problem with Luca below saying that “non-whites do not think on the same level as Whites?”

  • Guest

    Are Jews off limits from criticism?

    • Sick of it

      They certainly are at Charlie Hebdo.

      • The Dude

        No, they’re not. Faithful to its radical leftist ideology, Charlie Hebdo has delt Judaism its fair share of ridiculing (because it’s a religion), and has always been more sympathetic to the Palestinians (because they’re “oppressed”).

        • Zimriel

          Yeah, I don’t get why people on this thread are talking about the evils of this tribe of Semites who GOT murdered and not the tribe of Semites who actually, you know, DID the murders.

          • The Dude

            Well, because, you know, a lot of Jews are hopeless progressives and all that, so it’s gotta be a conspiracy.

            Courtesy of Stormfront and David Duke. Making white nationalists look like fools since 1993 ©.

          • Awakened Saxon

            Google ‘Barbara Spectre’ and you might begin to understand that one tribe of Semites supports the mass immigration of the other.

          • Daniel McGrath

            No Jew in Europe has deigned to seriously oppose the migration of Arabs Blacks or Asians to Europe. indeed most enthusiastically want Europe to be flooded with darkies.

        • throttler

          I wish I knew what the cartoons say.

          • Anna Tree

            1) Circumcise all males the 8th day after birth
            Why don’t we wait until they understand?
            We need to be the strongest (literally: we need to take advantage while we are above them.)
            2) What if for vengeance, we would bomb Gaza with axes and knives?
            You dork!
            3) Hamas take the population hostage.
            So we kill the population.
            4) And now, do you recognize Palestine?
            5) Another error…
            Pity! I am not a defenseless pupil!
            Oops! I apologize!
            6) For the European Council, circumcision is a violation of the physical integrity of chidren
            To rape only their brains, is not brave enough.
            Yeah.

            (I am not a professional translator, I apologize for any errors.)

          • The Dude

            Overall good.

            A better rendition of the first one would “while we still have the upper hand”.

            The second cartoons is in reference to the Judaic eye-for-an-eye law as mentioned in the top right corner. As if to say the Jews are even harsher than their own laws.

            I would’ve rendered the last one by, “Violating their consciences only is playing it safe…”

        • Daniel McGrath

          What utter shite. The paper fired a writer called Sine who dared to point out that Sarkozy’s Son formally converted to Judaism to marry a Jewish heiress.

      • Anna Tree

        This is not true.

        Charlie Hebdo is super leftist anti-religions (all of them, including Judaism), anti-France, anti-nationalists (all of them, including French, and zionism), anti-military, anti-US, anti-politicians etc

        I guess that Charlie Hebdo did more cartoons against Christianity and
        Judaism than against islam, but I couldn’t find any stats.

        What happened to Charlie Hebdo, is the left, here extreme-left, being bitten by the diversity it loves. Charlie Hebdo likes mass-immigration, third world immigrants, illegals and don’t mind muslims as long as not religious; but loves porn, pork and wine and so disliked religious Muslims and islam as much as they hate Christians and Jews and their
        religions.

        • Anna Tree

          More translation:
          1) One million off the six (millions of Jews killed.) if you give us Palestine.
          2) Judeo-nazism: love stronger than hatred.
          3) Those you can’t criticize 2
          You shouldn’t laugh.

          • Sick of it

            “In France, Charlie Hebdo was notorious for trashing
            Christianity and Islam in its cartoons, but in 2008 one of its
            cartoonists, Maurice Sinet, crossed the line when he wrote a short
            column which mildly suggested that Jewishness was correlated with social and economic success.

            Sinet (aka Siné) was fired by Charlie Hebdo and was charged with “inciting racial hatred.””

            www occidentaldissent com/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism/

          • The Dude

            So? Talking head Eric Zemmour was charged with inciting racial hatred for dissing Muslims. And he was a Jew.

          • Anna Tree

            I think The Dude answered the second claim of your quote and I think the numerous cartoons posted on this thread answer the first claim.
            Charlie Hebdo is obviously anti all religions, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

            If your quote is correct, there is no free speech in France and I disagree with the claim that Sinet was inciting racial hatred. I therefor need to check this matter further by verifying the quote, as I always try to do.

            Personally, I am not anti-religion although I am an atheist and I support absolute free speech.

          • Sick of it

            The Dude’s position is the same as other individuals belonging to a certain group which, apparently, does nothing wrong and yet criticism of them is shut down worldwide. A group which has, apparently, never done anything wrong and yet has been been driven out of numerous nations in the world for their not wrongdoing. Sorry, I might be too honest for Amren. People here peddle the same lies as various liberal organizations. The same propaganda fed to my parents’ generation.

          • Daniel McGrath

            You need to wake up.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Biting stuff.

            That’s what passes for critique? Sarcasm?

            Lol.

            What about

            “We ought to have let Hitler stay, it couldn’t have been any worse for Moise!”

            “The positive side of Islamization is that eventually they’ll get the hint and make Aaliyah!”

          • Anna Tree

            I am an atheist but I think they plenty mud the religions (I am not anti-religion though: I actually think religions are a product of evolution and society, and are needed.) Of course it is always possible to mud more. As you can see in the comments of this articles (as in the poll), people are divided: some thought Charlie Hebdo mud them too much, some like you think not enough. I think they were obscene and prodiversity liberal leftists and as such their message was as detrimental to our white countries as any other of the threats we are having, including islam or rich powerful prodiversity liberal leftists Jews.

            I think your first joke is less mud that for example the first cartoon I put up and your second joke would never have made it to Charlie Hebdo because as I explained, they were for mass-immigration, including from muslims. They just didn’t like islam like they didn’t like any religion. I mean that they know that islamization is not only a threat to the Jews, but directly a threat to themselves, anarchist laxist liberal leftists and to the whole French population. In this they were the only brave to say what they think. It’s just a pity it was for their love of sex and wine, and not for the love of their race.

        • Daniel McGrath

          That’s the sort of leftism that is the spiritual twin of Judaism.

        • Garrett Brown

          How does one become a non religious Muslim?

          • Anna Tree

            I presume the same way as any non-religious people from other faith. But there is differences as islam is not like other religions.

            Most muslims don’t really follow islam: they are cherry picking the verses their conscience allows. They are giving a false good image of islam. Consciously or not though, they are Trojan horses and could turn truer muslim any day, so tick tick tick

            A muslim doesn’t have to marry his teen daughter to a 54 year
            old or behead an infidel like allah and his prophet orders or did. Just being a muslim, and moreover an imam, following the koran, the ahadith, the sirah and the shariah and seeing mohamed as his model express the acceptation and promotion of such marriage or of jihad. “That is the magic of the “psychological dissonance” at play.

            Yes the muslim mind is quite capable of hearing hip hop and having an infidel girlfriend while learning from the koran that he has to kill infidels. The muslim mind is capable of holding “pedophilia is wrong” and at the same time revering “prophet” mohamed who had sex with a child. Capable of holding “it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion” and revering a verse of the koran like 9:123 “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep
            their duty (unto Him).” as perfectly valid and be unable to see the contradiction MOST of the time. Deception is truly the farthest thing for most nice muslims. They really do believe the moderation they tell us all the time. They really do believe that “Islam is the most moral, is the middle way, is a religion of peace”.

            However, for some nice muslims for one reason or another reading and becoming close to the koran becomes necessary due to the vissicitudes of life for after all that seems to be the main personal use of religion.
            For those muslims the psychological dissonance tends to get resolved and one ends up with the nice young iranian american student driving his SUV into a crowd of his fellow students, or an american soldier who had been serving his country with his kaffir citizens lobbing a grenade into their tent, or a siddiqui (pious) born and bred in england and working with kaffirs and their children feeling the need to tie a bomb and blowing himself and the kaffirs to bits in a bus. It is only recently that for a very few the dissonance is resolved and they choose apostasy and a walk into freedom. So yes, tick tick tick … is how the kaffirs have to view ALL muslims amongst them.”

          • Garrett Brown

            There is no such thing as a nice Muslim. If a Muslim is “nice” they aren’t Muslim. Same reasoning for a gay Christian, it’s contradictory to their holy doctrine, therefor they don’t understand or believe in it.

      • John Smith

        And Amren.

  • MekongDelta69

    First World = Freedom
    Third World = No freedom

  • I will just repeat what others have said: This just shows that non-Whites look at things differently than we do. Their values are different. Also, they equate Islam with non-Whites, whether they are Muslim or not. This shows that liberty and freedom are White concepts not shared by the other people in the world.

    • Itooktheredpill

      They have a completely different way of thinking. Its part of the reason why I don’t bother ever seriously trying to converse with them. I know its futile, often akin to speaking with a white teenager.

  • Simonetta

    This poll confirms that Black-American culture is essentially fascist at its core. Blacks firmly believe in using violence to force other Blacks to follow the dictates and norms of Black culture, however dysfunctional that these norms may be. The is called ” ‘hood justice” by the Blacks. And ‘due process’ ? “What be that? ‘nother white man’s trick ” .

    This crypto-fascist undercurrent of Black culture shows up in this poll where about half of the Blacks polled (the poll doesn’t break down the numbers between non-whites, so the numbers may be skewed by predominant Asian belief in the necessity of severe state suppression of dissent political opinion) believe that an authority, any authority, has equal justification to ban opinions that it doesn’t like simply because it is claims that it is an authority. And justifies this claim by its willingness to use violence against anyone who does not accept their authority, or who just doesn’t do what the blacks who claim to be community leaders tell them to do. Hence the Black community’s ‘respect’ for Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, and Crips/Bloods thugs.

    This crypto-fascist nature of Black culture is a legacy of slavery, where Blacks always eventually ended up just doing whatever they were told to do, regardless of how insane or absurd that it was. This predilection towards fascism is not a result of low IQ levels, because it is found in the East Asians, Germans, and Russians, who are mostly above world IQ averages.

    • The Dude

      Asians may be more inclined to limit free expression (although they seem to be doing a good job protecting it in Japan and South Korea), but it’s very unlikely they’d include blasphemy in it. Especially one aimed at an Abrahamic religion.

  • pcmustgo

    Some of this may have something to do with white liberals and non-whites equating these cartoons with “racist” cartoons, like those showing Blacks as apes or whatever… Many have trouble understanding Islam is not a race, but a “religion”. Regardless, we need to be able to critisize all cultures and groups.

  • pcmustgo

    We all know Diversity in general leads to more superficiality, mine fields of free speech/open/honest communication where even saying things like “Oh, I don’t want to live in Bed-Stuy, it’s a dangerous neighborhood”, can lead to tantrums, cries of “Racism” and threats from Blacks and White Liberals, etc, etc… Diversity in general creates this problem and will lead to crackdowns on free speech just to “keep the peace” between differing ethnic groups.

  • MBlanc46

    Once again, solid evidence that whites and non-whites can’t get along in the same polity. Men and women aren’t doing so well, either.

    • Spikeygrrl

      Feminazis give the rest of us ladies a bad name.

      What gives most men a bad name will attain its annual apotheosis tomorrow evening in Glendale, AZ.

      How I wish this nation’s racial animus could be as simply solved as “the war between the sexes!” (Please note that I wrote “simply,” not “easily.”)

      • There can’t be a war between the sexes because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. And no, that’s not original on my part. Kissinger or Gerald Ford.

        OTOH, the SJWs are already starting to complain about the cisnormative privilege of the Super Bowl.

        • Spikeygrrl

          Superbowl aside, I really don’t understand this “cis” thing. I know it means typical ( = NORMAL) heterosexuality, but what’s the etymology? AFAIK it has no root in Greek, Latin, or any of the Northern European languages…but I’m no scholar of formal linguistics and in this instance would love to be wrong.

          • Cis/trans actually is discrete from hetero/homo. Cis is a person who identifies with his or her physical gender, in contrast to trans, which is someone who identifies across genders. It is possible to be both homosexual and cisgendered at the same time, in fact, most homosexuals are cisgendered. That’s the whole deal with Mount Holyoke College; the transgenders are mad that the plain ole regular lesbians that run the joint aren’t social justicey and civil rightsey enough anymore because they’re cisgendered.

            Of course, as I type that, I have to do everything I can to keep from laughing my tail off, because it’s all a bunch of bunko quackery. The whole motivation of it is that when your goal is to make the deviant acceptable, it is also incumbent upon you trivialize the normal into a mere choice. This is where “cis” comes from. It’s a rhetorical device to reduce normalcy (people identify with their physical gender) into a choice that is on par with trans.

          • Spikeygrrl

            I’m sorry I was unclear. I KNOW what it MEANS, I’m just chasing the etymology.

      • MBlanc46

        I can say that I won’t be watching. If I weren’t going to be outside with the snowblower, I’d be inside with a book. Not that I look down my nose at sport, but what’s happening in AZ has a lot more to do with consumerism than sport. I’ve always been a troglodyte who thinks that men and women rein in the other’s extreme behavior, but that view is now considered misogynist and probably rape apologist.

        • Spikeygrrl

          Crazy, isn’t it? Just plain bat-[poop] crazy.

  • John Smith

    This is what happens when you let low IQ minority groups and people from third-world sh-tholes with no respect for democracy into an advanced, freedom-loving nation. Toss in a few self-serving (and/or self-loathing) white and “sorta white” Marxists to put a flourish on things.

  • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

    If there ever was a topic deserving of ridicule, politically correct superstitions (religions) are it.
    Blasphemy: When rational honest people tell the truth about religion.

    • Magician

      Lol

  • Paul Franken

    Bringing the Charlie Hebdo ‘false flag’ into this discussion is disingenuous. We know who financed Hebdo and the ‘targets’ of Hebdo.

  • mikey7777

    It still is NOT A BIG DEAL… in Africa and the rest of the middle east…third worlders …coincidence I think not..As someone or a few of you have stated…Their way of thinking and culture is not compatible with ours.Slavery ended only by WHITES and WHITE nations .And only the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,majority white,fought a war over ending slavery.Only the United States and white people.FOR NOTHING.bLACKS NEED WHITES whites do not need blacks

  • Daniel McGrath

    Lithos just proves that we must expell blacks and browns before they rape our daughters and murder out sons.

  • caughy

    The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are sickeningly offensive, depicting the most gross homosexual behavior. They don’t justify the murder of the staff and others but they exemplify the moral differences between the French and other parts of the world. If Jews had been portrayed in the cartoons as the Muslims were, the magazine would have been labeled anti-Semitic and probably shut down.

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      Don’t forget to look at the cartoons they made of Jesus and Virgn Mary and the Holy Spirit. In one cartoon they have the Trinity sodomizing each other. Charlie Hebdo was scum. He did not deserve to die, but he needed to be punished for doing this. He dug his own grave. So no loss here.

      • The Dude

        “… he needed to be punished for doing this.”

        You’re part of the problem, dude.

        • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

          The dude, I guess you did not read the whole comment like a stupid jerk that you are. I did not say that he deserved to die. I just said that he needed to be punished. Punishment can be anything other than death. ‘The Dude’, you are not a solution either.

          • The Dude

            I didn’t infer you wanted him dead. But if you want someone punished (presumably you’d be okay with them being fined or jailed by the State) for blasphemous cartoons, then you’re no different than most Muslims. You’re part of the problem.

          • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

            Well I take it that you are not religious. Well not by the state, but he got his own punishment from others. He knew that he was getting into dangerous waters. You need to wake up and smell the crap. I do not like Muslims, but what Charlie was doing was bad overall. Investigate a litte

          • The Dude

            France had a long bloody history of beating with a stick Catholic men of the cloth who screamed “Enfer et damnation !” whenever their religious sensibilities were hurt. Those men as well as religious laymen were eventually taught to let things go and keep out of trying to censor blasphemy or as much as think about interfering with the public political domain. With today’s deservedly tamed Catholics, and thanks to the centuries-old struggles of French secularists, cartoonists in France were not “getting into dangerous waters” anymore. And they shouldn’t. Ridiculing religion shouldn’t get you into dangerous waters. And again, whoever think it should are part of the problem, regardless of their religion.

          • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

            Well then let me ridicule your wife, your mom, sisters and your daughters. Let’s see if you will let it pass. Get a life you liberal.

          • The Dude

            Then I’ll just ridicule back your wife, your mom, sisters, etc. Ridiculing shouldn’t require punishment.

            I should be the one telling you to get a life, to learn to move on. You’re a threat to free speech.

          • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

            Not a threat to free speech, just using common sense. Yeah right, you will not just do that, but try and take a swig. Go troll on a liberal website and. There is a limit to everything. Remember, do everything in moderation. I bet you have never heard of that before.

          • The Dude

            Your limits are very low. Think how many people (males and females) Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Ramzpaul combined ridicule in a week. Now think if all those people (or their relatives) tried to take a swig at these comedians every week because they ridiculed them and their relatives, or hurt some of their sensibilities (religious or other).

            You’re not suited for a free society. Your standards are too conservative even by today’s average Western conservatives’ standards. You’d be like a fish in water in Saudi Arabia though, or 17th-century Europe.

          • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

            Well I do not watch Bill Maher and others and of course I do not care what they say. I do not approve of them making religious jokes. God forbid if they should insult the jews or islam. Well then, Let me send them a message to insult your mother and your wife since you do not mind.
            You are not suited to live in a commonsensical society. Like I said, there are limits to everything, even to your foolishness.

          • Anna Tree

            I think we do impose common sense on what is humor. But when extremist Muslims want to impose the rules of the common sense, some are brave enough to draw a line. A line that protects you and me, it’s a mix of Reverend Niemoller’s “First they came for the communists etc” and Benjamin Franklin’s “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

          • Daniel McGrath

            Hebdo-esque French Republican attitudes are degerate. France is in trouble because it has abandoned Catholicism.

          • Anna Tree

            Because you think Catholicism survived better than the secular republicans?
            The Pope just invited a transsexual with his fiance to the Vatican!

            I am not happy or teasing when I write this, I am sad: unfortunately, the generation is degenerate, and it is not the first one, not the one to be blamed in my opinion, it started gradually for some time I think, but I conceded that a weaken Christianity was a weaknesses, although I believe Christianity with its pro-diversity messages, is part of the problem too. We need a white religion for Whites.
            All white groups, men or women, religious or not, Catholics or Protestants, intellectuals or not, rich or not etc are in troubles.
            Family values don’t belong to only the religious, morals existed before religion, it is a product of our instinct and need for gregarious life and happiness.

            No the disease has attacked us all. Let’s not point fingers and work together to fight it and build anew our white countries, or new ones with this time defenses against our weaknesses and against our enemies strength as well. As I said we need a white religion for White people and we need to rekindle with genophilia. We need to confront pathological altruism and political correctness and to understand our uniqueness to grasp the limits of projection and welfare, that is our values works in white homogeneous nations. etc (I will reread myself tomorrow, too tired)

          • Daniel McGrath

            Getting rid of the consecrated throne of France was the beginning of the end for France.

          • Anna Tree

            I came to appreciate monarchy compared to democracy (notably because our nations were mutilated by diversity, the loss of family values etc) but when the kings don’t care about their people and country, sadly the people make mistakes too, and can follow the wrong guys.
            I believe many of the white elites are from the European aristocracy. Are they making those same mistakes again (not caring of their people) or are they taking revenge/turning the table on their people? I don’t know.

          • The Dude

            My example of those comedians was that if everyone got all mobish when they or their relatives get ridiculed, we wouldn’t be able to live in a free civilized society like today’s.

            I didn’t say I didn’t mind. I’m just saying ridiculing someone doesn’t warrant the punishment you have in mind. It’s not common sensical; it’s stupidly petty and medieval. The kinds of things today’s Middle Easterners get so much hung about.

            And these humorists do joke heavily about Jews and Muslims. If you got out of your conspiracy theories bubble you’d notice it.

          • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

            Like I said, there are limits to everything, including your foolishness. You do not know what punishment I have in mind. I did not say that they should die. So you are wrong on that mark. They should be stopped from ridiculing religions as they will cause a lot of trouble. You clearly do not see the point in that. It is like talking to a brick wall since you do not get what I am trying to say. Of course America is part of the west. Did I say it wasn’t? You really assume a lot and you know what they say about people that Ass-u-me. So get back to me when you have a proper understanding of what I am trying to say. In the old days people respected each other and there were limits. When you cross over limits trouble begins. Now give me the names of your women folk and I will send them to Bill Maher and others to insult and also to some cartoonists to make lewd cartoons of them.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Two of your satirists are Tribal. Their targets are predictable and the jokes formulaic. They never go after truly crazy bastards like Hagee or Sharpton. The targets are very selective and kosher.

          • The Dude

            Yes, they’re left-wing, so their targets will be mostly right-wingers. And Bill Maher did mock Sharpton a couple of weeks in his mid-show spoof. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that people shouldn’t make a big deal about ridicule or being ridiculed.

            I’m not getting into the whole “dem Joos!” thing… Not anymore. Not worth it. If you guys want to believe into that whole “Tribe” conspiracy then knock yourselves out. But you’re making us all look bad.

          • Daniel McGrath

            The Catholic Church was created in the 4th century to protect the group identity of Romans. It was at core anti Semitic from inception. It’s not always served to protect the flock from exploitation, certainly not since Vatican II, but it’s the pillar of the West. The French Republic is degenerate.

          • The Dude

            “The French Republic is degenerate.”

            Because? (Not that that this vague word means means much really, being thrown around right and left by anything puritans feel icky about.)

          • Anna Tree

            I disliked Charlie Hebdo for many reasons, including their obscenity and vulgarity. I just didn’t buy the rag. Only the Muslims kill instead of not buying a rag, that almost nobody read.
            By the way, the Muslims killed them not because of vulgarity but because they draw the face of mohamed or made fun of him. Charlie Hebdo was far more aggressive with every other religion and everyone else. They were much careful with islam. But even special rights are not enough for Muslims extremists, they want the sharia period.

            Jews and Christians have been portrayed with obscenities while “prophet” Mohamed and not so much Muslims were. That is also a big difference. Anyway please look at the numerous cartoons we post from “Shoah Hebdo” about Jews and see you were wrong.

        • Daniel McGrath

          Hebdo was trash. Sadly it required Africans to over react to it.

          Hebdo is a nation wrecking fraud.

          • The Dude

            How about this? Don’t read it. No Africans required.

          • Daniel McGrath

            Wtf are you taking?

            Opium?

          • The Dude

            If you don’t like some publication, don’t read it. How hard is that?

          • jayvbellis

            The supposed option of anything goes Libertine, Libertarianism in the West is simply a false choice .

            We are under attack, facing real genocide in what were once our countries. We looking straight in the face at suffering the same terrible fate of Whites in Santo Domingo Haiti, Algeria, Rhodesia, Selma Alabama. We have to now work together, circle the wagons and defend the collective rights/survival of our people. It simply is suicide to take the idea that everyone can do, say, write whatever they want include the worst porn, anti religious stuff.

            The only people who ever go for this anything goes Libertine, Libertarianism are delusional Whites.

            We must now become like the Muslims and defend our people, our history, our religions when we are insulted, attacked, the alternative is to be conquered, enslaved against by the worst Muslims, Blacks etc.

          • The Dude

            We will only be conquered through lax immigration laws and enforcement. That’s it. That’s the main area we should be focused on.

            I’ve always been a staunch opponent to Third-World immigration to our countries, despite being a libertarian. And so are many libertarians. So, no, it’s not anything goes. You can’t steal someone else’s money and run free. That won’t go. But that doesn’t mean I won’t stand up just as vehemently to those threatening my personal freedoms here at home.

            I won’t “defend” my religion. I will instead hammer those who do it in a mob-like way (mainly Muslims today), insult theirs, scar them emotionally with blasphemy over and over again until they accept our way of life or get the hell out. I’d rather beat the savages and Neanderthals with a stick to make them (at best) adopt or (at worst) accept our way of life than debase myself to their level and adopt their backward attitudes and compete with them.

            As for history, I agree, it should be defended against revisionism by putting it into the context of the time, etc. But only to correct the distortions attempted by Marxists or others in order to flood my area with Third Worlders; not because it’s my history.

            I don’t defend whites, or want to keep my country and even the whole world white because I’m white, but because it’s my personal preference to want to have whites around me. They’re easier on the eye, and they seem to be overall able to sustain good societies. Those are the only reasons I’m pro-white.

            I don’t dislike Muslims because I’m of a Christian heritage, but because they’re too conservative and are more of a threat to my personal freedoms and preferences. That’s the only reason I get more aggressive towards Islam and Muslims than towards Christians. And I will not do this by debasing myself to their level (restricting free speech, getting all puritanstic, etc), but by taming them into accepting our liberal, civilized ways.

            I don’t base my choices on such random things as ancestry and country of birth, but on my personal preferences. I look down upon nationalistic and fervent religious sentiments and the people who champion them. To me, those blood-and-soil, pride-for-the-sake-of-pride attitudes are regressive, medieval, and just plain stupid.

            The only point I am willing to compete – for lack of a better word – with the Third World is baby-making. Not because I value high fertility for its own sake, but because I see it as a buffer against non-whites. With the current expansion of the African population, we need a thicker buffer. If our populations were to ever mix in some country, I’d like to see whites as the absorbers, not the absorbed, as was the case for U.S. Amerindians. At the same time, every initiative should be encouraged to slow down the birthrates in those countries.

    • jayvbellis

      David Cole (former Jewish revisionist) has an interesting article over at Takimag about what happens when people insult, pi$& off Muslims and what happens if anyone in the West insults or p&$& off Jews.

      Cole argues that Muslims use violence,threats of violence to silence anyone who insults them. Jews rarely use physical violence, instead they work to marginalize anyone that insults them, they work to destroy the critic’s career, destroy his/her life.

      Both groups are very successful in silencing their critics/enemies.

  • Magician

    Well, I ran into this page which contained a few photos that describe the environment situation in China

    And it is not all that surpising if a country is overly populated while it is still in the process of developing and becoming industrialized, and if their local government cannot currently afford to pay attention to each and every detail of every part of their country

    viralnova[dot]com/chinese-pollution/?mb=fbko

  • DAWNOFNEWDAY

    Gee, whites overwhelmingly support free speech and free market more than nonwhites do. What a shocker.

  • libertarian1234

    “70% of whites, but just 37% of non-whites, say it was OK to publish the cartoons.”

    I’m a firm believer that race trumps everything else among the majority of non-whites and about 99% of blacks.

    This isn’t a free speech issue with blacks and some of the other non-whites. It is a racial issue as is everything with them.

    They saw all these white people on t.v. marching through the streets and as always they became immediately resentful.

    I’m pretty sure if the incident happened in a black country with blacks marching through the streets objecting as the French did about 95% of blacks in this country would be supporting the decision to publish the cartoons.

    It would be about the same with Hispanics if the white French protestors were Hispanic, but their percentage in support of the decision to publish would be much lower than the black percentage.

    These out-of-touch elites who are unaware of the severe racial biases and racism among non-whites….especially blacks…..are complete fools.

    And the media is about three levels below them.

    • pcmustgo

      A-men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Smith

    I see that his last speech was on the subject of black suffrage and citizenship in Louisiana.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I don’t want to offend my American friends, but I think you’re fetishizing democracy & free speech. Apart from national, my primary collective loyalties are cultural & civilizational, which implies “racial”: I want Western civilization not only to be preserved, but to expand & conquer. And without white phenotype, there is no Western civilization.

    Just: liberty, democracy etc. are ingredients & not fundamental props of Western civilization. The West has gone through severely limited democracy in Athens, Caesarism in Rome, Christian theocracy, rebirth of paganism during the Renaissance, mercantile liberalism from the 17th & 18th C on, Fascism & Nazism & Communism, then ultra-liberal democracy from 1990s onwards. Most great advances of this civilization had nothing to do with democracy (in the modern sense) & classical liberalism.

    In the US & Western Europe, democracy is now just a decadent phase of Western nations- nothing more. To preserve Western civilization, we should dump or restrict democracy for the time being, and not wallow in its degenerate mutations. Democracy is based on the belief on equality of human beings, and the equality of opportunity naturally leads to forced equality of outcome.

    I don’t see how white European phenotype can be preserved without the inclusion that in SOME areas human beings are NOT equal. And that would spell the end of liberal democracy, Euro-American type.

    • I think one of the Greek philosophers put it that the natural consequence of Democracy was an attempt at class equalization followed by anarchy. This was followed in turn by a Dictatorship.

      Actually the US was a Republic, not a Democracy when it was founded back around 1787 following our Revolution. Voting was restricted to educated, property-owning people only. Slowly, over the past 240 years voting has been extended to everyone: even ostensibly non-citizens who have a plethora of activist groups listening to their needs to make sure they get their “slice of the pie”. The pie of course being the produce of that diminishing proportion of educated workers who are highly taxed, publically castigated, and discouraged to reproduce.

      However a Democracy or Republic can florish because of the predictability of it’s laws: allowing its people to plan for the future. If we had a white nation, composed of a portion of the US, say a few North West states, led by a dictator like Melgarejo of Bolivia, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna of Mexico, or Dilma of Brazil, such a state could very well fail. Then with a dictatorship there is always the sucession problem.

      Thus while not wed to the current idea of a degenerate democracy, people have to be very careful moving forward. Also a Republic should work, given a certain intellectual level and ability among it’s voters.

    • jayvbellis

      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what they will have for lunch.

      Democracy is 70% Hutus slaughtering minority Tutsis because of tribal envy.

      Democracy is French Algeria being handed over to majority. Arab Muslims who proceed to offer minority Pied Noir Whites two options:

      The coffin or the suitcase.

      Democracy is Robert Mugabe taking away everything minority Whites had and giving it to… The people, his people.

      Democracy is Coleman Young, Harold Washington, Marion Barry.

      Democracy is the race missing Cuba Communist mayor of New York City with Al Sharpton calling most of the shots.

      Democracy is the fixed Republican Presidential system with Sheldon Adelson and the anti White media telling us we can only choose open borders, amnesty leaders who must, MUST worship Martin Luther King Jr as a God, saint, or even just a “Doctor”.

      Democracy &$&@

  • sulbernick

    He’s the Muslim prophet – NOT the prophet.

  • mikey7777

    Awesome ,I like your writing.And by the way I didn’t realize but I read somewhere that Whites,as A RACE,are the smallest, percentage wise, across the face of the earth.So I wonder how long this has actually been going on to eliminate the White race.

  • Cobbett

    Charlie Hebdo believes it’s at the cutting edge of satire – it’s pathetic and so are it’s cartoons.

    • libertarian1234

      Yes, I agree,

      They’re not a bit funny.

      But I’m glad they did what they did, because it has made the entire world aware of what multiculturalism has brought us.

      • Cobbett

        A bit late where France is concerned – there’s well over 6 million Muslims (as no data concerning race is kept no one really knows for sure) Although the immigrant new born is easily outstripping the native birth rate. France and W Europe is well and truly s*rewed.

  • Maximo Partagas

    IMHO, the majority of non-whites in the US would gladly give up freedom for their perceived security, both personal and financial. Freedom is a concept that is complex and requires higher thinking ability to be fully appreciated, most no-whites that I have encountered just don’t get it.

  • ricpic

    The divergence between whites and non-whites boils down to the fact that the concept of the individual and his rights has not emerged in any non-white non-western society. We always hear talk about good minorities, i.e. orientals. But orientals, productive as they may be, will never internalize the fierce love of individual liberty which is the cornerstone of our civilization, even in its degraded state. In fact the more minorities, good ones included, the more weakened that cornerstone.

  • Daniel McGrath

    When you dig into the who of the slave trade the answer doesn’t make the Jews look good. The Spaniards and Portuguese learned sugar cultivation from Arabs and Jews. Many Spaniards, French and Italians were used like cattle on Sugar Cane plantations run by Arabs and Jews. The Ottomans allowed the Jewish population to monopolize the enslavement of Christian boys as Janisaries too.

  • Daniel McGrath

    It’s simple. Blacks didn’t drop dead from Malaria in the way white men did. Thus they were able to colonize low lying estuaries and swamps where rice could be grown along with Sugar. Recall that America (13 colonies) only took in around 500,000 of the 12,000,000 blacks shipped over. Most blacks went to Brazil or Haiti.

  • Daniel McGrath

    Wasn’t the heat per se but the malarial zone. The tyoe of malaria that existed in the Southern States and in the Caribeen was lethal to whites.

  • Daniel McGrath

    I bet they were “Dutch” like Spinoza was Dutch.

    • Julius Caesar

      I can’t give this comment enough likes.

  • Proletarian Contemplations

    But you can’t judge people by race! You have to judge everyone as an individual, you nasty racists!

  • David Ashton

    Never mind about cartoons from an anti-Christian and anti-national rag. What about freedom across Europe to discuss racial variations, sexual deviations, genocide comparisons and ideological dominations? When will the heads of state grandstand together on these issues, especially during next year’s orchestrated run-up to the arrival of the Soviet arrival into another country’s wartime concentration camp?

  • Daniel McGrath

    Do you get tired on the sabbath?

  • JVG

    In the real world, there are no absolutes. When you demand your rights to be absolute, there is also scope for shirking responsibility absolutely. Consider the following 3 popular quotes:

    “The pen is mightier than the sword.”
    “Your liberty ends where mine begins.”
    “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    The summum-bonum of the quotes is that every person should have the right to critique wrong aspects in society. There should be no criticism for the sake of criticism. Let us consider this example. Some atheists are offended by religion, others choose to ignore it. Now, if the atheist puts out something offensive just to satiate his dislike for religion, it is wrong. Religion also has positive aspects, even if you choose to lampoon it. What he should do is criticize any social or ideological malpractices in religion.

    If these magazines had put out some cartoons criticizing burqa or sex slavery in Islam, then I would have understood the intention and supported it. But to portray Mohd as a homosexual, when the entire Islamic canon views homosexuality as a religious crime, is in gross violation of the reality. You can criticize the homophobic stance of Islam, but you can never depict Mohd as a homosexual, because it is not factual.

    Such misguided intellectuals misused their freedoms and imposed the Aryan Invasion Theory on India in the 19th century. Until recent genetic studies proved otherwise, India was split along racial lines. So intellectuals need to work with a sense of responsibility. Even the courts of India have ruled in this light.

    In the case of the latest issue of the magazine , I don’t find anything wrong with this cartoon of Mohd holding up the slogan of JeSuis Charlie. It has not portrayed him in bad light. It is said Mohd didn’t want his image to be created so that people wouldn’t worship him. The cartoon is definitely not worthy of worship. So Muslims must have no issues with this cartoon.

    In conclusion, freedom of speech and expression cannot be absolute because nobody can guarantee that it cannot be misused to further an agenda.