Blogs Coffee House

Charlie Hebdo: the truths that ought to be self-evident but still aren’t

7 January 2015

9:50 PM

7 January 2015

9:50 PM

Religious murderers gunned down European freedom in Paris today. Tonight everyone is defiant. I am just back from a ‘Je suis Charlie’ vigil in Trafalgar Square, and the solidarity was good to see. I fear it won’t last. I may be wrong. Perhaps tomorrow’s papers and news programmes will prove their commitment to freedom by republishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

But I doubt they will even have the courage to admit that they are too scared to show them. Instead we will have insidious articles, which condemn freedom of speech as a provocation and make weasel excuses for murder without having the guts to admit it.

Tony Barber, Europe editor of the Financial Times was first out of the blocks:

‘Charlie Hebdo is a bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire. It has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling Muslims.’

[Alt-Text]


The writer forgot to add that Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling everyone. It is a satirical magazine in a free country: that is what it does.

‘Two years ago the magazine published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet’s life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission (“Submission”), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.’

Notice the unconscious stereotyping as the charge sheet lengthens. Liberal Muslims I know would not dream of murdering cartoonists for offending ‘the Prophet’. Many of them are writing tonight denouncing the crime. All of them know that Charlie Hebdo’s enemies are their enemies too. Yet to the Financial Times, they are equally offended by a small French magazine, and equally supportive of assassination.

Oblivious to his own prejudices he continues

‘This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.’

Does the Financial Times have subeditors? Did no one spot that, having begun by saying that it does not want to condone murder, the Financial Times moved in two sentences to saying that Charlie Hebdo’s satirists have provoked their own deaths. Apparently, they ‘purport’ to believe in freedom of speech – the hypocrites. If only they had had the ‘common sense’ not to ‘provoke’ clerical fascism, then clerical fascists would not have come for them.

As there is much, much more in this vein coming, I offer you 10 truths that ought to be self-evident.

  • A religion is not a race. Sometimes, not always, it is a system of violent beliefs that claims the right to subjugate others – most notably its ‘own’ coerced adherents.
  • Undoubtedly there are white racists and Hindu nationalists who treat religion as a race and hate Muslims because they are Muslims. Their existence ought to present no problem to principled people, who should fight, criticise and satirise them with the same force and for the same reasons they fight religious obscurantism.
  • Criticism of religion – including bawdy irreverent criticism— is a defence against oppressive power.
  • In our time, the most oppressive religious movements are variants on radical Islam. That may change. You only have to look at Hindu fundamentalism in India or anti-Muslim Buddhist fundamentalism in Burma to see how. But for the present we must fight the enemies in front of us. What other choice do we have?
  • It is not ‘Islamophobic’ to satirise radical Islamists and their beliefs – the main targets of radical Islamists include other Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Yazidis and secularists.
  • Even if in your confused liberal mind you think that it is, no one has the right to stop satire or criticism because they are offended.
  • No one has the right to kill those who offend them.
  • If they claim that right, they are the most deserving targets of satire and criticism imaginable.
  • And if you do not then satirise and criticise them because you are frightened of ending up like Charlie Hebdo’s dead journalists, or of taking a whipping in a PC backlash, how can you in conscience satirise left or right wing politicians you despise, or the evangelical Christians, Jewish fundamentalists, Catholic reactionaries, Russian orthodox Putinists you deplore?
  • Are you not saying, if only when you are by yourself and think no one is listening: ‘I will only take on targets that won’t kill me, but steer clear of those who just might?’

PS Financial Times journalists have contacted me to point out that the comment piece on Charlie Hebdo represented the view of the Financial Times’ Europe Editor, not the all of the editors at the Financial Times. I have changed my post to make that clear. One cannot be too careful these days, after all.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Carlos Broch

    Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

    These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

    But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

    In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

    What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

    Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

    These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

    Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

    If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

    Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

    Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

    If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord.

    • roundtheblock

      Mr. Broch seems to have posted this contribution twice; once in reply to my own comment which might indicate that he thinks we may have some similarity in outlook.

      While I agree with some of the general points he makes, the language and phraseology he uses clearly veer into the anti-semitic. I am against all forms of racism and while this obviously makes me anti-zionist (one reason why I despise apologists for Zionist racism like Nick Cohen) I have no time for anti-semites either. What Mr. Broch refers to as ‘World Jewry’ should actually be called a global network of pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist individuals and groups who do indeed control much of the world’s media. However, this is not so much a World Jewish Conspiracy as a reflection of the way in which the divisions of the Cold War and the subsequent refocusing of hostility against newer targets and enemies has polarised and distorted issues. It also reflects the great success of the long standing Israeli policy of promoting Islamists like Hamas to undermine and replace the secular Palestinian leadership, thereby isolating the Palestinians from the rest of the world and boosting western support for Israel.

      The attendance of Netanyahu at the Paris procession (or the fake event staged in a side street with extras pretending to be ordinary Parisians), alongside a representative from the equally vile Saudi government (currently torturing a man in public for writing a ‘liberal’ – whatever that means – commentary on Saudi society) was utterly outrageous and shows how our leaders have lost all sense of morality or principal.

  • Carlos Broch

    test

  • Adliya Plaza

    A main plank of the Muslims’ case for free speech restrictions is the fact that the Jews have already engineered them in Europe, with prison sentences for criticising Jews, questioning the holocaust, etc.

    I’m certainly not advocating pro-Islamic thoughtcrime laws; rather, questioning why some groups get to have their detractors thrown out of their jobs and into prison, but others don’t. Better, perhaps, to permit actual free speech?

    Of course, Nick Cohen is well aware of this, but has chosen (ahem) not to mention it. Wonder why?

  • Henrik Larsen

    Hip-hurray for Boko Haram!
    In my country – Denmark – the infamous Jyllands Posten cartoons depicting the prophet, which were backed in solidarity by Charlie Hebdo, were widespread commented domestically as “dumb” and “unnecessary provocative”, especially it was argued because the cartoons mocked a minority.
    Also, having the doubtful luck of anewed data on this argument, it was pointed out that the threat against freedom of speach is much greater elsewhere, for example in Nigeria, where Boko Haram is excelling in the grimly deeds of snuffing out lives of non-believers and non-followers alike.
    Well, to the latter argument I would put it, that the threat is directed at upholding life as as such not against free speach, you can say what the h.. you like, if you are not converting or expressing unconditioned loyalty.
    To the argument of mocking a minority, I almost cannot stop laughing, imagining these alledged unafraid but fair and sensible editors awaiting muslims to be a majority, before they then? would have us believe, that mocking cartoons start flowing…
    And to the people having had the luck but not the appreciation to be born in freedom, who still would rather stick their head in the bush searching for greater calamities in the world outhere, so as to avoid assessing the threat in their own backgarden: Hurrray for Boko Haram!

  • Henrik Larsen

    @ara:
    Islam in itself does not do anything, it comes down to the decisions of its followers.
    Funny, that in the aftermath of the Hebdo massacre, that you and others again bring forward the argument, that one-point-so-and-so billion muslims are being offended when depicting the prophet, whilst we are being assured repeatedly that only a minute fraction of the muslim community condones the attacks.
    Which is it gonna be?

  • Karl Young

    Nice piece. This may have been a bit of a turning point. It is for me; I’ve had enough. With no disrespect for Islam I plan on finding and proudly wearing the most disrespectful Charlie Hebdo T-shirt I can find. If that means slightly decreasing my survival odds so be it; one can only accept so much.

  • trace9

    “.. Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete. ..”

    That is what happens when clicking on ‘blocks’. Blocks blocked? & what the deuce are they anyway??

  • Lydia Robinson

    I am so tired of hearing all the whining about poor marginalized, disenfranchised immigrants, as someone from an immigrant family and who has emigrated for work. It is not incumbent upon the host country to change their customs to suit you, only for them to provide you with the same rights as everyone else. One ridiculous commentator described Muslims in Paris as the same as Palestinians in Gaza!

  • Niko Belic

    “You only have to look at Hindu fundamentalism in India or anti-Muslim Buddhist fundamentalism in Burma to see how.”

    Hindu fundamentalists and Buddhist fundamentalists don’t travel to Western countries to inflict bloodshed on other people simply for having a different opinion or following a different religious cult. Muslim fundamentalism is off the scale altogether when it comes to attacking others.

  • Bryan Hammond

    There is a difference between ‘hate mail’ and satire, regrettably fundamental Islamists and Christians for that matter, do not accept . Fundamentaly they do not accept the democratic, secular state with freedom of expression. They are entitled to that opinion but cannot and crucially should not be allowed to prevail on others freedoms, that’s just what these gunmen in Paris did

  • wince

    ‘Liberal Muslims I know’. Individual manifestations of liberal sympathies in Muslims cannot balance out collective predilections.

    I know that Nick Cohen writes much that is clear-eyed on this subject. But even he fails here to address or admit the scale of the larger question, which is the future of Islam in Europe. When a high profile media liberal like Bill Maher is stating unequivocally that the number of Muslims who applaud such as the Paris extremists are by no means a tiny minority but more, that their numbers are such as to manifestly lie comfortably within a figure of numerosity as to attribute them ‘mainstream’, then we must pause to reflect on the silence of those Majority Muslim Moderates. Or should we say the Silent Majority Muslim Moderates?

    With countries such as Belgium or possibly Sweden set to become Muslim majority in a couple of decades, what evidence do we have that mainstream Islam will by then have completed or even begun its enlightenment? Its modernisation?

    Houellebecq’s novel of an Islamicised European state (which it has been posited may have been a catalyst for the Charlie Hebdo massacre), may eventually be conceded as fearfully prescient to the even the most sanguine amongst us.

    • James Lovelace

      “what evidence do we have that mainstream Islam will by then have completed or even begun its enlightenment”

      It’s worse. The signs are that younger muslims are 2x or 3x more fascistic than their parents.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6309983.stm

      Those who are sanguine can only remain so because they are deluded and blinkered. There is not one scrap of evidence to make anyone think that muslims will integrate or modernise.

      20 years ago I was one of those deluded sanguine idiots.

      • John Bindon

        Isn’t the article you have attached eight years old ? That’s not to say it wouldn’t be true if conducted tomorrow..

        • James Lovelace

          Yeah, right.

          And tomorrow the sun might not rise. Ye gods, you Quislings are really scraping the barrel when it comes to attempted refutations. The thing is, I know that eventually you are going to realise that your self-delusion has reached its end.

          I was you. You will be me.

          • John Bindon

            A quisling ? I was merely pointing out that the date of the article you referenced is January 29th 2007, unless I’m reading it wrongly. I’m not refuting the accuracy of the findings. Calm down, old chap.

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord. 18

  • Jody Taylor

    Since this article hit the internet there have been other attacks in Paris. The naysayers will be terribly busy disproving any link to Islam. Last night Ayaan Hirshi Ali appeared on Australian TV saying that unless people accept the schizophrenic nature of Islam – hatred and subjugation/peace and love – and the media stops self-censoring to placate minorities living in Europe nothing will change. She makes a good deal of sense and one thing the Left must do is shut down this debate. Not because the Left cares necessarily about people and outcomes but because it wants to avoid being totally discredited through its denialist mentality and moral posturing.

    One thing, so far, all these Islamofascists in Paris have had in common: all have been through the constant revolving door of the prison system. Here’s an idea; why not drop the leniency and rehabilitation tic and provide some meaningful sanctions against re-offenders? Why not purposely and directly advocate and enact community protection instead of proclaiming that the answer to stopping criminal behaviour is softer punishment (and more welfare and tender caring words) and the lenient treatment of deviant behaviour?

    Ultimately, of course, this discussion WILL NOT be stopped because there are many many thousands of people like me who are fed up to the back teeth with the pollyanna antics of the loony left in all aspects of the polity. They have to get out of the road now and let the adults take charge.

    The Left won’t lie down over this, of course. Instead they will demonize their real opponents – the Right – in their ongoing cultural wars (with themselves, as it turns out)!

    • Lydia Robinson

      The journalists at Charlie were left wingers of the old style, not the current spineless creatures enamoured of a medieval religion. Like most useful idiots, they are mere tools in a dangerous game.

  • roundtheblock

    Although I dislike Nick Cohen as a rule I find myself in agreement with
    nearly all of his ten points. I might quibble over the term ‘Hindu
    Fundamentalists’ (as there are no fundamentals in Hinduism so the phrase
    is almost an oxymoron) but I know what he means, I note that Cohen does
    not mention Jewish Zionists amongst those who might encourage ‘racist’
    hatred against Muslims (along with any others who obstruct the project
    for a racially defined Jewish State in Eretz Israel – but that’s another argument) and I deplore his crimes against grammar in starting sentences with ‘And’… but basically I agree with his main thrust.

    However,
    Cohen fails to take his argument to the necessary and logical
    conclusion (at least in this article) and openly state that we must
    confront not just the murderously violent and deranged Jihadists who set
    out to terrorise and kill anyone who ‘offends’ them or their religion,
    but also the Islamist ideology which nurtures and supports and provides
    them with the justification for their brutal assaults on our freedom to
    satirise or criticise their beliefs. Violent Jihadism is not some
    genetic aberration that affects a small minority of Muslims but a
    symptom of the broad stream of Islamist ideology that runs through
    mainstream Islamic belief and preaching. Islamists are not all violent
    and many would claim to condemn the murders in Paris this week but they all
    provide the ideological and theological justification and encouragement
    for such violence. An example who appears regularly on our TV screens is
    the obnoxious Iqbal Sacranie – former Chair of the Muslim Council of
    Britain.

    On Wednesday night Sacranie appeared on Newsnight to
    condemn the Paris murders and the n immediately used this as a platform
    to call for legal restrictions on the right of people like Charlie
    Hebdo (or any of us) to satirise or criticise his beliefs and his
    prophets. He stared that an attack on Mohammed was like an attacking the
    sisters or mothers of Muslims – the clear implication being that this
    would be taken as a physical attack and that Muslims were therefore
    justified in mounting a physical response in retaliation. The man was on
    the BBC’s flagship current affairs TV programme justifying mass murder.
    This is the Islamist creed and it is, as Cohen rightly says, clerical
    fascism and must be identified as such as vigorously opposed.

    Those
    who equate verbal, artistic or written criticism or satirising of their
    beliefs with a violent physical assault, justifying violent
    retaliation, must be exposed and isolated and not treated as if they are
    serious and responsible commentators. However, the response of our
    government and the BBC is to duck a fight with this ideology and instead
    pretend that the problem is merely a few people who distort and
    misinterpret the message of Islam.

    It is true that the problem
    of confronting Islamism is huge given that it is so mainstream amongst
    Islamic religious schools. However, we have made the problem far worse
    by pandering to these people for decades. We allow them to run schools
    to indoctrinate the younger generation in their creed and the most
    obvious forms of Islamist belieef (eg. the demand for Sharia courts and
    the notion that apostasy must be punished by man and not just by god)
    are rarely denounced fort what they are. Sacranie was barely challenged
    over his statement on Wednesday night (Steve Bell was rather
    lily-livered I thought) and many other so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists
    are also let off the hook by interviewers.

    This is an ideological
    struggle and we must confront it as such, which means defending
    ourselves physically against the Jihadists and also politically attacking
    their ideological support structure.

    • Lydia Robinson

      Spot on!

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord.

  • Mark

    Why is taking a Monday stroll in Germany a sign of dangerous tendencies whereas attending a vigil in Paris or Trafalgar Square is de rigeur for right thinking people?

    Why is extinguishing lights in Dresden and Cologne a mark of disapproval but in Paris a mark of solidarity?

    why have I had to self censor to get this posted?

    • Guest

      Although I dislike Nick Cohen as a rule I find myself in agreement with
      nearly all of his ten points. I might quibble over the term ‘Hindu
      Fundamentalists’ (as there are no fundamentals in Hinduism so the phrase
      is almost an oxymoron) but I know what he means, I note that Cohen does
      not mention Jewish Zionists amongst those who might encourage ‘racist’
      hatred against Muslims (along with any others who obstruct the project
      for a racially defined Jewish State in Eretz Israel – but that’s another argument) and I deplore his crimes against grammar in starting sentences with ‘And’… but basically I agree with his main thrust.

      However,
      Cohen fails to take his argument to the necessary and logical
      conclusion (at least in this article) and openly state that we must
      confront not just the murderously violent and deranged Jihadists who set
      out to terrorise and kill anyone who ‘offends’ them or their religion,
      but also the Islamist ideology which nurtures and supports and provides
      them with the justification for their brutal assaults on our freedom to
      satirise or criticise their beliefs. Violent Jihadism is not some
      genetic aberration that affects a small minority of Muslims but a
      symptom of the broad stream of Islamist ideology that runs through
      mainstream Islamic belief and preaching. Islamists are not all violent
      and many would claim to condemn the murders in Paris this week but they all
      provide the ideological and theological justification and encouragement
      for such violence. An example who appears regularly on our TV screens is
      the obnoxious Iqbal Sacranie – former Chair of the Muslim Council of
      Britain.

      On Wednesday night Sacranie appeared on Newsnight to
      condemn the Paris murders and the n immediately used this as a platform
      to call for legal restrictions on the right of people like Charlie
      Hebdo (or any of us) to satirise or criticise his beliefs and his
      prophets. He stared that an attack on Mohammed was like an attacking the
      sisters or mothers of Muslims – the clear implication being that this
      would be taken as a physical attack and that Muslims were therefore
      justified in mounting a physical response in retaliation. The man was on
      the BBC’s flagship current affairs TV programme justifying mass murder.
      This is the Islamist creed and it is, as Cohen rightly says, clerical
      fascism and must be identified as such as vigorously opposed.

      Those
      who equate verbal, artistic or written criticism or satirising of their
      beliefs with a violent physical assault, justifying violent
      retaliation, must be exposed and isolated and not treated as if they are
      serious and responsible commentators. However, the response of our
      government and the BBC is to duck a fight with this ideology and instead
      pretend that the problem is merely a few people who distort and
      misinterpret the message of Islam.

      It is true that the problem
      of confronting Islamism is huge given that it is so mainstream amongst
      Islamic religious schools. However, we have made the problem far worse
      by pandering to these people for decades. We allow them to run schools
      to indoctrinate the younger generation in their creed and the most
      obvious forms of Islamist belieef (eg. the demand for Sharia courts and
      the notion that apostasy must be punished by man and not just by god)
      are rarely denounced fort what they are. Sacranie was barely challenged
      over his statement on Wednesday night (Steve Bell was rather
      lily-livered I thought) and many other so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists
      are also let off the hook by interviewers.

      This is an ideological
      struggle and we must confront it as such, which means defending
      ourselves physically against the Jihadists and also politically attacking
      their ideological support structure.

    • Carlos Broch

      Although I dislike Nick Cohen as a rule I find myself in agreement with
      nearly all of his ten points. I might quibble over the term ‘Hindu
      Fundamentalists’ (as there are no fundamentals in Hinduism so the phrase
      is almost an oxymoron) but I know what he means, I note that Cohen does
      not mention Jewish Zionists amongst those who might encourage ‘racist’
      hatred against Muslims (along with any others who obstruct the project
      for a racially defined Jewish State in Eretz Israel – but that’s another argument) and I deplore his crimes against grammar in starting sentences with ‘And’… but basically I agree with his main thrust.

      However,
      Cohen fails to take his argument to the necessary and logical
      conclusion (at least in this article) and openly state that we must
      confront not just the murderously violent and deranged Jihadists who set
      out to terrorise and kill anyone who ‘offends’ them or their religion,
      but also the Islamist ideology which nurtures and supports and provides
      them with the justification for their brutal assaults on our freedom to
      satirise or criticise their beliefs. Violent Jihadism is not some
      genetic aberration that affects a small minority of Muslims but a
      symptom of the broad stream of Islamist ideology that runs through
      mainstream Islamic belief and preaching. Islamists are not all violent
      and many would claim to condemn the murders in Paris this week but they all
      provide the ideological and theological justification and encouragement
      for such violence. An example who appears regularly on our TV screens is
      the obnoxious Iqbal Sacranie – former Chair of the Muslim Council of
      Britain.

      On Wednesday night Sacranie appeared on Newsnight to
      condemn the Paris murders and the n immediately used this as a platform
      to call for legal restrictions on the right of people like Charlie
      Hebdo (or any of us) to satirise or criticise his beliefs and his
      prophets. He stared that an attack on Mohammed was like an attacking the
      sisters or mothers of Muslims – the clear implication being that this
      would be taken as a physical attack and that Muslims were therefore
      justified in mounting a physical response in retaliation. The man was on
      the BBC’s flagship current affairs TV programme justifying mass murder.
      This is the Islamist creed and it is, as Cohen rightly says, clerical
      fascism and must be identified as such as vigorously opposed.

      Those
      who equate verbal, artistic or written criticism or satirising of their
      beliefs with a violent physical assault, justifying violent
      retaliation, must be exposed and isolated and not treated as if they are
      serious and responsible commentators. However, the response of our
      government and the BBC is to duck a fight with this ideology and instead
      pretend that the problem is merely a few people who distort and
      misinterpret the message of Islam.

      It is true that the problem
      of confronting Islamism is huge given that it is so mainstream amongst
      Islamic religious schools. However, we have made the problem far worse
      by pandering to these people for decades. We allow them to run schools
      to indoctrinate the younger generation in their creed and the most
      obvious forms of Islamist belieef (eg. the demand for Sharia courts and
      the notion that apostasy must be punished by man and not just by god)
      are rarely denounced fort what they are. Sacranie was barely challenged
      over his statement on Wednesday night (Steve Bell was rather
      lily-livered I thought) and many other so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists
      are also let off the hook by interviewers.

      This is an ideological
      struggle and we must confront it as such, which means defending
      ourselves physically against the Jihadists and also politically attacking
      their ideological support structure.19

  • balance_and_reason

    The girls in the liberal party will be screaming for the SAS when the bullets start spattering around………….same ol story.

  • Liberanos

    Not in My Name? The same club, the same rules, the same banner, the same god? Only true if those gunmen in Paris, following the religious imperatives of the koran to the letter, and so devout they were willing to offer their lives for islam, were somehow not doing so on behalf of their shared faith.

    • sebastian2

      You might say – correctly – that muslims have an islam problem. And as long as they do and live among us, we will as well.

  • tani15

    Well said.Incidentally I hope this outrage leads to some soul-searching among those who claim to be “liberal” about whether they adopt different standards..

  • WinstonC

    Please, I do not want anyone from the UK to lecture me on free speech, that stuff is for grown ups. You are far better off starting with protecting 10.000 children from being gang-raped by supporters of the pedophile prophet. Lets talk again when you in 15-30 years have ended the phase of posh discussions and have achieved something that remotely looks and feels like child protection. Babysteps.. babysteps

    • James Lovelace

      It’s 10,000 schoolgirls groomed and raped PER YEAR according to the ACPO. That is what the ACPO estimate is a minimum (they say it’s “tens of thousands” each year).

      There is clear evidence that it was already a massive problem 20 years ago (see McLoughlin’s grooming book “Easy Meat”).

      Based on this, it is likely somewhere in the region of 100,000 victims. Again, the scale of this outrage is something the media and the “childcare professionals” are keeping hidden, and trying to confuse the Demos by claims that a dead DJ was also a child abuser.

  • rtj1211

    Perhaps you would like to ask whether someone has the right to completely ignore a family member who has a dominance complex and go about life trying to forget the unpleasant fact that they exist??

    Perhaps you should ask whether that dominance-complex-infested family member has the right to destroy the enjoyment of everything I do, even if they could do it independently quite easily??

    Perhaps you would like to ask whether dominance dungeon behaviour should be incompatible with practicing medicine, since its effect is to destroy mental and emotional equilibrium of a human being, which as far as I am concerned is against the Hippocratic oath??

    Perhaps you would like to ask why you have the right to define the mechanisms of offending others? You have defined it as acceptable to needle and taunt and say that those needled and taunted should respond in kind?? Why should they if they aren’t any good at that??

    Why shouldn’t they tell you that if you don’t desist, they will wreak vengeance?? They haven’t killed you, they’ve told you that they are not prepared to tolerate your behaviour and there will be consequences if you continue. If you did continue after that threat (no action, just a threat) you deserve what you get, namely irreversible effects.

    I’m assuming of course that I’m not coercing anyone, I’m not a religious firebrand, I’m just an impecunious British subject who has been taunted all his iife by working class self-absorbed thugs who equate their thuggery with ambition. I don’t. I equate it with their thuggery and their unsuitability to be in any position of responsibility.

    Now at what point do you actually ask the question as to who GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DEFINE THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT??

    I do not consent to your kind taunting me growing up for no better reason than I was small, fairly weedy and did what all politicians told me to do, namely apply myself properly in school.

    I do not consent to having to be beaten up in primary school playgrounds by your kind to expiate your own feelings of uselessness, your need to feel a man by duffing someone in like a useless bully.

    I do not consent to being taunted by gangs of your kind, just because my genetics said that I grew at the same speed as Steven Gerrard did, rather than needing to shave at 13 years old. As you’ve seen the past 15 years, Steven Gerrard’s late growth spurt didn’t stop him contributing to society, did it?? So what is it about you London thugs that can’t tolerate people like me, eh?? Why is your behaviour worthy of you defining the agenda??

    I believe in pre-emptive strike action in response to unprovoked thuggery because fist fights don’t favour me.

    Why should I be required to lose to order because you tell me to?? Well???

    Do you think that your kind would grow up more humane if you’d watched one of your kind sacrificed by being brutally flogged?? Kicked in their genitals when they were down?? Had their arms broken with a baseball bat to teach them how to behave??

    Well??

    I am not a Muslim radical, I am someone who carries a lot of hatred for people like you because you didn’t know how to behave growing up and I was expected to turn the other cheek and tolerate it. Well, I was forced to tolerate it but I do not forgive you, I do not love you and I do not respect you. Society tolerates your thuggery and bullying because society is run by your kind.

    Well: you just think one moment and worry about what might happen to your kind if my kind ever held the levers of power. It would do you a very great deal of good to wonder just what I might do to you and you will just have to pray that I won’t do anything to your children to wipe your bloodline out.

    Now go away and think about who defines the rules of engagement, why other than being bullying thugs they have earned the right to define them and why they should expect the bullied to either respect those rules, tolerate the rulers and engage according to the rulers’ rules??

  • Paige
  • sebastian2

    “Europe has a terrorism problem, not a Muslim problem” (quote from the DT). This comforting apology is false.

    It’s like saying that the victims of planes that mohammedans fly into buildings have an air-traffic control problem; or that those selected out by religion and then shot, have a purely random choice problem; or that seconds before a beheading, the prisoner has a difficulty with sharp implements. Crowds of praying mohammedans that block highways simply impede traffic. Jihadism is but an average taste for causing bloody mayhem. The Dar al Harb and the Dar al Islam, no more than innocuous figures of speech that anyone could’ve coined. And so forth. In all cases, it’s nothing to do with islam or muslims. Except, of course, when we mention peace and tolerance which, we are instructed, has everything to do with islam: the “RoP” as it’s defined. Double standards, or what?

    Can it be any more obvious than it is, that mohammedism and certain disagreeable social issues – including terrorism – are linked? And that the level of mohammedans’ adherence to their odious and confrontational creed is the measure of the difficulties they cause? Cult loyalty and faithful observance manifests itself in hostility to the kuffir society they are commanded to overthrow. One inspires and justifies the other. The more the muslim the greater the potential for self- segregation and conflict.

    I am not impressed or persuaded by institutional mohammedan revulsion at the recent murders. We saw little of that over the Danish cartoons – quite the opposite actually. I don’t see much gross offence at ISIS activities. Or at a Pakistani Christian, village woman’s monstrous death penalty for blasphemy. So what’s going on here? I do suspect that the instant consternation now, is at the tactics and methods only – the fundamental objective of the islamification of Europe remains, but they are rattled by the sharp rise in that scepticism and opposition – that disgust of islam – caused by this act and that could halt their mohammedan intentions. It’s not so much the cartoonists’ death that troubles them but the link between islam and this kind of terrorism that has been – yet again – exposed.
    How inconvenient for the acquisitive and power-seeking mohammedan establishment that the assassins did it for the sake of the alleged prophet. A disappointing own goal and regrettable setback.

    • Mow_the_Grass

      On the button – gets my vote – deserves many more

      • sebastian2

        Thanks. We’re facing a very perplexing, troubling situation.

    • Carlos Broch

      Although I dislike Nick Cohen as a rule I find myself in agreement with
      nearly all of his ten points. I might quibble over the term ‘Hindu
      Fundamentalists’ (as there are no fundamentals in Hinduism so the phrase
      is almost an oxymoron) but I know what he means, I note that Cohen does
      not mention Jewish Zionists amongst those who might encourage ‘racist’
      hatred against Muslims (along with any others who obstruct the project
      for a racially defined Jewish State in Eretz Israel – but that’s another argument) and I deplore his crimes against grammar in starting sentences with ‘And’… but basically I agree with his main thrust.

      However,
      Cohen fails to take his argument to the necessary and logical
      conclusion (at least in this article) and openly state that we must
      confront not just the murderously violent and deranged Jihadists who set
      out to terrorise and kill anyone who ‘offends’ them or their religion,
      but also the Islamist ideology which nurtures and supports and provides
      them with the justification for their brutal assaults on our freedom to
      satirise or criticise their beliefs. Violent Jihadism is not some
      genetic aberration that affects a small minority of Muslims but a
      symptom of the broad stream of Islamist ideology that runs through
      mainstream Islamic belief and preaching. Islamists are not all violent
      and many would claim to condemn the murders in Paris this week but they all
      provide the ideological and theological justification and encouragement
      for such violence. An example who appears regularly on our TV screens is
      the obnoxious Iqbal Sacranie – former Chair of the Muslim Council of
      Britain.

      On Wednesday night Sacranie appeared on Newsnight to
      condemn the Paris murders and the n immediately used this as a platform
      to call for legal restrictions on the right of people like Charlie
      Hebdo (or any of us) to satirise or criticise his beliefs and his
      prophets. He stared that an attack on Mohammed was like an attacking the
      sisters or mothers of Muslims – the clear implication being that this
      would be taken as a physical attack and that Muslims were therefore
      justified in mounting a physical response in retaliation. The man was on
      the BBC’s flagship current affairs TV programme justifying mass murder.
      This is the Islamist creed and it is, as Cohen rightly says, clerical
      fascism and must be identified as such as vigorously opposed.

      Those
      who equate verbal, artistic or written criticism or satirising of their
      beliefs with a violent physical assault, justifying violent
      retaliation, must be exposed and isolated and not treated as if they are
      serious and responsible commentators. However, the response of our
      government and the BBC is to duck a fight with this ideology and instead
      pretend that the problem is merely a few people who distort and
      misinterpret the message of Islam.

      It is true that the problem
      of confronting Islamism is huge given that it is so mainstream amongst
      Islamic religious schools. However, we have made the problem far worse
      by pandering to these people for decades. We allow them to run schools
      to indoctrinate the younger generation in their creed and the most
      obvious forms of Islamist belieef (eg. the demand for Sharia courts and
      the notion that apostasy must be punished by man and not just by god)
      are rarely denounced fort what they are. Sacranie was barely challenged
      over his statement on Wednesday night (Steve Bell was rather
      lily-livered I thought) and many other so-called ‘moderate’ Islamists
      are also let off the hook by interviewers.

      This is an ideological
      struggle and we must confront it as such, which means defending
      ourselves physically against the Jihadists and also politically attacking
      their ideological support structure. 20

  • http://twitter.com/WinstonCDN WinstonCDN

    The western world is spineless

  • justsomeone

    “anti-Muslim Buddhist fundamentalism in Burma”, I rather imagine the Buddhists are finding that the immigrant Muslim population – the Bengalis – are making problems and want them to go back to Bengal. Nick Cohen might want the Buddhists to put up with them but they feel they can’t and don’t want to. That’s still no reason to pretend its racist of them. Perhaps the Bengalis are racist, perhaps not and their culture and religious ideologies make having them indigestible to the native Buddhists, but even if the Bengalis are racist, one isn’t allowed to notice it or to mention it. Otherwise, fine article.

    • will91

      Islam has a habit of “radicalising” (I use the term “awakening”) neighbouring religions into action. This occurs as they slowly begin to realise the hellish consequences of living next to a large Muslim population and feel first hand the steady degradation of their freedoms and way of life. Doesn’t matter if its Buddhists in Burma, Christians in the Central African Republic and Nigeria or Jew’s in the Middle East.

      As Samuel P. Huntington remarked in ‘The Clash of Civilisations’

      “Islam has bloody borders.”

  • Winston Smith

    I need to pinch myself, can’t believe I’m reading such commonsense straight-talking in a British newspaper. Looks like journalists are starting to wake up after their own got targeted like that.

    • Mow_the_Grass

      Read Mark Steyn

      • Winston Smith

        Any particular articles?

        • James Lovelace

          Almost everything ever written by Mark Steyn.

          He’s like the love-child of George Orwell and Oscar Wilde, with Churchill standing in as god-father.

          “America Alone” and “After America” are both worth reading. I guarantee insights on each page.

      • Carlos Broch

        read other JEW ZIONIST that promote the Islamohysteria!

        Zionist instigated Islamohysteria is a simplistic current in European politics, which seeks to place the blame on mass immigration (demographic genocide) intoEuropean lands, solely on the heads of the Mohammedans who benefit from it, rather than the people who purposefully engineer it to create conflict to begin with. Proponents of the worldview are usually strong liberals, who, seeing Mohammedanism and its “reactionary” values as a threat to liberal society, allign openly withZionists. It is essentially a more “progressive” equivelent of neoconservatism. Some well intentioned people, who are not aware of the facts of who is really behind immigration, may be caught up in such movements.

        They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of “Western cultural and democratic values”, questionable liberal invented “values” is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as ‘harmless’, or even as ‘positive contributors to society’.I

  • Bonkim

    Sound analysis agree with most of the points however simply printing the anti-Islamic cartoons will achieve nothing – it is a school-boyish bait to dare your pals to show solidarity by jumping off the cliff. Not all newspapers publish such cartoons – it may not be their style regardless of perceived threat.

    • ItinerantView

      They should be printed on every front page in Europe, if we follow your advice no-one should ever print anything if it might trigger the threat of menaces. That is school-boyish fear and naivety.
      Did you say the same of the Life of Brian ?

      • Bonkim

        I don’t give a damn – but printing cartoons may not be every paper’s style – not out of fear of terrorism. I don’t follow/like any religion don’t care if others do, am not sensitive to offending others – that does not mean I do not respect freedom of all to their belief/s.

        • ItinerantView

          That’s fine I have no problem with freedom of religion but I have a real problem when one of them, tries to impose totalitarian laws on non-believers.
          This is far bigger than that though, it is the fundamental basis of Western society, free speech even to ridicule and satirise and it is those freedoms that are under attack,have been for some time.Wake up.

          • Bonkim

            No one is imposing anything on anybody else – if you don’t like – ignore, turn away. Free speech in western society – a feature of recent decades – after WW2. Social coercion or ridicule powerful means to silence prevailed in earlier times – blasphemy was punished severely. Try saying something against the Catholic Church in Ireland or Poland for example.

            • mohdanga

              “Try saying something against the Catholic Church in Ireland or Poland for example.” And what would happen?? Surely not beheadings, executions and stonings.

              • Bonkim

                Try it and find out.

    • Carlos Broch

      Zionist instigated Islamohysteria is a simplistic current in European politics, which seeks to place the blame on mass immigration (demographic genocide) intoEuropean lands, solely on the heads of the Mohammedans who benefit from it, rather than the people who purposefully engineer it to create conflict to begin with. Proponents of the worldview are usually strong liberals, who, seeing Mohammedanism and its “reactionary” values as a threat to liberal society, allign openly withZionists. It is essentially a more “progressive” equivelent of neoconservatism. Some well intentioned people, who are not aware of the facts of who is really behind immigration, may be caught up in such movements.

      They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of “Western cultural and democratic values”, questionable liberal invented “values” is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as ‘harmless’, or even as ‘positive contributors to society’.I 4

      • Bonkim

        Those that cause the most noise are heard/noticed/feared, and commented on more.

        Western liberalism is rooted in equality and secular democracy – you cannot ask it to be partial to this or that class, ethnicity or religion although informally social prejudices will play their part. The French generally ignore the differences expecting all to follow the long-established French Way whereas Britain allow all more latitude to practise their differences.

        Bear in mind Britain does not have a written Constitution and hence able to be flexible in managing internal conflict which has resulted in relative peace over the past few decades/centuries whereas Europe and other parts of the world with more formal Constitution, religion, and less flexible administration have seen countless revolutions, wars, and other social ills over the same period. I think the British way will prevail regardless of the provocation from bigoted Islam or evil of any other sort.

  • Jody Taylor

    And where is the support for the freedoms of speech of people like Ayaan Ali Hirshi and Salman Rushdi? Where the all-night vigils and candle-holders? These two individuals have more of intelligence to say about Islam than any number of gatherings of people and platitudes about solidarity.

    I wonder if the French Revolution and the ideals of the Enlightenment would have been successful if these movements relied on symbolism, vigils and candles!?

    • Carlos Broch

      Zionist instigated Islamohysteria is a simplistic current in European politics, which seeks to place the blame on mass immigration (demographic genocide) intoEuropean lands, solely on the heads of the Mohammedans who benefit from it, rather than the people who purposefully engineer it to create conflict to begin with. Proponents of the worldview are usually strong liberals, who, seeing Mohammedanism and its “reactionary” values as a threat to liberal society, allign openly withZionists. It is essentially a more “progressive” equivelent of neoconservatism. Some well intentioned people, who are not aware of the facts of who is really behind immigration, may be caught up in such movements.

      They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of “Western cultural and democratic values”, questionable liberal invented “values” is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as ‘harmless’, or even as ‘positive contributors to society’.I

  • WFB56

    The FT is staffed by a bunch of bitchy little girls, its no wonder that they prevaricate on harder issues like the rise of Islamo-fascism.

    • scotcanadien

      teenage scribblers is the accepted term

  • Polly Radial

    A brave, astute, common sense article from the Spectator.
    A rarity.

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord. 21

  • pobinr

    A reminder of just how barbaric Sharia law is & that the Moslems want Sharia here. WARNING GRAPHIC
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9o2NUGAdlg

  • pat kelly

    The British press and media have become spineless appeasers who are in complete denial as to the obvious dangers of this thought controlling ” religion “, when in fact it has more in common with a death cult.

    Yesterdays murderous answer to being ” provoked ” is not about religion, it is about instilling fear in the populace of Europe so that the invasion of Islamic culture can continue unabated. I will never again think of the French as being cowardly, as they have shown great courage compared to our own cowardly appeasing media.

    This country has lost its way, and no longer deserves any leadership role in the spread of democracy. We have turned into a nation of cowards.

    • Guest

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord.

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord. 24

  • CortexUK

    Ever heard someone say this nonsense?

    “There are limits to free speech. You can’t shout “FIRE!” in a crowded room.”

    Here’s the response you should employ:

    “You can if there’s a fire, moron. And you should.”

  • Paige

    It drove me mad to listen today to British taxpayer-supported BBC refuse to refer to Mohammed as anything other than”the prophet Mohammed.” I guess Jews and Christians will need to threaten and attack people to get the BC to refer to “the prophet Ezekiel” and “the saviour Jesus.” And always with the stock cry that the latest outrage has nothing to do with Islam, the Muslim community at large, etc etc etc before any mention is made of the actual victims of the atrocity. Both today’s Newshour and The World at One got a Muslim reaction (less than 3% of the population of the UK, apparently) as the second voice heard in their reports.
    http://tracesofevil.com

    • Jen The Blue

      That is just so. Muslims who follow the Qur’an to the letter (……which is after all, not just the inspired word of Allah, but Allah’s dictation to Mohammed via the angel Gabriel…..so no scope for error…) and kill people shouting “Allahu Akbar” are not Muslims at all according to the BBC.
      They offer no reason for this assertion apart from some Muslim leaders said so.. (Look up taqiyya.)
      Then they immediately move to the idea that there should be no “backlash against Muslims”. Of course there should not be a backlash against innocent Muslims, I agree…….but the next thing is for the lice to come out of the mattress and argue that it was Charlie Hebdo’s fault for provoking Muslims.
      Read the Qur’an, read Hadith….read Muslim scholars on the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence and make up your own minds on Islam rather than relying on the leftist BBC and leftist multiculturalist ideas.

    • BonzoDog

      They call him “prophet Mohammed” so you don’t get him mixed up with the butcher, baker, lawyer and estate agent, all of whom are called Mohammed. Well at least in this part of town they are.

      • Mow_the_Grass

        Paedo Mohammed?

      • James Lovelace

        They could say “Mohammed the founder of islam”.

        Or “Mohammed, the first islamist terrorist”.

        Both are accurate.

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord. 26

  • llanystumdwy

    Well said Nick. One of the few journalists on the left with any courage. It is such a pity that virtually every other journalist on the Left with very few exceptions like yourself are cowardly evading the issue. This is not only about free speech any more. This is about an indoctrinated Islamic violent bunch who want to impose Islamic totalitarian control over all our lives with the power of machine guns, and thanks to journalists like those you describe, we are letting them get away with it.

    Private Eye published cartoons poking fun at Christians in their Christmas issue and yet, not a peep was made of it. I rather think that if Christians had stormed the PE office with a machine gun the whole British media would have published the cartoons without fail the following day. What has happened to the press in our country that they have been cowed and frightened to even criticize these people. After all, the French journalists who died were all good Left journalists who believed it was their duty to satirise the absurdities of the world we live in irrespective of religion. Are we prepared to abandon that out of cowardice? As Salman Rushdie said: “Religion is a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weapons becomes a real threat to our freedoms”. It is a disgrace that very few of our Left journalists will unconditionally defend these men who have lost their lives to defend our freedoms. Shame on them all.

    • Carlos Broch

      Many (not all) of these ‘Muslims’ are Caucasoid people — often war refugees — from various nations with traditional customs and different levels of education. Some are black African. Yet the media makes no racial distinctions. Just one word: ‘Muslim’. …

      These Muslims are not all barbaric and violent fanatics. Many are war refugees. But I agree that they are generally ill-suited for life in the West. But the same argument can be made of ‘Christians’ who hail from Mexico. It’s a race and language issue as much as anything. ‘Islam’ is one element among many.

      But the irony here is that if these dead journalists ever tried to mock and ‘make fun of’ Jews the way they routinely derided Muslims, they would have been put in jail or ruined in a different way far sooner. In the ‘free’ West, Jews destroy their enemies silently but quite effectively. No one says a word Incredibly, the Muslims know this better than most Christian Westerners do, since so many of us have been brainwashed via Jewish news and television our entire lives.

      In fact, just being tarred as ‘anti-Semitic’ is enough to destroy people in the West. This is Jewish magic at work and it is a deplorable double standard that operates silently but profoundly. It is a taboo. It is all Kosher. And it is a cancer on Western Civilization as well as the Middle East. Just consider all the Zionist-friendly wars we’ve conducted there. Count the dead.

      What if all the war dead from these recent wars were Jews?

      Jewish-friendly taboos also infuriate Muslims who see and understand that Jews dominate the West and have a license to destroy Muslim nations by remote control. The average American, on the other hand, has no comprehension of this, as he’s been raised watching Jewish-made TV shows, news programs, comedies and Holocaust dramas.

      These Muslim fanatics may be nutty and dangerous, but I still view them as victims of world Jewry which has become the primary mover/manipulator of world geopolitics.

      Is this mass killing in Paris good for the Jews? Incredibly, yes. It makes unwitting Parisians think: ‘We’re all Israelis now’. Well it’s not true.

      If the French simply declared this anti-Muslim ‘satire’ to be ‘anti-Semitic’ one year ago, no one in Paris would now be dead as the magazine would have been shut down. That’s the Jewish way. Censorship. Shame. Control.

      Unfortunately for Muslims, they don’t have that kind power. And that also enrages them since they are constantly being bombed and invaded by the West and, once they arrive in the West, they get mocked and insulted here, as well. This double standard is a cancer. And I blame the Jews for it.

      Jews however don’t have to deal with any of this. Many Jews probably pretend to be confounded by all this ‘Muslim anger’. Jewish sensibilities, on the other hand, are coddled by the French and the West in general. Israel gets rather special treatment, too. Jews have attained a license to kill. No wonder the Muslims are angry. They are powerless and unable to communicate the source of their rage to the hapless and Zionized cultures in Europe and America.

      If we expel all the Muslims, then let’s expel the Jews as well, as they are the more fundamental cause of all this chaos and discord. 27

  • BoiledCabbage

    Spengler is right on the money, as always. The West is being held hostage by the huge resident “5th column” :

    “France now faces an existential dilemma. By most independent estimates France now has a Muslim population of 6 million, or almost 10% of its 65 million people. If we assume that just 1% of this population are radicalized to the point of engaging in or providing support for terrorist activities, that is a pool of 60,000 individuals. We are not speaking of 60,000 potential bombers or shooters, but a support network that will allow a much smaller number of terrorists to blend into the broader population. In the “no-go” zones of France now effectively ruled by Muslim gangs, moreover, the terrorists can intimidate the Muslim population. France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory, which means that it cannot conduct effective counter-terror operations.”

    This explains both the hand-wringing from the likes of Tony Barber and the crowds at Place de La Republique: Theyre scared, and theyre asking if the guns that the Policemen are holding have any bullets inside them, and, more to the point, how many.

Close