10 January, 2015

Charlie Hebdo, The Guardian and Free Speech

Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' crimes, Britain, censorship, England, France, free speech, jewed culture, jewed law, media, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, Socrates, terrorism at 6:18 pm | Permanent Link

[…]

“Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons would be illegal in Britain under thought-crime laws that are fully supported by the Guardian and that ban free speech on race, religion and sexual orientation [1]. The Guardian website routinely deletes comments that violate liberal pieties on race and sexual politics.”

[Article].

[1] Britain’s hate-crime/thought-crime laws came from Jews


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 01/12/15 The People Who Charlie Hebdo Cannot Criticize 72% similar
  3. 01/11/15 The Charlie Hebdo Attack: a False Flag Operation? 70% similar
  4. 09/27/07 10-Year-Old May Face Hate-Crime Charge in UK 70% similar
  5. 01/18/15 Jewish Professor: Limits on Free Speech Are a Good Thing 54% similar
  6. 05/10/16 Hate Crimes? No. Fake Crimes 52% similar
  7. 7 Responses to “Charlie Hebdo, The Guardian and Free Speech”

    1. Antagonistes Says:

      The Hebdo artists and writers reflect the eternal immaturity and infantile preoccupations of the Left.

      Decent Nazis would have just given them a good thrashing, which I would have applauded, and possibly joined in.

      But THAT was a solution that did not appeal to the Semitic North African half-niggers.

      Leftists have hidden behind their momma’s skirts for too long.

      Expose some of them to clean (non-lethal) masculine anger and action, and they just might come around.

    2. fd Says:

      Slaughtering a room full of journalists is a major problem for the Jewish media mongrel. It’s like assassinating criminal judges in America. Who’s going to fill their shoes? Who wants to die for an electronic payroll check? Popular terrorism!

      Better run through the jungle…don’t look back. CCR

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbI0cMyyw_M

    3. Antagonistes Says:

      The insulting pen answered by the continuous fist.

      What is the difference?

      Convincing physical force against poisonous mental energy. Both involve brain and muscles. In different proportions, perhaps. I don’t really know.

      But they are both energy. Intriguing.

      Think of it as giving the infantile Left a good spanking.

      In a way, it is respectful and affirming.

    4. Antagonistes Says:

      Yes, here is our modern champion of radical traditionalism—–Muslims!

      Don’t rightly know what to make of it.

    5. Tim McGreen Says:

      What exactly is The Guardian a “guardian” of? Jewish lies and tyranny, of course. Antagonistes is right, those Mohammedan sand niggers think the solution to everything they disagree with is to use bombs. Real intelligent, real imaginative. So much for the Jew-Social Marxist lie of human equality.

    6. Tim McGreen Says:

      In don’t know anything about that Hebdo magazine but it seems their primary purpose was to be obnoxious and offensive, not satirical and thought-provoking. And they probably remained as silent as the grave when it came to issues like non-White immigration and the Jewish Question. So to hell with them.

    7. fd Says:

      “Terrorist” is a cliché. It’s a word for the con man. Anybody that doesn’t march lockstep with the Jew Federal party line is a terrorist or suspect. Get the waterboard out and we’ll see what you’re made of.

      Arabs and their invaders from the West are equally depraved. The Federals bomb the wedding party; the cash and carry Semitic guerrilla fighter responds in kind by repulsing ultra modern armies, navies, air force as best he may.

      Modern education commissars have retroactively labeled all resistance groups during Reconstruction “White terrorist groups.” If you’re a racist, you’re a terrorist.