The Charlie Hebdo Terrorist Attack Fires Shots At The Liberal Narrative

I’m writing this as I flip through several European news channels: BBC World, France24, Euronews, CNN International, and Sky News. Here are the common themes I’m hearing:

  • Calls for restraint until all the facts are in
  • Concern that there may be a backlash against Muslims
  • Mention of “solidarity” and “unity” among the French, with the assumption that Muslims are included in that aggregate group
  • Sadness and sympathy for the victims who were executed, but no anger at the killers
  • Constant mention of how “controversial” and “provoking” the Charlie Hebdo magazine was, as if they may have been asking for it
  • Even deeper concern that there may be backlash against Muslims

It seems like the media’s target audience are the terrorists themselves, and they are doing everything in their power not to cause offense:

I also read three statements from world leaders:

1. Prime Minister of England David Cameron said he will “never give up” on the value of free speech.

We stand absolutely united with the French people against terrorism and against this threat to our values – free speech, the rule of law, democracy. It’s absolutely essential we defend those values today and every day.

Free speech? He’s leader of a country where citizens have been jailed on multiple occasions for making “racist” comments online and where one man went to jail on “‘suspicion” of “racial harassment.” They will soon prolong the penalty for being an “internet troll” to two years from six months. That doesn’t sound like free speech to me.

2. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a statement.

This abhorrent act is not just an attack on the life of French citizens and the internal security of France. It also represents an attack on freedom of opinion and of the press, a core element of our free and democratic culture.”

Freedom of opinion? Her remarks come not even two days after she attacked anti-immigration protesters in Germany as being “xenophobic” and having “hatred in their hearts.” The German police blocked the protesters from their planned route in Cologne while allowing pro-immigration protesters through. And isn’t Germany a country where you can go to jail for disputing the official World War 2 story? That doesn’t sound like freedom of opinion to me.

3. President Barack Obama made his statement.

The fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press? He leads an administration that wants to jail reporter James Risen while labeling another journalist as “co-conspirator.” The New York Times, a pro-Obama mouthpiece, declared that his administration “has prosecuted more whistle-blowers for leaks and gone after more journalists than any of its predecessors” and a report by the Committee To Protect Journalists stated that Obama “has instead presided over an unprecedented campaign to contain leaks and to control media coverage of government operations.” That doesn’t sound like freedom of the press to me.

The narrative must be preserved at all costs

Immediately after twelve people were shot by members of a “mostly peaceful” religion, we have world leaders engaging in mass hypocrisy that reveals their hatred for free speech and free press as practiced by their own citizens while their lapdogs in the media are tripping over themselves to defend Islam before the dead bodies become cold.

What is going on?

Why are Muslims being treated with such deference while not even two months ago the entire media erupted in a rage ten times greater than what we’re seeing now against a college fraternity for an anonymous rape accusation at the University of Virginia that turned out to be a complex hoax? Has the Western world lost its mind?

Some context is in order. The Western elite, especially in Europe, got into power by pushing peace, harmony, equal opportunity, and multiculturalism, but beneath these feel-good concepts includes the blueprint for destruction of the very force that threatens their power: nationalism. Introducing massive numbers of Muslims, Mexicans, or destitute Somalian refugees into your nation reduces the likelihood that you will look to your neighbor and see someone like you, a brother-in-arms who can help you rise up against the cyclical inevitability of a corrupt government ruling over you.

Now that you see a dozen different colors surrounding you on the subway and in the Starbucks, some of whom are looking at you suspiciously, you feel distrustful of these outsiders because they have a different background and belief system than you do. You find yourself in a diluted world culture with standardized gadgets, entertainment, and government-friendly talking points conveniently disseminated by all media outlets. Now instead of looking to your neighbor to help fight against governmental oppression, you will seek comfort in your own amusements, Facebook feeds, internet memes, and legalized marijuana. You turn inwards to satisfy your hedonistic needs while allowing the government to run over your rights and push policies that you feel increasingly helpless to fight in your social isolation.

This is all done by design. The liberal governments of the West will allow the collateral damage of terrorist acts because they need those immigrants to defeat the greater threat to their power: national identity. Destroy the culture and you remove a citizen’s motivation to fight for a nation he would have given his life for not three generation ago. Immigration must not stop because the liberal elite must maintain their power, and the useful idiots in the media and academia will continue spinning the narrative required to ensure that happens. The death of twelve lives or 1,200 is inconsequential.

So allow me to channel our leaders today by stating that the death of twelve individuals in France was “unfortunate” and “cowardly,” but we must “not rush to judgement” based on the actions of “extremists” when “most Muslims” are “peaceful” people who are in “solidarity” with their adopted nation. We must leave the door open to immigration and allow “unity” to fill our hearts while enjoying the benefit of delicious foreign restaurants opening in once-peaceful neighborhoods that may eventually become worse than a Brazilian slum. We must not let this “isolated” massacre destroy our wonderful multicultural utopia.


Read Next: 7 Steps That Lead To A Complete Culture Decline

924 thoughts on “The Charlie Hebdo Terrorist Attack Fires Shots At The Liberal Narrative”

    1. Why bother. Just leave it to those who haven’t proven such utter failures at it as “we” have.

    2. No culture is perfect. You can find multiculturalism interesting, and at times beneficial, whilst noting the ugly sides of different cultures: ex. you can appreciate America in certain aspects while remembering the ugly history of slavery and prejudice.
      P.S., I’m a feminist.

      1. Oh for fucks sake woman people are being killed as we speak not already dead for 300 Years

        1. He is making a point, slavery is over and done with in this country Islamic terrorism is very currant, Feminism exists in the west because of chivalry, men of the west aren’t going to chop woman’s heads off because they disagree, feminism should take it’s fight to the middle east , but they won’t, no chivalry there.

        2. If he wants to be understood, he should write with proper grammar. I can only assume what he probably means when he doesn’t articulate well.
          Not all feminists are obsessed with promoting Islam in the West. My concern lies mostly with FGM, child brides, situations that enhance the likelihood of rape, etc.
          I AGREE that the mainstream media has turned a blind eye to the potential insanity of embracing Islam too readily, and not in a more gradual way. Simultaneously I think that it is sad and horrible for moderate Muslims to experience bigotry and hate crimes(ex. being beat up by anti-Islamists).
          But I don’t agree that the way to combat this(and poor societal health in general) is to write article after article slamming women who don’t fit into whatever the next ideal standard is according to the writers.
          The site seems to advocate a society in which all the women are completely submissive to men, as if they’re bound by Sharia Law, then addresses radical Islam neagtively. It seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

        3. Glad to see that tattoos and piercings are worthy of about two hundred posts from you for every one that might be mildly critical of the Koranimals.
          It really is all about you, Princess, isn’t it?

        4. If women wanted true freedom they would repeal all of the government safety nets that remove the consequences from their actions.
          What you have in the USA is not freedom, it’s holding men accountable and financially repsonsible for women

        5. You scum. You piece of dirt. Please, tomorrow, go have your tubes tied. I’ll pay for it. Just don’t reproduce.

        6. Shut the fuck up, you prissy little piece of shit. Go volunteer to be the next victim. Please.

        7. You’ve probably had a hundred responses to Marcus Aurelius alone.
          Why do you lie?

        8. Having women be submissive to men and Sharia Law are two completely different things, I don’t view women as my equal I respect them as the fairer sex and naturally they are submissive to me . Sharia Law is, The men have conquered the infidel now let’s take there woman as sex slaves or kill them. It’s in woman’s nature to be Submissive, that’s how God created them, Sharia Law is not the same thing.

        9. Lilac Haze = feminist trash. She blames all her problems on western males, no matter how many are killed defending her feminist privileges. I sincerely hope she get’s her head sawed off and flushed down a toilet in pakistan by the muslims she apologized for.

        10. The irony is she wouldn’t last a second in a Muslim society. Feminists are mindless hypocrites, and heartless and cruel to boot.

        11. even without the sharia aspect. its in mans nature to be like genghis khan and the vikings, conquor other tribes and take their women. Difference is the religion of brotherhood is multiethnic. Humans have this us vs them mindset no matter what. be it cityy vs city school vs school, jocks vs goths etc

        12. Asking a woman “why” she lies? Is the Pacific Ocean “a little” wet at the same time?

        13. Most western feminists whine much more about domestic issues that are trivial compared to much worse things elsewhere because feminism, like leftism in general, is fueled primarily by resentment of one’s own nation and culture – equalism is only a mask
          You can be the first to confront feminists and force them to address serious issues with proportionate attention, and we will see how long it takes before you are ostracized as a ‘racist’

        14. Muslims being beaten up by anti-islamists? You are deluded beyond belief. Muslims and Blacks, together with ANTIFAs physically dominate all larger European cities with significant immigrant populations.
          You are simply promoting a leftwing media myth.

        15. You’re not supposed to be making a comment here, especially because you are a feminist! Quit trolling, and go somewhere else!
          Men only = Women not allowed

        16. Some men are wired to be Genghis.
          Women’s biology is generally stable. It needs to be to reproduce safely. Behaviorally they group tightly around the mean. They need to be smart enough and capable enough to keep their children alive. They don’t need to be geniuses, and the DEFINITELY don’t need to take fool risks.
          Male biology is wired to take risks, so that the male child has the best chance of becoming a man who wins the status, dominance and reproduction games. But when the dice roll bad, men end up in moronville far more often then even the least capable woman.
          At the one end you have Genghis; at the other, Aristotle’s natural slaves.

        17. interesting point. But i recall hearing that we are the decendants of 39% of all men that have ever lived on earth while the others never got to spread theri genes. With that being said we all have it but to varying degrees. SInce we are descended from the most aggressive men around. Like look at the anceint wars your ancestors have been in and think of the raping and pillaging they did to get in your dna.
          Its like men are constantly evolving to be smarter,more adaptive,faster stronger and more aggressive every generation(like lions) just for the chance to pass on their dna,while females dont have to change or improve just stay safe to pass it on. But course this changes in civillizations that pervent competition and aggression. Like no dueling or justifying fights and such. Now a days the legal and social consequences are scarirer then the fight its self.I think if we lay off this and actually allow fueds, guranteed even your betas will step up and start fighting and be like genghis khan. Belive it or not sweden 100 yrs had many murders cuz they had an honor culture like japanese back in the day or muslims, where if they are dissed in any way they have to fight win or lose.
          you should watch “brainwashed” a norweigan documentry, totally brillent except for the 2mins of those librarl arts hippie feminsts take on history.

        18. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense for a strong man to impregnate as many women as possible to ensure that the species survives with the strongest genes possible.

        19. I have been to plenty of larger West European cities in the last 5-10 years, and its practically the same pattern all over the place. Only exception are the gatherings of football hooligans, and their occasional Defence League marches.
          On the local level its ANTIFAs intimidating “racists”, and minority criminal gangs terrorizing ordinary people.
          This is the general pattern in Germany, France, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc. France even has a multitude of “sensible zones”. What do you think these zones refer to Bob?
          I assume its the same in the UK, based on news reports. But to be fair I havent visited the Britisk isles for quite some time.
          On the other hand I pretty much doubt that the pattern is any different from the aforementioned countries. Last time i visited London was in 2006, and several times I was in doubt as to whether I was actually visiting an English city, as the natives were such a rare sight in many areas. I can only imagine what its like 10 years later.

        20. Men are more unstable on the molecular level. We get sick more easily than women, and we display psychological abnormalities more frequently than women. We have virtually the same mean IQ as women, but the standard distribution curve for men is broad and flat, whereas that for women is much tighter around the mean. This means that there are more male high-average and genius intellects than among women, but also far more morons as well. Similarly, not many women go to a chopping-doc to be rebuilt as a man; but male-to-female conversions… the lion’s share. Both willingly, and due to abnormalities and accidents of birth in the recent past; hermaphrodism, knife slipping at the bris, etc.
          All of this indicates an innate instability in male biology. I don’t think I would characterize it as driving males to be smarter, faster and more adaptive with *every* passing generation, but the rolling of the molecular dice in every male fetus does seem to take a shot at maximizing male performance in any given single generation. Of course, if the risk taken fails, the boy in question will end up on the left hand side of one or several standard curves.
          I suspect the social consequences such as the prevalence and acceptability of violence are due to Western society switching from K-selection to r-selection. Thanks to the efforts of our ancestors, resources are now abundant, and will remain so forever, for all practical purposes. Or so we think. The West has been in “milk and honey” for over 100 years by now, and the “rich times will last forever” gut-judgment of the hindbrain hasn’t been proven wrong yet. In that kind of environment (r-selected), violence endangers the ability to reproduce and consume resources to the maximum possible rate. More children are possible, and so each individual child is worth less and should receive less investment. But eventually r-selection run amok and w/o predators to keep it in check hits its carrying capacity, and then the bad things happen. On the flip side there is the K-selected environment; low resources, lower reproduction rate, maximum investment in the welfare and rearing of each child, prevalent and accepted violence and competition in the contest to secure rare resources.
          The switch from K-selection to r-selection happened across the West c. 1900 or so, perhaps a bit before. The switch in mindsets sounds familiar, no?
          And I’ve seen “brainwashed” – a good show from an amusing and informative series.

        21. I didn’t know you had a PhD in biology. Ah yeah! On the internet, we are all experts on everything.

        22. I bet you don’t think you’ve had a hundred different rides on the cock carousel either.
          Syphillis has been shown to affect memory.

        23. Nobody wants to legislate any kind of female behavior. It’s feminism that uses the law to bully.
          All we would want is an end to anti male laws, not instituting anti-female ones.

      2. There are cultures that are more contributing to a successful modern society than others. Traditional European > Islamic. The PC narrative in Europe wants to marginalize their own traditional culture and promote foreigners from the ME and Africa. This is the result. Shit in produces shit out.
        P.S., I’m not a mindless PC retard.

      3. Didn’t you come over in the FB shitstorm about tattoos?
        You’re part of the problem in the West, and you’re dismissed. We don’t want to hear what you have to say in this forum.
        Now if you’re willing to undergo a Muslim female circumcision, that might make for an interesting conversation.

        1. Yay, another typical rebuttal:
          personal insults+unproven subjective opinions
          You’re really bolstering your image here.

        2. Which part was wrong.
          Also you’re supposed to work “Ad Hominem” in there somewhere.

        3. why does everyone say its an islamic thing. In egypt they been doing it since thier pharoah days, even some the coptics do it. But its primarily a sub saharan african thing. They circumcise the the men to make them look more masculine while cutting woman to make em look feminie according to them

        4. Your ignorance of history and current events is only eclipsed by your abysmally poor writing skills.

        5. This should tell you all about their backwards and disgusting culture based on genital mutilation. When some cultural practise is inspired by negroid sub-saharan culture, its usually a sign of depraved barbarity and cultural degeneracy.

        6. doesnt culture degenercy usually involve population decline like the mouse utopia experiment.
          female circumcision got mixed in with fgm thanx to feminists changing the meaning(cuz language controls thought).
          fc is suppose to be taking a lil off the top which can be trimming of the lips to slicing of the clit, while fgm is where they really fuck it up. But thats their problem,dunno why we are getting invovled with their nether regions.
          if any mutiliaton needs awareness its penile subincision.

        7. look instead of going grammr nazi,sjw like insults and such, why not tell me your points on my points. Im adding what I know and you do the same, this is how we refine arguements, maybe bring in articles to prove ones point.
          like lets hear it,since history has always been up for debate, by the looks of it weve read different sources.

        8. You’re ideas are like poorly formed steaming turds for the following reasons:
          Your writing is so imprecise as to make it impossible to tell where your idea begins or ends.
          Merely throwing out the word Serbia or Iran and telling me to do my research is not acceptable. Americans went to Serbia to stop a genocide against the Muslims. American abandoned our ally Iran and the Shah. What followed was a religious persecution that would make a Spanish Grand Inquisitor blush. Neither example supports any point contrary to mine.
          Like a turd, I only know your idea is present and it stinks.
          You tell me to do my research, but I am not that interested in finding our what you consumed to cause you to produce a turd/idea like this.
          Once again, I am so sorry that your parents and teachers have allowed you to think it is acceptable to present yourself in this manner.
          I shudder to think what they must have taught you about hygiene and proper dress.

      4. Slavery?
        You mean that thing that the straight white “patriarchy” ended around the world for everyone? You’re welcome.

        1. The country was still operating almost totally under a patriarchal system when slavery was abolished; that makes the patriarchy a quality of the country at the time, not a cause for the end of slavery. Unless you’ve got evidence and logical reasoning to back that up, in which case I’m all eyes.

        2. Youre right Lilac! We need more women in charge.
          Go to Yemen and spread the wisdom of girl power.
          Since you dont need white christian men, surely you can convince the Islamists of your wisdom.

        3. What makes you think I hate Christians, or men? My dad is both, and I get along fine with him =P

        4. As a feminist I assume you adhere to the general feminist dogma of blaming the straight white male for everything wrong with the world. Slavery was not a purely american thing at the time, but a global affair. Slavery was quite popular all throughout africa and the middle east. Mauritania is actually still struggling with it.
          It was the white man and his social system throughout europe and the americas that started making the practice illegal and put pressure on non-white nations to do the same, effectively ending a phenomenon that has been going on since the dawn of history.
          “the ugly history of slavery and prejudice.” on the continent at that time was one that was actually quite “progressive” for the context. If you were a fresh black slave from the african jungle captured by your own “kin” and sold to slave traders, you’d have much rather travelled west than god forbid east (the arabs were way worse), or even remaining a slave in your own lands. Similar for Irish slaves or other indentured servants.

        5. Once again, your critical of something (patriarchy) practiced in the United States 150 years ago, rather than the EXACT SAME THING RAISED AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE practiced by the modern Muslim world.
          Your first reaction is always to hate America. You are blind to the world as it is now.

        6. I never said ‘hate’, but you were implying the christian patriarchy was bad.
          Tell me what system do you think is better?

        7. Ok. You love your dad, in spite of the poor job he did raising you.
          Now go to Yemen and spread the girl power.

        8. If the total Patriarchal system favored slavery then they would have kept it, but they abolished it, they ended slavery.

        9. think ancient india ended slavery before the west has correct me if im wrong…unless we talking dalits

        10. Only because he gives you money and you don´t need to touch his penis….or do you?

        11. I see your point, but actually the last paragraph is false. One would far rather stay in Africa as an African slave than been transported to America; unless you have sources?

        12. Uh…. lol are you talking about the “thing” that they started doing in the first place?
          “Say thank you”
          “I just stopped beating you”.

        13. englishbob, when did whites start slavery in your opinion? Not an exact date, just which age and which nation?

        14. Everyone started “the particular slavery they were involved in.”
          Slavery is universal.

        15. You gon get tha fuck outa here now ya here!? We don’t want hear bout no daddy issues!

        16. Oh, so now it’s just the “particular slavery they were involved in”. Because you were replying to Vasile who was talking about slavery -around the world-, and you were saying white people started THAT.
          You are obviously an SJW troll on this website.

        17. I don’t really have to explain the absurdity of Vasile’s comment to you do I? You’re an intelligent chap.

        18. Please do explain. Just calling it absurd is not an explanation, and obviously more people than one don’t understand you.
          Slavery has been around for millennia, all over the globe, done by all kinds of different people and targetting all kinds of people. It ended for most of the world after white people of european decided that it does not belong to a decent society any more and where necessary were even prepared to fight a civil war to make their point.

        19. Since you’re being polite I will indulge you. Obviously since you are aware of the American War Between the States you must also be aware of the history of slavery in the American colonies and it’s institution by Europeans. To suggest that a group who began committing a crime somehow deserve thanks for ceasing their participation in said crime is
          I’ll make one other point. The above mentioned was had nothing to do with slavery. It was the first major move of Statist domination of individualist Americans.

        20. Whether or not the primary/real cause of the American Civil War was the antislavery movement – this movement did not just end slavery in the US, it also kept on pushing this agenda on an international level. Up to this day, it is the US that puts together the global slavery/trafficking report recommending UN sanctions against countries (like India) where slavery is still an issue. So it is not just that your hated whites started slavery in their own countries, then ended it in their own countries, but rather that they started it in their own countries and then used their power to end it all over the world.
          And even if they don’t deserve thanks for that, white people surely don’t deserve SJWs like you completely misrepresenting the history of slavery as something that “they started doing in the first place” (as you did above in your first reply to Vasile, when he was talking about slavery in general, not slavery in the white nations). By doing that, you are just parroting anti-white propaganda.

        21. Remember what I said about not being idiotic? That applies here.
          In case that confuses you, let me be clear. People who make silly accusations are tiresome. Spend more time trying to understand the other persons point of view rather than trying to “win” the argument by resorting to petty insults, especially ones you plainly don’t understand like “SJW”.
          I suspected this was where you were going but I thought I would be charitable. The charity is at an end.

        22. If I am resorting to petty insults, what exactly is your usage of the words “idiotic”, “silly”, “tiresome” etc.? You’re also being paternalistic and condescending when you display yourself as “indulging” someone and being “charitable”.
          On the other hand, in all of your sentences you did not reply to even one point I made. Isn’t that typical SJW behaviour? Using insults, being paternalistic, but not actually countering the arguments that were put forth?

        23. After he practiced it in a larger scale than everybody else. Yeah we’re talking about that.

        24. Well Romans and Greek were white. Besides Arrabs, Persian and Turks are Caucasoids so technically “white”.

        25. Not sure about this one.
          Besides, Caucasoids (White, Arabs, Persian, Indians, etc.) are obsessed with progress and expansion so they developped slavery

        26. The people who freed the slaves were not same people as those who enslaved them.
          Also west african slaves were used just as much by other west african groups, the Ottomans, Barbary states, and even were exported to China in small numbers.
          Everyone who could participated in slavery, and once strong states emerged in the Baltic region west African became the world’s last source of massive, cheap, easy to acquire slave labor.
          So I do think whites should get the credit for ending slavery, if only because no one else did.

        27. West Afrixans were enslaved by many peoples for a millennium. The west should get some credit for ending much of that, especially since Africans STILL engage in it in many areas.
          They see it as ” I’m supposed to thank you for stopping beating me?” As if the original state was one in which human rights were respected. Tolerance of slavery is the norm throughout history, this abolition’s very existence is a credit to the west, no matter what kind of envy that produces.

        28. There was variation in the conditions of how shaves could be treated in parts of Africa. This fact is abused by afrocentrists, who conveniently ignore that very brutal forms of slavery existed in Africa ( mine slavery, galley slavery, plantation slavery) and that relatively ” benign forms did exist in parts of the U.S.
          The population stats betray the ” in the Americas slavery was more brutal myth. ” population numbers grew dramatically in the enslaved population in North America relative to South America and especially Africa. If north American slavery was hands downlre brutal, this would not be the case.

        29. I’d agree they were relatively benign and brutal forms of slavery existing within the US and Africa respectively, but these were often anomalies. I suppose the biggest difference would not be treatment of slaves but rather the overreaching conditions of slavery. A slave in Africa, could one day expect to be released, know they’re children could re-integrate into society.

      5. “while remembering the ugly history of slavery and prejudice….”
        It’s still going on today..only the roles have changed. The white male is now the slave (to the system and the new wave of feminism).
        Don’t believe it? Turn on your TV and watch any news channel, commercial, show, movie, etc.
        Still don’t believe me? Walk into any courtroom in the U.S. today during a divorce trial and see which person ends up winning and which person ends up paying (alimony, child support, etc…).
        Slavery and prejudice is alive and well. Thanks for stopping by.

        1. Typical feminists l PC thinking, take something that happened over 100 years ago as justification for all their modern day world view.

      6. Some cultures are superior to others. Islam should be scraped off our shoes and deposited in a litter box.

        1. I’ve heard they are Muslim hippies. If they’re not ACTIVELY aligned against violence in Islam, yes, it includes the Sufi.

        2. That is relevant how?
          We need to kill these animals before they consolidate their power. Their co-religionists will do nothing but shake in their boots out of fear of violent Islam. Why are you talking about poetry? Are you stupid, or just out of Ritalin?

        3. Rumi was a Sufi poet, thus the relevance. The question relates to whether we should also discard anything developed or created by Muslims, such as advances in mathematics or in the previous example, poetry.

        4. If it stops violent Islam, put the poetry in the cat box right next to the genital mutilation.
          As I suspected, you’re not interested in dealing with the problem. You are interested in some sort of hippie multicultural diversion.

        5. Are you bothered by violence in general or violence committed by Muslims? There’s been plenty of violence committed by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Violence is natural to life, for some reason we’ve grown to be afraid of violence and despise it as some sort of evil. Yet, we are born violently and we die violently. The problem you are describing is a result of globalization and governments forcing multiculturalism upon their people. Not all cultures are equally educated. Interestingly enough, many of these radical terrorists have been lied to, brainwashed, deceived by their imams and the leaders of terrorist organizations in order to advance political agenda. Solving the problem of Islamic violence is predominately an issue of education and social conditioning (if you are focused on creating a docile society). The more substantial problem is the cultural tensions that arise due to forcing people of radically conflicting worldviews to occupy the same space. This has been observed in the recent past in India during the time of Ghandi, where it was observed that even non-violent demonstration didn’t result in long term changes, as the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus continued to kill each other over differing religious beliefs. We’ve observed this with the crusades, the inquisitions, and more recently in modern Occidental countries that have been victim to massive influx of refugees bring their culture with them instead of assimilating. It is here that tensions rise and violence begins. It has been this way since antiquity. People hear about one incident of violence that is marketable due to terrorism, but never hear about the other multitudes of violent acts committed. Why is this particular act of violence more concerning than the others, of which there is more of?

        6. Rumi is a pretty third-rate poet.
          There were no Muslim innovations in mathematics. Even the numerals we call Arabic originated in India. As did the notation for zero, which existed as a concept since Ancient Egypt. Binomials were also created by the Egyptians.

        7. If you look at the wars in the world right now, it is clear that Muslims are the violent ones. Don’t pretend that Christians or Hindus are engaged in wars of religious conquest as are the followers of the pedophile prophet.
          Last year Muslims murdered at least 4,000 people for the crime of being Christian. How many Muslims were murdered by Christians for the crime of being Muslim?
          Stop being a Muslim apologist. Start being a Muslim reformer, or STFU.
          Tolerance is causing the problem. Not tolerating this sort of Muslim bullshit will end the problem. You AS A MUSLIM must stop making excuses.

        8. Then you wont be bothered by a (well deserved) retaliatory round of anti-Muslim violence.

        9. um doesnt bosnia and serbia ring a bell. The forgotten genocide. The middle east wasnt always like this. We done a lot of meddling there. LIke 1949 and 1953 to overthrow syria and irans governemnt in place of dictators that blew in our faces later. Backed saddam,gaddafi,mubarak but when things dont go our way we invade, and when youth had enough of their dictators suddenly “our politicans” are on the peoples side and not those dics.
          Afghanistan was part of the hippie trail back in the day, where brit stoners got high off of opiuim bought fluffy coasts and bounced to india.
          After russia invaded and usa got involved thats when things got ugly. that was the begining of islamic radicalization.
          From mujahadeen to taliban.
          israel takes over, secular plo dies then hamas comes.
          Didnt take much to screw up that bit of land.
          Not to mention no land like Kurdistan and balochistan where that created ethnic tensions. Think the middle east would be better off with Lawernce of arabis map that went by tribal land then political lines by the ottomans,brits,french and russians

        10. Blaming a bunch of dead imperialists for the present fucked-up state of your country is like blaming your parents for the fact you were brought up by a pair of alcoholics who didn’t give you enough love and attention. You only get to whine about that shit as long until you refuse to get or ask for help. After that, your fucked-upedness is your fault, not your parents’.
          The past is dead, and at some point as a country you have to make a decision: do we decide to head down the road of secularisation, democracy, and the rule of law; or do we just lick the arses of whoever happens to have the largest supply of ammunition at the moment and the most simpleton version of our cultural religion? Do we decide to do the sort of things the West has done to become as prosperous as it is, or do we continue our addictions to tribalism?
          Islam and the Middle East as a whole has repeatedly chosen from column (b), and its “moderate” elements have proven to be only moderate in their efforts and therefore their influence or effect.
          That being so, and since indeed some clowns above seem to think violence is an inimical part of the human condition, it’s getting high time that the West put down its scales of balance for a while and moved to secure again its position as the pre-eminent, most advanced civilisation on the Earth. If Islam as a whole is wishing for a clash of cultures, one should always be careful of what one wishes for; you just might get it.

        11. You’re writing reminds me of a poorly formed stool. Pick one idea and try to express it with a bit of supporting evidence.

        12. im going general. You are always free to wiki them. LIke serbian massacre of 95 or coup detat 1953 in iran to put shah in. Theres youtube documentary of afghanistan,talibans rise to power or just google afghanistan in the 60s.
          Its up to you

        13. Interesting points. The first bit is valid, action must always be taken no matter the circumstances, however the past must be understood and recognized iin order to have a future. Afterall it affects us today.
          Column A and B,I dont see as being the difnitive way of being successful, like democracy feels like its failing here espically sweden,russia is having it hard, many african nations are also democratic. I know we like to say its the best system,but cant help but wonder, how was such a good system lost with the greeks until america was founded.
          Finland,Hungary and korea are homogenous and tribal yet they are successful. i looked up HDI index on wiki,virtually all countrys are moving up. Libya belive it or not was considered first world before getting overthrown.
          This clash can be a debate,some can argue about the miltary presence,undeclared wars,puppet dictators and starting coups as the beginning. But yes do agree, the muslims should be wary of flexing muscle..or any minority in any country for that matter. Be it a somali in sweden, a latino in usa or a white guy in japan. Careful of the host country

        14. Are your pretending that Soviet aligned dictators would have been better than American aligned dictators, or are you pretending that Sharia would have been better for those people?
          Dont ramble about Bosnia and tell me to look it up. Tell me exactly how what occurred is germaine to your point.

        15. It will be ugly. Considering they will deny the rest of the world any civil rights if they have their way, it must be done.

        16. Counted among the Sufi saints was Shahid Salar Masood Ghazi who was Mohammad Ghazni’s sister’s son and who had persuaded Mohammad Ghazni to invade India and destroy the Somnath temple (one of the largest and most revered by Hindus).
          He entered India from the North-West with his father and a few hundred thousand cavalry. From the first day he offered to Hindus – only one choice ‘Sword or Koran’.

        17. The deal is that muslim immigration is causing conflict in Western Europe. Who is more historically violent, or what the cause of the violence is, is about as relevant as where a medieval poet is from.
          To the idiot several posts earlier( not the person I am replying to)- yes idiot, you will still be able to read Rumi. European scholars read Rumi well before mass immigration.
          The deal is that multiculturalism is a bad deal for the ethnic Europeans. That’s it. Muslims immigrate, don’t assimilate, and evidently there is conflict. It’s simply not worth it.

        18. i always found that unusual. like i understand not acting european like how we would freak out if we lived in japan and our sons act like weeabos. but we have them here in canada at a similar percentage vut higher in ontario bc and alberta but they dont act like the ones in europe for some reason but our natives are pretty bad unfortunatly. cant help to think why is europe struggling but we aint. like they been there since the 60s,with no issue it was only until the last 10yrs shit hit the fan.
          think all the politics from iraq just made a mess in europe.

        19. I think the difference is the type of people who come to north America versus Europe. In Europe you have lots of people who want to take advantage of the social safety net, and re-create communities similar to those in the home country. Whereas in North America the goal is to make as much money as possible. Most immigrants to the United States and Canada, regardless of their point of origin, are drawn to those societies for economic reasons. I think there’s a huge difference between a Lebanese person who goes to New York to make a fortune, and a disgruntled person from Lebanon who goes to France to take advantage of the Safety net.

        20. that is an interesting point but here in north america we do get those communities. like canada for example if you want to find asians;bc espically richmond is where you want to go. if you want to find indians then its toronto.if you want find haitians then its montreal. same story with usa;texas has mexicans florida has cubans nyc has puerto ricans. its always when one guy settles in a city his countrymen will choose to pile in that city.
          like canada is way more diverse then any european nation.25% non white but its not evenly spread out. they only in the major cities of certsin provinces. like i can go out in the interior and find tons of all white areas. this is the case with europe. like london has many foreigners but leeds and parisy do not.
          this mass immigration doesnt make sense. they been always been bringing those migrants in for decades to do work and now sudden changes. like we train migrants when they come here to get them to work;doesnt europe have that?

      7. You little sicko. People were murdered in cold blood, and you are talking about culture? You sick, hollow shell.
        Next I’m going to justify raping teenage girls because of “culture” and because their clothes meant they were asking for it.
        You fucking sicko.

      8. Here, a taste of your own medicine, you sick little cultural relativist: Go to Africa, and I will personally dig your clitoris out with a dull blade.

      9. I wasn’t aware America had a culture. I thought we supplanted culture with consumerism, commercialization, and globalization long ago.

      10. “Ive noticed that most of these feminists are white middle-class women.
        They don’t give a shit about black women’s problems.
        They don’t care about Latino women.
        All their interested in is their own reproductive freedom…and their pocketbooks.” – George Carlin

        1. Slavery originated in africa, black on black, and still exists there. But that doesn’t fit with feminist narrative of blaming their problems on white males.

        2. Massive scale slavery was started by whites. Besides, whites are the only one lecturing about human rights.

        3. The Ottomans were importing west african slaves on an almost equal scale in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
          Also there are
          More people enslaved presently than at any other point in histiry.

        4. Ottomans, European, Arabs, Persian, Hindus are technically the same race. Their end goal is conquest and domination of other races.

        5. I guess if you categorize them all together.
          Black empires in west Africa had all different types of slavery going on, and Cherokees in america owned slaves. It really is very universal unfortunately.
          Not saying people should be happy they were enslaved, just that those who ended slavery should get some credit, considering what they endured to succeed in that.
          There are abolitionists now who liberate people. Shouldn’t they get some credit?

        6. Maybe we should define slavery first. Slaves in Athens lived almost normal lives. Many had it even better than the averadge free man. Slaves in America were just mere cattle. Slaves in Arabia were somewhere in the middle.

        7. Slaves in Sparta were treated much worse than most american slaves, as they not only could be killed for no reason, which was against the law in the United States, but young spartans were encouraged to do so as a coming of age ritual.
          Athenian slaves, like in most places, varied in their treatment you had household slaves who were tutors of the wealthy, etc. Who had high status, as well as farming and mining slaves. And of course you had galley slaves, which in my opinion is the worst form of slavery of them all.
          In some islamic countries you had ( and still have in some areas) young girls raped in harems, and young black men castrated to serve as harem guards.
          In the u.s. You had house slaves, treated much better than field hands. You had slaves doing a wide array of activities- some of them were entrusted by their masters to care for them in war.
          Of course, it was overall a very brutal ordeal.
          But I don’t understand the desire to sanitize old world slavery like that, especially since its ongoing.

      11. “No culture is perfect.”
        Pick one.
        Odds are on the one you’ve chosen to live in is the secular, Judaeo-Christian-influenced West. That being so, be thankful for the fact you are not one of three wives, had your clitoris forcibly circumcised at birth, or had the number and sex of your children chosen for you by the state, and shut the fuck up.
        Morons who find multiculturalism “interesting” invariably play up the supposedly beneficial side of ignorant, backward cultures while downplaying or ignoring the distinct downsides that tend to eclipse their “interesting” aspects.

        1. No not “Judaeo-Christian-influenced West”, but simply “Pagan-Christian-influenced West”.
          Pagan indigenous european culture was influenced by christianity, and then secularized later on. The jewish teachings of the Torah and Talmud have had very limited influence on European culture historically.
          The idea of a jewish influenced West is itself a multicultural construct.

        1. She’ll be back, probably with the screenname Hilac Laze so we wont suspect its her.

        2. you might want to look into banning englishbob too – please look through his posts – I think he’s an SJW.

        3. Nah. He’s contributed quite a bit to many discussions.
          He’s sensitive on race issues, which I can understand.

      12. Why? I wasn’t alive during slavery, I didn’t own any slaves and neither did any of my family members. Yeah, it sucks it happened, but we’re going on 200 years since it was abolished. Even attitudes towards prejudice have changed for the better, with classism being the one thing that blurs all races and genders and will probably never go away. Still, things are much better. Even Europe, homeland of the “evil” white man and all the ills he brought modern civilization which building it is acting like one big country of White English-speaking Christians now, when seventy short years ago they were shoving each other into blast furnaces. To quote Rocky III “Ain’t so bad! Ain’t so bad!”

        1. History and culture both reflects the nature of a specific people. In that sense, they are the same.

      13. We don’t like yer kind round these parts now ya hear? You gon take your multiculturalism an short hair an tattoos and get the hell outta here!!

    3. by the time that happens, they will be near dead. It will just be young girls who suffer for the sins of tumblr.

    4. I don’t support Sharia law… except when applied to feminists
      Talk about people who deserve it

  1. Best thing I’ve ever seen published on ROK. More of this kind of stuff and less of “reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder.”

      1. All muslim girls are bad headcases, and most muslim men are betaized pussies far worse than westerners, incest is rampant and largely sanctioned in muslimia. Even faggotry is “normal”. Not for nothing is the average IQ in muslimia 90, as compared to 100 for Europeans.
        Trust me, muslim girls make BPDs look normal. Avoid them.

        1. not to be a nitpicky nancy here, but what we term “incest” by and large was normal human mating behavior for most of civilization.
          Leaving aside the fact that there were fewer people per square mile and less ability to travel and most people lived in rural communities, most nations were settled by close bands of cousins who intermarried. And for those in power, incestual marriages solidified power and reduced competition for it.
          It was largely the Catholic Church in Europe that created the modern kibosh on anything closer than 3rd cousin marriage,and even that took forever. The Church desired to civilize barbarians and reduce war via marriage—it noted that highly intra-married clans were the hardest to convert to Christianity and the most war-like. Much like the Crusades, the church saw non-incestual mating as a method of bringing the world together in a noble cause.
          Still, it took a long time to get people on board (esp. rural areas—Ireland just one example before Cromwell leveled it), and non-Catholic areas tended to revert to the cousin-marrying phenomenon. Think of the Victorians/Jane Austen/Thomas Hardy types marrying their cousins, or, even more starkly, the jews of Europe, who practiced so much incest that it is estimated that every Ashkenazi is a 3rd -4th cousin to any other. The Muslim world went heavy into incest when it got poorer, as the harem-model only works when you have loads of cash to spare.
          In other words, everyone’s family tree goes straight up for most of the time. 😉

        2. Nonsense. You may be angry at Muslims for whatever reason, but don’t let it cloud your judgement
          Most Muslims live in developing countries and still maintain a degree of patriarchal masculinity. Modern europeans are some of the softest, most coddled people in the world – and that’s just an observation, I don’t have anything against them
          Lack of masculinity is why this magazine managed to insult Christians, Jews, and all kinds of domestic groups without backlash until they insulted Muslims
          Lack of masculinity is why your girls are tripping over themselves to find ways of sympathizing with criminals without looking like they’re sympathizing with criminals

        3. The Cousin marriage ban by the Catholic Church is also hypothesized to be a power grab. Cousin marriage has long been used to preserve family wealth so by banning this, it reduced competition from wealthy land owners to their power.
          Ironically, it has probably contributed to an increase in IQ in the European population, which may have helped to bring about a large scale rejection in religion.

        4. It’s also been hypothesized that banning cousin marriage reduced clannish loyalties and increased devotion to the church.
          Also a power grab, but of a different sort of currency.

        5. I’m from a part of Europe which is full of Muslims (hundreds of thousands living within half an hour of my house by car). You’re absolutely right, especially about the girls.
          They’re loud, they have the shortest fuse of any category of people I have ever had the misfortune of coming across (just one minor misstep and they’ll start screaming hysterically and demanding apologies), and they’re extremely strange about Islam’s rules for decency. They’ll walk around in a hijab, but at the same time have one of those tops showing off their belly, layer after layer of make-up and a pair of those heeled slut boots. They won’t drink alcohol, but they’ll smoke weed and pop pills freely. They want to remain a virgin, but they give blowjobs left and right and let lots of men ‘into their backdoor’.

        6. This again. Why do we like masculinity and family? Because it builds stable and healthy societies.
          The most stable Muslim societies are either secular or shia.
          Europe is dealing with sunnis. I am willing to bet it was Sunnis who did this crime for example.
          Sunni societies are not stable or healthy by and large.
          Certainly not comparable to east asian or white societies, or the societies other middle eastern people could make (kurds, christians, jews, shias). So in this case I think their masculinity os overrated

        7. You’ve obviously never been to a Muslim Country. Any woman who talked or did the shit white American women do in the US would have her teeth slapped out of her mouth. Ask yourself this, Mr. Beta, where to you think there is a presumption that children go with their FATHER after divorce…US Courts or Sharia Courts?

        8. Nopes, I’ve never been to a moosleem country, and will hopefully be able to avoid that disgrace in the future as well.
          I’ve seen enough of these nutcases to think that my opinion is based on observation rather than being Beta (that’s not my name BTW). Fact is that, despite word to the contrary, women are not constantly beaten by their mostly very beta men – while a woman stays within the norms and expectation which islam imposes on her, she can get away with pretty well anything. This shows in how islamic women tyrannize and terrorize their husbands within marriage – why do you think most of them allow themselves to become crass porkers once they’ve pooped out their first child? These portly matrones go one to become the undisputed heads of multiple generations of family.
          Secondly, once the stiff oppression of islamic tradition is subdued, as is the case for many women living in western countries, they become skanks in comparison to whom even the average cuntus americanus pales. Under the burqa, the bad personality traits have persisted rather than having been bred out of the pool. Combine that with an IQ which is in average 10 points under European norm, an immense craving for drama and rampant illiteracy, and you get cuntus islamicus.
          Last but not least, I find them crass ugly.

        9. Nah man muslim girls give good head, plus they give up the butt very early on. In big cities they pretend to be all innocent infront of their dads, but when they go off on that “school project” to her “girl friends house” shit goes down. I suggest trying morrocans, lebanese, turkish and iranian chicks. Algerians are the hardest by far Ive bedded, very prudy and blindly follow their religion.

        10. Yeah ive heard from cousins muslims girls in england are easier compared to continental

        11. You are exactly on the spot on. The sad thing is , I bet almost no one here knows what your are talking about as they don’t know much about Islam 🙁
          Personally, not being a total idiot, it still took me a lot of time to find the information about it. I had to make the researches by myself as medias was not talking about it.

        12. Sadly it took these few posts to get me to google this and start to take a look around. I know every people have their bad apples and i don’t think most westerners look at it this way. This remind me of when Carlos Mencia did the ‘It’s your turn’ joke and it’s dead on.

      2. Based on the logic of the article we should deport anyone with a right wing view. Guys like Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 good white people.

        1. I don’t quite follow that. The article was an attack on media hypocrisy and a critique on western policies on immigration as a phenomenon that may be deliberately designed to weaken the cohesiveness of societies & to create a more pliant society. Its true some support Breivik while condemning Islamists, but that would be a further example of hypocrisy.

        2. I think the article is poorly written and poorly thought out and there is an explicit paranoia directed towards “dem foreign peeples” which I find odd given that the author is a child of immigrants. Living in the UK (and based on what I have heard in the media about France) there is a constant and significant criticism of immigration and immigrants (most recently directed against Poles in the UK rather than Muslims). David Cameron himself is an outspoken critic of current immigration policies. Besides this, there are constant suggestions in the media that Muslims as a whole bear collective responsibility for the actions of individuals. Absent from this are the serious provocations by the British Government as part of its century of bloody attacks, invasions and occupation of Islamic countries. The motivation for these terror attacks, according to the media, appears to derive from mysterious “radicalisation” that occurs on the Internet.
          Oddly, none of the quotes Roosh provides back up his conclusion – that the leaders he cites support immigration to the extent he thinks.
          Furthermore, Roosh falls into the trap of talking about Muslims as if they are some homogenous group (all 2 billion odd of them). They are not. He falls into the media trap of referring to this incident as a terror attack. That is exactly what the media and government want us to think. They want us to continue to believe in their Terror Religion and continue to support their anti-terror, surveillance and censorship state. Roosh is trying to slaughter the wrong pig.
          My opinion on this? If you are going to make it your business to provoke murderous maniacs you better arm yourself. And so far, the worst such maniac in Europe was a right wing Norwegian who attacked absent direct provocation.

        3. Anders Breivik was a one-off and was not supported by a network of millions. Moreover, he was a native. If Norwegians were moving to Muslim lands and killing Muslims you wouldn’t support them.

        4. The British are not colonizing and occupying Muslim lands. Muslims are colonizing Europe.

        5. What happened in Paris is the textbook definition of what constitutes a terror attack. Anders Breivik was a monster who deserves to shot but there was only one of him in Norway. There are a lot of radical Islamists within the USA and Europe.
          Frankly, the non-extreme Muslims in the west need to get their fucking house in order because sooner are later there is going to be a huge backlash by non-muslims in Europe and they (the ordinary Muslim) are going to suffer it regardless of their individual innocence.

        6. EnglishBob, it all comes down to blood. Its like it was in Africa and the Americas. When the settlers first arrive they are welcomed because they bring fun foods, some beads, iron axe heads, a bit of booze and the like. Eventually, so many arrive that there are inevitable cultural/ethnic/crime/whatever conflicts. At that point the locals face expulsion/extermination/genocide.
          When a few of my people arrived at Plymouth, the High Sachem Massasoit entered into a 1621 treaty with them to let them stay. He could have exterminated them but chose peace and free trade. Massasoit even fed them and kept them from starving!
          In the following decades, thousands more of my people had arrived and set up a network of small settlements, forts and stockades across New England. There were growing frictions between the two peoples, both cultural and religious. White folks had their law/culture. Indian folks had their law/culture. Whose law/culture would rule?
          In 1675, Massasoit’s own son, King Philip, led the Indians in the First Indian War and tried to exterminate/enslave my people and ethnically/racially cleanse his lands. But by then it was too late. Sadly for the Indians, he failed. Like our Western Liberal Intelligentsia, his daddy Massasoit was too nice for too long.
          Ethnic cleansing works, EnglishBob. In 1943, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin agree to ethnically cleanse all German-descended people from the Eurasian landmass (except the Far East). In less than two years (1945-1947) all Germanic people had been raped, killed, and driven back to Germany. And it worked, didn’t it, EnglishBob? It solved the German Problem. The Germans are quite docile now, aren’t they?
          A Blutfest is coming, EnglishBob. The only issues are how soon, at what cost, and who will win. France now has 751 no-go ghetto zones (“ZUS”) scattered all across France where Sharia rules and cops/firemen/EMTs fear to tread. It will definitely be a bloody struggle.
          The French cannot wait much longer. Almost 40% of babies born in France are Arab/African. Over two-thirds of babies born in Ile de France (e.g. Paris and suburbs) are Arab/African.
          Genocide” is what the UN calls such mass racial/ethnic/cultural replacement, EnglishBob.
          Go read the definition of “Genocide”, EnglishBob. Death camps are not required. Violence is not required. Just the systematic and intentional replacement/elimination of a people. Muslims (even the “nice” ones) living in France believe as an article of faith and fully intend that the French Nation be displaced and/or converted to Islam, just as the English settlers in New England wanted the Indian Nations to be displaced and/or converted to Christianity and “acting white”. Both are acts of genocide.
          The Muslims are not shooting now, nor do they need to, just as my people didn’t need to shoot Indians in New England. All they need to do is pour in by the millions and let nature take its course.
          Who will France’s King Philip be?

        7. These guys are not supported by a network of millions. More to the point this attack seems more personal rather than a terror attack.
          I don’t care where Norwegians go but a good deal of Frenchmen have gone to Muslim lands and slaughtered a great many Muslims.

        8. The British are currently occupying at least two Muslim countries.
          Muslims are not colonizing Europe. They have been there for more than a thousand years and most of them immigrated legally (to Western Europe) over the past 70 years.

        9. ISIS? Al Queda? Taliban?
          The French left. Will the Muslims leave Europe?
          Should non-Muslims be allowed to immigrate to Muslim lands in the millions?

        10. then perhaps its time for segregation. i’ll be glad to work for the whites as they given me opportunities no others including my own ppl have.
          If i was a billionaire, i’d create an orania-like country that would be a safe haven for conservative traditional whites against the violence of blacks & muslims.

        11. so tell me again why are swedes, norges, & finn women are getting assaulted & raped by various niggers & sand niggers? i dont see military bases of these countries in arabia. lets call spades spades shall we?

        12. France can’t afford a King Philip. Not if it is to survive.
          France needs another Charles the Hammer, and another Battle of Tours.

        13. Why would they want to? Its a shit hole over there. They already fucked their own countries up so now they want to fuck everyone elses country up

        14. Textbook terror attacks are perpetrated against non specific targets for the purposes of advancing a certain ideology (like blowing up a bus). This was a targeted and apparently personal attack on a group of people who had given offense. Not saying they deserved to die but I do not see this as a classic terror attack.
          Don’t fall into the socialist trap of assigning collective responsibility for crimes. These individuals made their own decision to commit a heinous crime. Just like all right wing adherents do not share responsibility for the Breivik or McVey attacks a Muslim girl at school in Oldham had nothing to do with these maniacs.

        15. The French have “not left”. They are still in North Africa and other areas. Not the point though. I don’t believe this attack had anything to do with those particular issues. Again Muslims have been in Europe for more than a thousand years. Don’t let government fool you into thinking this is about Islam.
          There are already millions of non-Muslims in so-called Muslim lands.

        16. Nonsense. There are hardly any French left in North Africa and they are certainly not in control of the governments or any institutions. If the few that are left started attacking Muslims they would be killed.
          Muslims have colonized a few areas of Eastern Europe but for the most part they were defeated when they tried to colonize Western Europe.
          Non-Muslims are few in Muslim lands and are being ethnically/religiously cleansed as we speak in Syria, Iraq and other areas.
          This attack has everything to do with Islam. Just listen to the words of the terrorists. The fact that the French (and most other Western governments) support these attacks by importing millions of Muslims and giving them preferences at every turn is certainly a factor as well.

        17. They are part of forces but are not moving their people there to colonize and demographically displace Iraqis. They will leave soon and will not displace Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan.
          Muslims have tried to colonize Europe in the past but were defeated. They were expelled in France and Spain and have been far less than .01% of the population for most of the history of Europe.
          Whole areas of Western Europe are being repopulated and Europeans are suffering from daily robberies, rapes, murders and attacks at the hands of Muslim colonists.

        18. Their ideology is to kill anyone who disagrees with them are their silly, imaginary God. Christians and Jews were attacked by Charlie Hebdo far more often than Muslims. These are almost daily attacks in Europe as Christmas markets were being attacked throughout France.
          Breivik and McVey were one-offs and not supported by millions of followers. Besides, they attacked and killed mostly other white people. The Muslims attack and kill almost exclusively people of other races and religions.

        19. He killed 77 leftists who were campaigning for more immigration and the destruction of his country, his race and his culture. He didn’t kill 77 good white people.

        20. I thought the article was solid on the pulse journalism. I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. The article isn’t anti-immigrant necessarily, or for that matter necessarily anti-muslim. Its target is the liberal narrative about immigration and multiculturalism. I was born in UK but am mixed race of immigrant stock. History was also my first subject so I’m aware that nationalism has potential to lead to existential threat. Notwithstanding all that I consider multiculturalism and the attacks on national and community identity that have gone together with it are analogous to the attacks on the masculine identity of men, not least because it’s part of the same left movement and the same left narrative, a narrative moreover that has sought to achieve its critique on self-hood and nation-hood by targeting above all free expression.
          So I’m aware nationalism can be dangerous, but I’d argue the present multi-culturalist
          policies of western governments and liberal elites are making the situation worse rather than better.
          As for Cameron and his government, of course they’re hypocritical and opportunist, and that’s why the target of this article is in the first instance, western governments themselves, and the media that for the most part fall in line behind them. That media is pushing the multi-culturalist line for the most part, and that is what’s being attacked. That narrative rarely addresses the elephant in the room when it comes to terrorism, which is that often there is substantial support from muslim communities even if the vast majority don’t support it. Speaking plainly about this doesn’t and shouldn’t mean whipping up hatred.

        21. Here is a video of what is being taught in English mosques. Are the hundreds of thousands that attend these mosques moderates? So if they voluntarily attend these mosques and voluntarily listen to the instruction and teachings as shown in the video and don’t say to themselves “this is pure hatred and lunacy” and decide Islam is not for them then they are by default radicals.
          Spend 45 minutes and learn what horror the west has imported.

        22. It’s already too late for France. Whoever would fight back (White French? Black French with long histories in France?), would be “South Africa’d” asap, and the country will be ostracized by other liberal nations. The US on the other hand, has a large enough land mass that white (Christian or relatively Christian) communities will form another country. Such as in the Big Sky and NorthWest areas.

        23. And muslims have gone to french land and massacred a great deal of Frenchmen no? Marseilles anyone?

        24. Yes they should and they will, once they become more prosperous than europe. Waiting any day now…

        25. I cant beleive you are defending the people who think blacks were burned by the sun and are no more than slave stock. If the muslims had their way you do realize you would be castrated just for being black right?

        26. Muslims in Eastern Europe are much fewer, and both drink and eat pork. Plus they are treated like 2 class citizens and gyspsies, so nobody fears an uprising since most of their women are married to locals and their families are so mixed they would never be able to win. They would be subjugated.

        27. 100 years from now Norway will either be a 3rd world cesspool with no running water or have statues to Breivik in every village. He identified that its not the mosquito that’s the problem but the person holding the door open for them to come in.

        28. 20 year olds are kids now? They are adults. There are plenty of
          American soldiers who are younger than that. Hell, we’re told that the AVERAGE age of the American soldier in Vietnam was 19.
          These multi-cultural idiots have created a world where it is an absolute certainty that innocents are going to die in carload lots, in the next decade or five.
          So that being the case, I’m not going to feel bad about that I sincerely hope that they’re some other group’s innocents.There will be more Breiviks and there will be
          more Charlies… thanks to diversity and multiculturalism. It is inevitable.
          Place the blame where it is due.

        29. Martel brother I normaly aggree full heartedly with your posts and yes I have to admit i didnt really check their ages from memory the media said teenagers. My bad, and yes after im done with my play and big cash days il probably be moving somewhere far away form North America, where immigration is restricted and being white is considered good and even preferred. Yes these places exist, and no they are not necessarily in Asia

        30. “Niggers”?
          I used to sympathize with White men in their fight against Islam. But I think I’ll let you deal with them and I hope all Black people will stay out of it. Too many of us have died for ungrateful white men throughout history.
          Given that White have low fertility (1.5) and Muslim have VERY high fertility (5 or 6), you won’t last more than 100 years.
          I served in Afghanistan as a NATO soldier. I saw that a bunch of insane hobos with basic equipment defeat all of Western armies in a decade. Good luck!

        31. A video from a Jewish website? So ROK has double standards: they manipulate us but we have to give credit to their videos.

        32. “Kids” my ass, that was an indoctrination camp for white genocide. Fuck those fuckers and anyone who supports them.

        33. Wel, western companies are in Muslim lands pumping oil.
          Personally, I think Muslim should keep out the West and Western companies should keep out of Muslim countries.

        34. Yes they invaded, persecuted and enslaved Europeans for a thousand years. They weren’t welcomed in, just as they weren’t welcomed into the UK or Europe in last 70 years but rather forcibly integrated by treacherous elites acting in part on behalf of the commercial class, partly for ideological reasons, against the wishes of the citizenry.

        35. Over half a million white men died freeing the slaves. I’m not advocating or defending slavery but I wouldn’t have went to war to kill my own, just to free Africans.

        36. You’re talking about the American civil war I presume. Lincoln and the Yankees didn’t give a shit about Black slaves. They just needed some moral pretext to keep the South within the Union.
          Black people owe nothing to these “half a million”. On the other hand, many of us went to fight for your wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.) while being segregated in the South and living in ghettos in the North.
          Black people must separate from Whites and deal only with Asians.

        37. I am not attracted to Asian women and Chinese business is already “giving play” to Africa. Just go to Guanzhou and see all the African guys who settled there.
          I don’t care if Asian worship whites as long as they sell us cheap technology.

        38. So keep Asian women.
          Chinese just want our resources and we just want their tech. We don’t trust them and they don’t like us. Image really doesn’t matter here.
          The most important for me is that Black people steadily cut ties with White men and Caucasoids in general.

        39. One guy says “Nigger” and you go totally ballistic, calling for the end of an entire civilization and even ruining your own name and military service in the process.
          WTF is wrong with so many blacks psychologically that one lame word can instill such insanity? It’s just crazy.
          I hate that word myself. As an Indian i find it offensive. But it isn’t the end of the world just because someone says it.

        40. Yes they do owe them. White northerners were not the ones who enslaved them. And white northerners were the ones who freed them, whether they were happy about it or not. It doesn’t matter how anyone “feels.” If my neighbor steals your car, and I catch him, you only get your car back because of my actions.
          It’s true that blacks fought for a society that treated them disdainfully. That’s true. But the number of those killed pakes in comparison to the white soldiers killed destroying the slave south.
          There have been countless numbers of whites whi have advocated for blacks in innumerable ways. If there weren’t, Segregation would still be the norm. It was nonblacks who signed the Civil rights Act into law.

        41. Man your attitude is unnecessarily negative. I know how it is- I’m not attacking you- just saying that there’s hope.
          I’m DARK- basically I’m a beta faced George Lopez. Never had a problem in Asia. Of course in not black, but still you’d think I’d get at least some difficulty there.
          You just have to hit the right scene. There are entire subcultures of girls in Asia they like black men.

        42. What is your nationality? If American, do you think any african nation would ” take you in?”
          I just ask that question because despite looking like them, most central Americans would not accept me as ” one of them,” even if they are fairly nice people.

        43. That’s funny. I was in Colombia and brazil, I was considered as a Black Latino because my Spanish is good enough.
          I was accepted in East Africa because I can speak Swahili but I wouldn’t be accepted in West Africa.
          Just mingle with the crowd and you’ll e accepted.

        44. I think Segregation had one advantage: back then, we knew what the White man thought about us. Now we have this confusing PC bullshit.
          Black have to break away from White patronizing. We can’t do that unless we separate.

        45. As you said, you’re Indian. You’re not put at the bottom ladder of mankind by all other races.
          We know that deep inside, all other races despise us. That’s why we go “ballistic”. Unless, we separate, we will never be ourselves.

        46. I think you misunderstood what’s being said here, so i’ll help you out:
          I used to feel bad for X people, but i’ll let X deal with Y and i hope Z stays out of it. Too many Z have died for X. [insert fertility facts] due to this fact, it’s hard seeing someone be around in the future [logical assumption based on the aforementioned fact].
          Having worked for [employer] i’ve seen people with very little resources defeat those with far more resources.
          Also what’s with this ‘sand nigger’ stuff? Those guys look caucasian if they weren’t so tan in most cases.

        47. What the European Muslims are doing is a long, drawn out war against Europe. They infiltrate, breed like there is no tomorrow, careful not to integrate, and win the region through elections without firing a single bullet. It is amazing that the Europeans are too dense to see this obvious strategy. I predict that Europe will become Muslim lands in the next 50 years.

        48. Blacks will not last as well. I believe your fertility is around the same as whites, or even lower because your women are perhaps even more fucked up than white women.

        49. Africa has the higher fertility rate. Besides, Black women have better waist to hip ratio and Black have higher torso to waist ratio which are bost sign of high fertility.
          I don’t think Black women are fucked up.

        50. I don’t despise you. Though I haven’t commented on your posts before, I have admired much of what you say.
          Are you really on the bottom? Black Americans are so much more well-off so many groups around the world. Not saying that you are necessarily a black American. I don’t know. But that’s an example of black people who are relatively prosperous and admired worldwide for many things.

        51. Non blacks have a schizophrenic vision of us. They admire our elite but despise our masses. Nazis treated Jesse Owens as a god but they still thought Blacks as whole were subhumans. Louis Armstrong had it better than most White men back in the 1940s but Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus.
          I think White want to keep the top 1% of us and get rid of the rest. However, without our elite, we can’t survive.

        52. I don’t want to get rid of blacks. I have benefitted from your comments.
          Of course, I have to be honest- I am against racial grievance in General, but that’s because my own peoole (kiowa) allow it to parakyze them, when there our opportunities out there.

        53. Oh cool.
          Are you an academic ( I know you won’t want to share specifics but I’m interested nonetheless).

        54. No. I just took 6 months away from my job. If you can afford it, do it. It’s a real eye-opener

        55. I don’t know how old you are but my advice is: life life at its fullest.
          My role model is Arnold Schwarzenegger. You should check out his motivational videos.

        56. The last part is out of context and in it’s own paragraph because it addresses something else.


      1. Yeah sure Ahmed. Boko Haram killing 2000 Nigerians 2 weekend ago is also MOSSAD MOSSAD MOSSAD.
        You are pathetic.

    2. I fully agree. The social and political analysis is spot on. It completely unmasks the people in power and exposes them as the hypocritical frauds that they are. All done in a few concise paragraphs. Well done.

    3. Agreed. Although I will say that even though all regular RoKsters are red pilled on women, doesn’t hurt to keep those articles rolling as more and more guys make their way into the manosphere.

    4. We need to support The Free French on this, the Partisans who will eventually free their country from Islam.
      I laughed as I watched CNN today as the presenters were frowning as they wondered where these terrorists get their ideaology from. They wondered if it was some rogue iman or terrorist group or cell.
      The answer to their question was obvioulsy avoided.
      Their ideaology comes from the prophet himself and the koran.
      The prohet would be proud of their actions.
      The Free French need to fight back, and the rest of Europe will follow.

      1. anyone else noticed how the original… i can’ t breathe and i am Michael Brown has now been morphed into a supportive protest for a police state and more anti terrorist controls ? Je Suis Charlie does not equal I am Michael Brown…

      2. they dont know how to read.
        the koran tells you in the medina passages how to wage war & subjugate in the name of allah through terror.

      3. What “free French”? France hasn’t had free speech for decades. You can be imprisoned for years for politically incorrect speech.

      4. Douchebag Cameron talked about free speech yet quoting Churchill on muslims will get you thrown in jail

    5. rule #1 is we’re not supposed to talk about it, but if you want moar there’s this thing called the dark enlightnement

    6. I resent this. I dated a girl with a eating disorder and it was quite fun; that article was spot on.

  2. Great article that needed to be written. It follows the same reactions to nearly all Islamic attacks in the west.

  3. fantastic post. Appalling though the occasion is, it may indeed offer a springboard for a defence of actual free speech, not to mention that despite the barbarity of this act, the danger to that freedom comes mainly from our governments rather than from Al Qaeda

  4. Progressive governments can live just as well off of a “national identity” identification, as they can off a multiculti one. It’s not like the Nazi’s nor fascists were some paragons of anti progressivism.
    As long as the Muzzies played along with the “national identity” narrative, they were pretty useless as well. It was only once they realized God is universal, while no national government is useful for much more than target practice, that they started off on their road to rather inevitable victory.

  5. As the twitter critics of the guardian article point out the guardian writer is effectively ‘victim blaming’ the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who died. And I thought the guardian types didn’t like victim blaming

  6. Relevant video:

    “Time to through PC in the garbage where it belongs and call a spade a spade”

    1. she’s a brilliant speaker, but her attacks on the high incidence of radical islam (which she cites as 25% worldwide), however justified, could blind us to the fact that our governments do very well out of the fight against islamic terrorism. They might not want people to die, but when people do die, when there are outrages, or threats, real or imagined, western governments are the ones who benefit – the identification of an external threat always deflects attention away from domestic issues and the gives the ever burgeoning state an excuse to be a bit more ever burgeoning still. Ever increasing surveillance, monitoring of communications,. stricter controls, checks, not to mention hate speech legislation (which can be used against any kind of extremism) actually suits western governments very well. In other words the speaker doesn’t distinguish between the governments and the actual people
      Think how much stronger the state has become since 9/11 – its enough to make you think western governments are in cahoots with Al Qaeda & ISIS

  7. Cortez conquered the Aztecs with the help of surrounding opposition local groups. They flocked to him as he marched to destroy the thriving civilization. In a similar way, the liberal elite welcomes anyone they think will liberate them from what they perceive an oppressive, conservative tradition in the West.
    Just the other, I saw a liveleak video of immigrants beating a girl to death in a European city I used to live in. I wasn’t surprised. But the liberal elite have never lived in these cities. Their college professors only taught them the wonderful history of Islam, the invention of calculus, the stunning art. In their impregnated hatred of traditional Western values, these cultural Marxists cannot see what their alliance will lead to.

    1. Don’t worry though, those academics will claim they’re for “Free Speech”. I’ve noticed this with lots of white liberals, usually so head in the clouds because they grew up in a nice area(usually predominantly white/asian) and have no idea what’s going on. It must be nice to be ignorant but in this day and age it is now dangerous. But you see liberal thought in America expressed in an even worse way, sort of a hedonist, immature, and irrational approach.

  8. As a muslim man, I am sick to death of the following:
    -Terrorism: these bastard terrorists do NOT represent me as a Muslim. So some press decided to draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed? WHO CARES!!! I don’t give a fuck about this. Why are these terrorists so concerned? Why do they care? Its not their fucking business who does what and when. You don’t see Christians going apeshit over Jesus being depicted in musicals or on Adult Swim. I believe in freedom of speech. Regardless of how distasteful an opinion is, one has the right to express it. And if you don’t agree, fine, you use your right to freedom of speech to counter argue. You don’t go fucking killing someone else.
    -Generalisations: acts like this give further ammunition to radicals to generalise and attack an entire civilisation of Muslims. This is very dangerous and one must be careful not to fall into this trap. Understand, that the Koran was a book written thousands and thousands of years ago, when civilisation was a different place. Therefore, any interpretation of Sharia law is not compatible in this day and age, where we must learn to respect one another, even if we do not agree with them. Anyone who believes that Sharia law should be applied word by word, is an absolute idiot (and unfortunately, there are too many idiotic Muslims.) Yes, I also believe that multiculturalism has failed and I believe that is a product of our flawed human nature. Everyone has a part to play.
    -The mainstream media: It does not surprise me that the mainstream media loves to hype up something like this and the dumb general public believe that Muslims are the enemy. Anyone with a fucking brain knows who the real enemy is- Zionists (the radical Jews.) The zionists are the ones who created and funded Al Queda and ISIS. They are the ones who control and manipulate the world and are responsible for creating radical Islamists. But does anyone in the mainstream media talk about this? No they don’t because they are owned and controlled by the Zionists. The zionists also own and control the banks, the Bilderberg Group and the Federal Reserve.

    1. I am also Muslim (Sufi), and I agree. Just as with the Judaic scriptures, which form the Old Testament for Christians, the Qur’an was written/received almost 1500 years ago and some of the material was only relevant at that time. The key is to find Allah (swt) in your heart, and to follow Him in the spirit of love and connection to the greater world. The Beloved. Basically the New Testament takes this approach as do esoteric Sufi materials, Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. What we are seeing now is similar to the Catholic Inquisition of the 1400s, and yes that IS appropriate to mention, and says much about our current Muslim culture, and of course, about the reality of Christianity in the past. Islam is very Red Pill in many areas, but murderous idiots like these are ruining some largely sensible principles found in the Sunnah.

      1. Unfortunately, there are too many morons (both muslims and non-muslims) who won’t understand this.

      2. Islam is not red-pill. It advocates traditional marriage. Islamic “civilization” is in a modern dark age – the opposite of self-improvement, a very red-pill concept. Most muslims are weak beta males. Tiny Israel has managed to beat mano-a-mano states that are much larger than itself; an 8 million country beating up a “civilization” Of more than a billion people (give or take). That doesn’t sound very “red-pill”. Yeah, you’re anti-feminist, your women are traditional, and so on… But that’s not enough. Purple pill it is

        1. red pill is all about tradition, but cant now due to well you know. Israel has alot of western backing to win. Tech is the most important thing. How else did cortez conquer mexico, or why spartans and greeks were effective(all equipment was metal). If western people were in theri place theyd just give up. You saw the towers drop once you cry for days even if you werent near, while bombs get dropped all the time and its just another day.Hell our soldeirs come back mentally fucked up despite all their trainging to prepare them and they kill themsleves while those refugees still try and live.Mentally those guys are way stronger. You cant call them beta, espically coming fro a race that fears its own women….like a lion fearing a deer

        1. see.
          no matter how much you pander, you will always be seen as an outsider and still be one of them. Even if you become atheist or christian,change your name and “act alpha” through non violent means.
          Youll still wont be one of them like many wns still refer to roosh as the persian. And hes the one risking it for white males everywhere and getting all the media heat and winding up getting listed as a hate group while krauser roissy and zolo(knowing him breaking a law or 2) have done nothing and having fun.
          Whites are spoiled and have first world problems thanx to the cushy life inhertied by their hard working ancestors whom conquered the world, anything can upset them and hard to satisfy like a woman.
          Humans are tribal. accept it. When they see a group act more aggressive and alpha like blacks latinos and muslims, they hate them. But will totally rip on law abiding hardworking reserved asians and indians and call them beta and try and amog them. SOmetimes in their own countries like japan or the phillipines. this is no different.
          At the end of the day as one rok article said, everything ends with the threat of violence. Be it you doing it or the state doing it for you(arrest court or get shot).

        2. The mass immigration phenomena is primarily a first world problem, you are correct here. But it is not a luxury problem as you suggest, but a collective existential threat. Muslims and Blacks are invading and outbreeding the indigenous Europeans.
          You are a colonizer, deal with it!
          When you allude to White people being spoiled descendents from conquerors , it sounds an awful lot like SJW propaganda. Is it another example of “White privilege”? There is no privilege in being colonized and your native culture constantly being “deconstructed” and ultimately being destroyed and erased.
          Roosh is an intelligent individual who has the strong will to view the situation realistically. This article is pure redpill. He deserves an honorary residency in europe or the West based on his contributions working as an undercover anthropologist in various countries. But types like him are sadly a minority.
          He is in a completely different League compared to a beta immigrant whiner like yourself.
          The so called Alpha negroes and muslims you mention, are mostly beta to the core. This is evident in the cowardice they display, only attacking the physically weak in packs. Individually they are weaklings easily swayed by superstitous beliefs and the use of pure force. They act mentally like sexually mature children, which is not surprising considering their low IQs. Despite what they claim, they have very little honor, especially when it comes to their dealings with infidels. They compensate for this with an immense unfounded sense of pride in their beloved prophet They in general lack selfcontrol, hence their fits of rage and violence when something upsets them.
          They are disgusting backward vermin who need to be removed from majority European or European derived countries.

        3. During WWII the grand mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi and even led a legion in the SS. So even if Hitler were here, he would be on the side of the islamists.

        4. You solipsistic fuck, whining about foreigners coming to the West when Westerners have always invaded other places. Even today, who goes around looking for “poosy” paradises in 3rd world nations?
          You say that Roosh deserves honorary residency in the West? Roosh was born here you dumb nut. However you feel about it, the constitution is clear. Roosh is American and does not need your permission for residency.

        5. I must have struck a red pill nerve here.
          Apparently its fine for muslims to invade Europe, since (some)European countries had colonies in the past. I dont agree with this idea of historical retribution.
          Sounds like you are just an anti-european trying to justify the onslaught of destructive invaders.
          I dont condone the “poosy paradise” lifestyle. Its a symptom of decadence. Nevertheless Rooshs travelling and documentation has given some valuable insights into the cultural Developments in various western and westernizing countries.
          I am aware that that he has permanent residency in US, since he was born there. But in my book this doesnt Count for much. The US even grants citizenship to children born from foreigners who have just set foot on American soil. This means the descendent of any retard who shows persistency in getting across the border is rewarded with the title Citizen of the US. And then mass amnesty is granted when all else fails.
          Your criteria for granting citizenship is completely worthless, its random and broke..
          And I for one hope and pray that my homecountry at a later stage will revoke the citizenship they have granted to hordes of muslims and africans.
          The primary criteria should be blood and soil. Historic ties to a country are important, as are racial and ethnic similarity.
          I really dont care if this makes me a “solipsistic fuck”. What matters is long run racial and cultural cohesiveness.
          The Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly shows that this objective is Paramount.

        6. well they come from tradtional masculine cultures so running from cumskins would be cowardly. That supremacy will only last a few centurys(john glubb’s decline of civillization is a must read). But now they are iin the stage of decadence,thats why the young hungry migrants are coming in. Plus they came shortly after indepence after ww2 helping the axis so its well deserved. Plus if they put with them in their country may as well go to theirs after all you invited them. Plus 4 of those regions are not white nations,stop calling it that otherwise youd be mistaken for a wn.

        7. the most diverse euro nation right now is france at 15%. But Doesnt compare to south africa,fiji,uae,singpore,malaysia,qatar,thailand,hawaii,australia,new zealand and the americas.
          They are out bred cuz they aint having enough kids(below 2.11). Mass immigration started in the 60s since your women started to head to the workplace then the kitchen.
          It is not meant to be sjw like,by my understanding they name call with scum, ist and phobe. Im just saying it as it is. That didnt come from chance,it came from the efforts of those before you. You cant compare immigration to colonization. Colonization involves actually overthorwing that countrys government,forcibly converting culture with force and reaping their resources to strengthen the foreign nations economy while the host literally starves(indias famines for example. Thats not happening here. They have to work within the confines of what they are legaly given and actually working and helping that country grow be it a entrepreneur to some wage slave. At worse ya some crime,if your screening process sucks.
          Privlage luck what ever you wanna call it,well its going now. If they paid for damges and gave back what they stole ya they should be even and go home, but you invited them.
          Theres nothing to whine about,my race aint dying out.I just disagree.
          You can look at things as it is but a side will always be picked,like no way roosh can be accepted in the middle east cuz hes mixed, in the current west he can be accepted. Plus its his demographic target,so give them the feel good point they want to hear.But course some wns or race realists here will still reject him. Agree with alot with he has to say but here I disagree, like many commentors here did with c contrarys article about amoging, he got hate but i liked it. Think over time like any idealogy like the red pill, well see a break down of divisions as it goes more mainstream.
          Jack Donovan(read the book) has mentioned this. The enemy of your tribe when they are aggressive will always be demonised as weak cowardly etc. Like fighting those weaker then you isnt cowradly just a lessor form of courage,since a coward would run.This just flamboyant dishonor of moving the goal posts so to speak by shaming violence because they cant or wont do it themselves. Like I cant call neo nazis cowards, assholes yes but not pussys. And they behave in a similar matter
          YOur concept of honor is about “being a good man” not good at being a man. Honor is amoral. Honor is about being trustable and dependable to your group. Man however is program to belive in something even atheists, like we have some hero worship culture or an idol or role model to look up to.
          Fits of violence and rage are expected of men when they are disrespected, your idea of self control involves just being a doormat cause of the state getting involved. I dont blame you. Given the chance youd be the same way. SInce when has being passive a masculine trait. SInce you come from a more passive culture you will dislike this behaviour like asians do with you since they see white as more impulsive, but ironically youll see them as beta as the africans and muslims think the same of you.
          Its not much different to how women (and beta males)will tell them selves they are more stronger then men by not resorting to losing their temper and being violent. But thats a masculine trait. SImilar with one blogger saying how he was more alpha by being punched in the face by a mongolian man for talking to his wife. Only a westerner would say that. A russian would punch back.
          Instead of hating that they arent wiling to take crap,why not do the same.

        8. as english gets more qidely used watch it get standardized and simplifd. sucks to be you brit

    2. Christians do go apeshit on a lot of things. I know a couple of atheist facebook groups that had major issues because of christian mass reporting them as hate groups. Took quite some effort to bring them back up. Just that in christian nations it’s mostly illegal to kill or beat people up.

      1. It’s illegal to kill someone you disagree with in Christian nations because those are Christian values, In muslim nations anyone non muslim or disagrees with islam can be put to death, those are muslim values.

        1. Well. Remember the inquisition? Christian values right there for you.
          I’d say it’s more of a ‘secular values’ kind of thing. The separation of church and state has gone a long way to create a decent society.

        2. We are in 2015, the inquisition was along time ago, separation of church and state was created by the founders who didn’t want a political party manipulating the church granting passage to heaven or excommunicating those it saw fit as the King of England could do, If you read about the founding fathers you would find them deeply christian and there are many references to God and the Creator in the Declaration of Independence and in the constitution. I don’t think we are living in a “Decent” society but maybe you like what you are seeing.

        3. All these fairy tales will play out and end in the long run. But in our lifetime? No way (unless we discover extraterrestrial life or something).

        4. well thats germanic tradtion(england german tribes etc) that got mixed with christianity. Even murder didnt involve death penalty. The romans brought that to them when they conquered north.
          Like even now or recently in southern europe or latin america your feelings can justify your actions but our stoic influence has changed them too in recent years like killing your wife in brazil over an affair became illegal in the 80s. Or this italian guy killed his moroccan wife and kid cuz she wanted adivorce, had he not shot himself he woulda been let lt go cuz of passion. But here in north america and northern europe, we prefer emotional control and logic. Doesnt matter how offended you are,you cant break the law. Esstientally being like “beta asians”. Control emotions and dont act out.
          religion always blends in with local pagan cultures and gets mixed in.
          Lilke look how liberal balkan muslims are for example. Or how europeanized african christians are.

        5. Exactly my thoughs. Only an idiot would keep poking in the eye a dangerous beast, like that magazine did. And worse of it all, the magazine got encouragment for its attitude. You want the dangerous beast out of your country, that is a different argument. But while you have the beast at home, dont be an idiot and provoke it because “Hey, the laws allow it! The State will protect me!”. Right. This kind of tragedy happening was just a matter of time, why did no one see it?

        6. The Islamists attack us because they hate us and the western culture (what there is left of it) that we represent it. They want a worldwide caliphate where there are only Muslims and dhimmi. The argument that the Islamists only attack us due to our actions against them is totally false. When one side’s goal is to see you dead it is of little purpose to enter negotiations. There can be no compromise with the people who will accept nothing less than your disappearance from this earth.

        7. I will be happy to forgive them; right after they cease to be my enemies. One way is if they all get killed, another is if they give up on trying to kill me. I have no preference as to which they choose.

        8. and in the search of one owns excellence, some of us redpillers will rise to greatness,and know, that there is no sense in condemning a whole culture, but seeing only people of Discipline and worth and the others that you cant help but only use

        9. lol. muh freedoms. why buy into that propaganda. If they hate liibrarl cultures so much they should attack sweden japan papua new guiena brazil mexico(only laws there are the 10 comandments even then poorly enforced). But its always usa,uk and israel typically.
          THere is always something tangible to be gain even with all the bs moral ethics or pr speeches of each party.

        10. OK. So why does Boko Haram slaughter and kidnap Nigerian Christians? The same weekend that Charlie Hebdo attack started 2000 Nigeria Christians were slaughtered. These are innocent villagers, Govt of Nigeria has always scraped and cowtowed to its Muslim population. Explain why Muslim terrorists are beheading Buddhists in Thailand. Thais are some of the most tolerant people in the Southeast Asia.

        11. south of thailand is malay land and has bedn ansurgency for quite some time. the islamic influence came after think around uraq war time.difintly after 911.same case with the moro in phillipines both are seperatist turned “jihadis”.
          nigeria i cant say,its been unstable with gueralla wars for decades.

        12. All of these conflict are being framed as Jihads by Muslims against those of other faiths. Do you realize that you have just justified Boko Haram because “unstable guerilla wars”? What a lame excuse. Boko Haram specifically targets Christians in Nigeria and are carving out another Khalifate as we speak. Why are we seeing same symptoms of carnage everywhere from Syria to Nigeria to Paris to Sydney to Toronto. Same call for Allahu Akbar when these ‘exrtemists’ target and kill infidels. Strange how all these conflicts have something in common, hmm what could it be? It’s not a common skin color, it’s not a common language, wait I got it! It’s the Quran and Sunnah!

        13. if that was the case it wouldve been known long ago. face it most people in the west were not even aware of muslims until 9/11. despite long histories with them. it would be the boogieman you knew from an early age.
          torontp? this is news to me.
          they maybe throwing same chants but they dont work with each other like isis hates hamas even their goal is to win against israel or taliban running afghanistan etc.
          this radical islam is very new and didnt start during the cold war in afghanistan with the mujahadeen which later brpught al qaeda and taliban. and al qaeda had motives against the west which you may already know like the iraq war,military bases and such.but when osama left it got taken over by guys that wanna do mindless destruction in their lands then overseas. then later a radical group isis was formed under that banner.
          so quickly just to snowball ideas. it maybe their pr relation as some jihad but something is to be gained.
          even the crusades;many say it was religiously motivated but their were legit reasons like protecting pilgrims and taxing locals there.
          i cant speak of boko haram as i see them as some alqaeda wannabes. but their has been a massacre of muslims by the christians in nigeria some time ago.
          but i wont say its relgious either since they been fighting since their tribal days. specfic ethnic groups in nigeria live in certain areas follow certain beliefs like miuslim north and christian south.
          but you cant deny whats hsppdning in africa since independance guerlla groups keep coming until next generation comes and wipes them out. that region will take a long time till it settles down and im picturing more countries breaking in the future like sudan

      2. Keyboard activism and arming yourself to teeth to go kill those you disagree with are completely different things.

    3. well your brothers in the ummah dont believe in the ‘making counterargument retorts’. they like their revenge john the baptist style, severed head on a silver platter.
      islam is asking for a fight with every muslim committing acts of terror. be aware that the west can annihilate mecca in .02 seconds flat. be very afraid when a martel rises among our ranks of infidels. yes i’m a proud infidel & when jihad comes in my hood i promise i will take down as many allah snackbars as i can.

    4. As a fellow Muslim, I will simply say you’re not alone on this board. Muslim bashing is very much tolerated here, even though Islam is fervently anti-feminist and is likely the only force that will be able to defeat feminism in the future. Just sincerely wish your brothers on ROK who hate you peace and move on.

    5. As a non-moosleem, I’m sick of moosleems, and this not only since yesterday.
      Go back to whatever shitty moosleem country you came from, and take all your incestuous family with you. When there, be as much of a moosleem as pleases you and fuck your mother, sisters, daughters and cousins to stay happy forever enjoying their rancid cunts.
      Here in the West there is no use for the likes of you, what has amply been demonstrated during the last 70 or so years.

      1. first thing’s first, stop the west invading sovereign nations (most happen to be muslim majority) to overthrow governments they don’t like (mainly secular)

  9. Islamofascism has no place in Europe, Europeans will wake up sooner rather than later.

    1. No they won’t. Have they and americans done anything about the real evil behind radical islamists- the zionists? No they have not.
      Don’t cherry pick religious fanatics. If you are going to go after one, then you must go after all of them.

        1. Yes we need PEGIDA in all of Europe. The “Berlin wall” of multiculturalism and globalization needs to fall. Hopefully it will, pressure is mounting all over the West.

      1. Cherry picking religious fanatics is fine, and Zionism isn’t about religion, it’s about power and control.

    2. doubt it,back when europe was more masculine,young and more white, hitler couldnt get rid of the jews or gypsys.
      but now europe is now feminine aged more ethinc and gay as ever, It wont happen.
      europe can wind like singapore malaysia qatar or uae where the natives are outnumbered by foreigenrs

      1. When Hitler took power Germany had for some time become decadent and liberal. This changed quickly in a matter of a few years.

  10. What i don’t get is why the fuck the powers that be in Europe are so adamant on mollycoddling these Muslim tribes that refuse to live in the 21st century. I say tribes because during my visits to Europe i have come into contact with many upper middle and upper class Muslims that while they worship Allah their lifestyle is distinctly European. They drink, they dance, they fuck just like any other Euro would and everyone one of them complaints that these motherfuckers are all giving them a bad reputation. They are sick of them and would love to see them deported.
    Btw these upper middle and upper class Muslims are from Lebanon,Iran and Syria.

      1. Here’s the thing, the ones that do speak out become targets for these backwoods tribes since they feel that no Muslim can go against their “doctrine” so they fear for their and their families lives. Also they do not get support from other affluent and successful Muslims since most of them want to distance themselves as far as possible from the tribes. So they are in this damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

        1. Fine.
          Muslims are cowards against violence in Islam.
          I guess it falls to the hated Americans to solve another one of their damned problems for them.

        2. That’s the thing as i have said in an earlier comment why are governments in Europe doing nothing to stop these motherfuckers. The social justice BS aside terrorism is a national security issue. European intelligence agencies cannot be that stupid when a treat is staring them right in the face. So the problem i think is the politicians are not giving the green light to properly deal with these people. What do those bastards stand to gain from letting these people run rampant ? are they seeking to down the line convert to islam and rule the former western democracies that turned into Saudi-Arabian style model states ? one can only speculate.

        3. The West is being deconstructed in Europe, just as it is being deconstructed in the USA. What you are witnessing is the void created after the culture has been sufficiently diluted so that the deconstructionalists can now replace the old, strong culture with whatever socialist crap they find suitable.

        4. The politicians are counting on the intelligence services to overstep their natural boundaries and to stop the bad guys.
          The politicians are not interested in properly identifying Islam as a violent religion and demanding it change or its adherents leave the country.

      2. That was my first thought, after reading that one of these suspects had been jailed before for violent threats or actions. However, he was also a French citizen, and in the modern world the idea of exile has all but disappeared. I think it is one of the most effective solutions for those who are clearly troubled. The Boston bomber guys were known to be a potential for trouble, but what can you do, follow around innocent people who have not YET committed a crime 24/7? Just exile them and be done with it.

        1. Is there any explanation for how they identified three heavily masked men before they were caught? No TV here…

    1. How about this? The powers that be in Europe NEED inmigration, so they have no choice but “mollycoddling” these “muslims tribes” that refuse to live in the 21st century. Without these “muslims tribes”, they dont have the workforce they need to make their economies work. So since you have unwanted neighbors you cannot get rid of (because you happen to need them), does not it makes sense to recommend not pissing off the hell of said neighbors? At least until you find a way to get rid of them without your whole system collapsing?

      1. There are many other people from less developed country who are not religious fanatics that are more than happy to immigrate and work without going on a killing spree.

        1. Are you sure about that? Because the fanatics are a minority inside the minority. You bring a minority from a less developed country, and there is bound to be some among them that might react violently if you piss them off enough. This happens because they are barely civilized, and that is why they are willing to move to your country. Would not it be sensible to research first what is it that pissess off your inmigrant minority and avoid doing it? This french magazine did their research, and actually went out of its way to use that research to find ways to offend a minority with a long track record of having violent fanatics among their mist. Now, is that idiotic or not?

      2. Bullshit! Most of the immigrants feed from social services, there is no work-force except för Döner-shops, where money is laundered

        1. Well, if you think you can get rid of them with no consequence for your economy, then go ahead. Deport them all back to their country, get rid of the unwanted neighbors. But until you do, “does not it makes sense to recommend not pissing off the hell of said neighbors?”

        2. Listen pal, in my own country those foreign neighbours should not piss people of, why do you think is there a need and reason for satiring the fucked up islam-facism?! Think, do it one time!

        3. And what is this reason and need for satiring the fucked up Islam-Fascism? It seems like these Islam-fascists are quite violent and dangerous, and they are not exactly laughing at the jokes, so it sure has to be a very good reason and need.

      3. only because governments are scared of losing its taxbase. remove the irrational fear of vote pandering & immigrants are not needed anymore

    That is the crime. It is white Genocide. IT is state violence.
    Politicians past and present must be held accountable. ‘Just obeying
    orders’ is not an excuse.
    Do you wish to spend the rest of your life supporting swarms of
    non-citizens streaming across our borders and voting for you to give
    them more of your earnings?
    Translation: The state hides behind its guns and use of force while it
    avoids accountability to the population for the creation of
    multiculturalism, White genocide and state over-reach into everything.

  12. If you’re really against Islam and the insanity that goes with radical forms of it, why not discourage misogynistic behavior instead of promoting it?

      1. Look at the tone used when describing women on this site, in articles or comments. 90% of the time there are at least hints of misogyny, especially towards women who don’t fit the traditional ideal of “femininity”.

        1. “whore”, never gotten such a creative, original insults on this site before. I’m truly wounded; you’ve shattered my ego.

        2. I’m well aware of the “tone”. You’re still a retard.
          Hint: criticism (call it whatever you want) of modern women isn’t an exclusively Islamic attribute.

        3. Why don’t you start. If you put half the energy into attacking muslim mutilation of women that you put into demanding that all men like your stupid tattoos, we might have a little respect for you at ROK.

        4. Welcome to the world of men, we have our own language, feminism tried to get in on it but discovered it didn’t like it and has been trying to feminize men ever since. Men and woman are different, stick to your more specific gender role and you won’t be so offended.

        5. Feminism thinks the taliban stoning women is on a continuum with sexist lads mags rape culture toss. What you can’t get you’re head round is that Islam and progressive & feminist movements have advance in step because they are reactions to each other. Progressivism has created this monster, and has reaped the benefits at home in terms of a populace that always move towards (fake) ‘tolerance’ in the face of Islamic intolerance. The West has created islamic fundamentalism in at least that sense

        6. But if you dislike misogyny that much then why are you keep coming back to this site, sweet tits?
          If you don’t like certain musician then you don’t go to their concerts nor buy their albums now do you? If you don’t like certain restaurants then you don’t matronize err I mean patronize them now do you, sweet tits?

        7. When somebody accuses you of something, and you want to deny that you are guilty of it, you don’t CONFESS to it, dumb-ass! You do the OPPOSITE of that!

        8. You know, that’s a damn good question, one you should have asked yourself years ago.
          If you don’t like women, why do you obsess over them? Why have you devoted your life to getting their attention in the worst way possible if you don’t want their attention?

        9. You only respect mindless conformists who serve your ridiculous agenda unquestionably?
          Yeah, I know. It’s why you have no friends IRL.

        10. So you’re saying the problem of people treating women like shit is the direct result of people NOT treating women like shit, so in order to stop women from getting treated like shit, we need to treat them like shit.
          Where did you learn to compose your false dichotomies, the Kentucky Klown Kollege? I’d ask for a refund if I was you.

        11. It was meant to say that your respect is a liability, and nobody in their right mind would want it anywhere near them. The only useful purpose you could ever serve is as a poster boy used to demonize a rival group or tribe.
          This is also a verified fact, backed up by peer-review research, by the way, not a mere ad-hominem. We have a ton of data showing that you only respect scum, going back over twenty years. I’m just stating the facts here.

        12. Why don’t you provide us with a source for your claim that you have peer-reviewed research with a ton of data showing that you (whatever that means) only respect scum, going back over 20 years, of course?
          What is it that compels you to use big words whenever you’re lying?

        13. exporting ‘progress’ as part of liberal democratic / economic reform in “backwards” countries has tended to result in the people of those countries pushing back against “neo-colonialism”. Radical islam has benefitted enormously from that push back but so ironically have the progressive movements in western countries. The taliban, Al Qaeda, and most recently ISIS are the best recruitment agencies for progressive, feminist values you could possibly get. You really think that the western governments sponsorship of the Arab Spring etc was about spreading democracy and that they didn’t anticipate the consequential rise in jihadism? Jihadism is useful to ‘progress’ and progressive’s are responsible for making women’s lives worse in those countries. Radical Islam is how the west became as ‘progressive’ as it is, and it wasn’t an accident. So instead of jerking off to Malala tonight say a prayer for Bin Laden: he’s the guy who made your dreams come true.

        14. Oh right I see now, “ISIS,” the Egyptian fertility goddess! OF COURSE! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! Terrorism was created by the feminists to make people more sympathetic towards women, and ISIS is a front group for the liberal/progressive illuminati! It was staring us in the face the whole time! This entire war is one gigantic false front operation controlled from the shadows by misanthrope WOMEN! Their plan must be to trick all the manly men into killing each other in a perpetual war so they can establish a lesbian utopia where the only males are wussified, gelded slaves!
          We’ve got to warn the world about this!!!!

        15. Hmm, you’re right, that is some awkward phrasing right there.
          Here, let’s try, “Fanatical adherents to the dogma of this cult you belong to.”
          no? Okay, how about “a cell in some kind of gibbering misogynistic hive-mind.”
          Come on, I never get to use the word “gibbering” in context like that!

        16. feminism as you may have noticed is favoured by all western governments and the elites that run them. Perhaps that’s because they are all lovely people who want things to be fair for everyone or perhaps its because women’s entry into the job market keeps wages low and increases tax revenue amongst other things. There’s nothing conspiratorial in such a rendering of elite interests, its simply logical. The idea that western governments also find islamic fundamentalism useful for their progressive domestic programmes also makes perfect sense: even if they had nothing to do with fostering or funding islamic terrorism then it would still be the case that ‘progressives’ have used the taliban, al Qaeda etc to ‘position’ the ‘bad guys’ as the thing a good citizen wants to be the opposite of – namely, progressive, feminist etc. Except the behaviour of western governments in toppling regimes, directly or indirectly through political and economic pressure, funding political opponents etc, suggests that the West is either hugely incompetent (i.e in wanting to promote democracy but accidentally promoting islamic fundamentalism instead) or was deliberately aiming for the kind of instability that would produce that very predictable result. Now, all of the above, while difficult to evidence is perfectly rational and supportable. It doesn’t require ‘the whole thing’ to be an invention of the west, just that western governments have found islamic terrorism beneficial and have for that reason have colluded with its progress, either by fostering it or more passively simply allowing it to take the direction its taken. Re. the idea that its all a big feminist conspiracy by women themselves – I’ve never even heard that idea before you expressed it. ‘Progressive’ thought is elite driven. It has nearly always been driven ‘from above’, usually from compromised universities
          As for your sarcasm and ridicule of a position you disagree with its a pretty low form of argument, but unfortunately one rather typical of social justice warriors.

        17. – If you don’t like women, why do you obsess over them? –
          What made you think I obsess over women?
          – Why have you devoted your life to getting their attention in the worst way possible if you don’t want their attention? –
          Care to elaborate in specifics? Because I sure don’t understand what the hell are you babbling about, perhaps you mistook me for someone else and sorry dude but I’m not gay so not interested, Gnome Saint?

        18. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!
          Classic dude. Though in this case, I’d say that Muslims treating women like shit is a symptom, not a cause. The whole rotten religion is based on submission…and men get plenty of beatings too. Grow your beard. No beer. Grovel on the floor 5 times a day. No food or sex in September. It’s no wonder theyre pissed off.
          They are just as deluded and superstitious as all religious followers, plus enough of them have decided that they should evangelize with a bullet, rather than words.
          I’d say it has very little to do with western MRA thinking, and more to do with a shitty toxic stew of superstitious ignorance, callous Arab politics, cold war hangovers, and tribal feuding.

    1. Yes, an apostate muslim in the workforce for the frenchstate. Muslim kill such muslims…

  13. I’m glad this happened. You allow subhuman, 3rd world scum to “bring diversity” to your country, then this is what you deserve.
    Allow their filthy children to starve to death or destroy your children’s future.

  14. Zionism is the root of all evil:
    -Zionists created and funded Al Queda, ISIS and radical Islamists
    -Zionists created the Federal Reserve and the Central banking system
    -Zionists entrenched government and created bogus wars and destroyed the economy
    -Zionists own and control the mainstream media
    -Zionists created feminism and eugenics program
    -Zionists are the ones behind the destruction of the Middle East
    -Zionists are the ones behind the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

    1. You just said below that you are a muslim and that you hate generalizations, and then you cry “joooooos” to try to deflect attention from terrorist islamic behavior. Well done, you just won the dipshit of the day aware

      1. I didn’t attack Jews you fucking knob. There is a difference between Jews and Zionists, though I wouldn’t expect an asswipe with a pigeon’s brain to understand that.

        1. No a jew is a jew. You may not have been attacking the jew, but I certainly am. Because, like I said, the jew is why you were permitted to leach off of the white man’s dole in the US and EU. Your children would have starved to death in your 3rd world swamp if it was not for the jew.

        2. It just happens that 99% of jews are zionist and after looking at camel jockey behavior, it’s no surprise. All jews pray towards Zion anyway, which makes them Zionist automatically. Not like that’s a bad thing

        3. Neturei Karta is the Westborough Baptist Church of Judaism. They are a bunch of clowns with a craving for attention and are largely irrelevant.

    2. Thanks for stopping by Adolf.
      Zionism killed no one in France today. Muslims did.

        1. There were violent Muslims long before there was modern Israel.
          Why do you lie?

  15. Isn’t roosh of middle eastern extraction. Don’t point the finger, because that finger might end up getting pointed right back at you.

    1. Roosh’s point wasn’t primarily about race, it was about culture and religion.
      Unlike many of those who share Roosh’s race, Roosh is a supporter of the traditional West, and views the preservation of our heritage, culture, and society as being more important than petty racial disputes.

      1. Roosh is very strict with ‘race-trolling’ on his forums, except when it comes to muslims, indians or chinese people. He is a hypocrite.

        1. Islam is not a race, and while Roosh is not a racist, he is a realist who is willing to speak frankly about the differences between races.
          You sound like an Islamic sympathizer.
          If you are, feel free to come try in the States what you guys do in France, and you will be met by our heavily armed citizenry.
          Not to offend you though. I would never want to do that.

        2. So true. He is the biggest hypocrite I have seen and suffers from severe inferiority complex like many other iranian descended , thinking he is white, when he is not.
          Don’t care how hard he tries, he will never be white (anglo saxon which is the real white)
          He is a hypocrite who will delete your comment if he does not like it, yet talks about freedom of speech.

        3. He cherry picks- he is willing to criticise Islam. but not Juidaism? Everyone goes insane about a couple of gun men who are radical muslims, but not talk about the thousands of years of destruction committed against millions by the zionists?

        4. I hear criticism of Zionism a lot on rok, but I have never felt it to be compelling.
          When you say Zionism, are you one of the types who believes in a global conspiracy where the world is controlled by Jews, or are you talking about specifically what is occurring in Palestine?
          Also, how is this impacting America? I know we give Israel a lot of foreign aid, but other than that?

      2. Yet, he will never be accepted as being white and western. Iranians are known to have inferiority complexes for anglo saxon culture, that they are so desperare to emulate it and yet, reject their true identity. Hence, inferiority complex. And no, iranian descendants are NOT white. You must be anglo saxon to be white.
        On the street, lets be honest, most would perceive him to be a middle eastern muslim lookalike. He is desperate to be white it is a joke.

        1. Nope. All native Europeans are white. Persians and Turks are Caucasian. Most consider them white-ish.

      1. As a Muslim, your racist assumptions cause you to believe I have called for your killing.
        Reform your religion or STFU.

      2. other way around brah. we’re not the ones shouting the black flag of shahadah will fly at buckingham palace & the white house

    1. they always have since colonialism,to independance to legally migrating in the 60s to 911 and now suddenly you hear them being violent to westerners. Prior to 9/11 you never even heard of them chances are

        1. Ive always writen like this, finally get disagreement, now level of english gets attacked. Interesting coincidence.

        2. I am truly sorry that your parents and education have allowed you to believe this is an acceptable way to present yourself to the public.

        3. meh its internet posting not a college essay. no need to take the net that serious unless its your job

        4. As I said before, it saddens me to understand that your teachers and parents allowed you to believe that your presentation of yourself to the world is acceptable.

        5. be sad all you time ill have trigger warning for u.
          find post one doesnt like name call attack grammar attack sources if given or attack for proof ya another day on the net
          if your idea of presentation to the world in the net is sad then thats rather sad to think that way

        6. I can’t even tell what you’re trying to say. I’m not being a grammar NAZI. You are incomprehensible.
          Aren’t you ashamed to know that more than half of your readers believe you’re a moron because you write like a second grader?

  16. I also think it’s pretty funny this happened. Hasn’t France been actively supporting ‘Syrian Rebels’, supporting Israel and attacking Iran. You reap what you sow, you french fuckers.

    1. exactly, it’s fine to fund terrorists to ruin other lands, they just don’t want the problem to return home. notice how all the secular governments are being taken down in the middle east.

    1. Gun control never eliminates all weapons, nor does it claim to. Fallacious statement. You are implying that if the cartoonists were all packing heat they could have fought off these military style attackers. There is nothing one can do to prevent someone motivated strongly enough to kill you.

      1. An ambush sucks, but I bet if several people in the office were practiced with a CCW a few less would have died and maybe one of the bad guys would have been put down.

        1. Might not be a bad idea in their line of work. Post-French France is not going to be a safe place for dissident voices.

        2. Maybe, but these guys drew cartoons for a living. Chances are practicing kung fu was not high on their list of extracurricular activities. Self defense skills are a good thing to have, but there will always be times someone is completely defenseless (such as when you are sitting in a group discussing what cartoon you want to draw that day). Apparently the editor was the main target, and they immediately searched him out and executed him. Not much you can do to prepare for that. But yeah it’s likely some of the others could have survived.

        3. I agree, if you are a mark you have a very low chance of survival. Given the element of surprise, picking your time and place.
          However a lot more people than the editor were killed. The paper was known to get violent threats, and it its not the first time someone has tied to kill a journalist. Given the obvious risk to there safety (the editor had a bodyguard), who was shot first. I am sure if the laws were different a few of them might have been armed.
          Guns change a conflict in a way hand to hand martial arts do not. The training required to be deadly with a gun is much less, and the ability to project force is much greater.
          If I am not immediately engaged, I can get a shot off within 3 seconds, drawing from a holster. with several more quickly behind it. I practice once a week for 1 hour. Not saying I will hit my target on the first round, but you can bet it takes the momentum off of a would be mass killer. I would rather die fighting with a chance than sitting in chair.

      2. Yes, if the Cartoonist had guns they could have survived . I tell you what you do against a strongly motivated attacker you fight back and not be a coward! Where is your spine?

      3. I keep a Para14 in a lock box in my desk. If I’m to die, at least I’ll die fighting.
        “There is nothing one can do to prevent someone motivated strongly enough to kill you.”
        Great. Then let’s disband the police and military and bow down to out muzz overlords.

        1. Instead of lubbing your asshole and bow down to your muzz overlords, how about you try not to publish offensive cartoons targeting one of the potentially violent minorities in your country?

        2. How about just deporting the lot of muslims instead. Then perhaps it will be possible to publish cartoons and satire without the threat of death looming.

        3. Sure, great idea. Deport all musims back to their country. Now, until we get that implemented and we get a muslim-free country, how about you stop publishing the offensive cartoons? Sounds reasonable?

        4. Yes we must tolerate the intolerance of the minority by pre-censoring everything to not offend them. No one in a free society has the right to demand to never be offended. That is the primary issue with feminism; they demand that all men bend over backwards until our heads are up are asses to keep from someday, maybe, offending any one woman.
          BTW the mag also published cartoons that targeted and offended Christians, Jews, atheists, left wing politicians, right wing politicians, and other assorted asshats. I guess we should deport everyone before we publish anything because, you know, no one should ever be offended. Also BTW all those other offended groups took it in stride without killing a bunch of people.

        5. Sure, go insult these if you want. But dont go an insult the barbarians, because then tragedy can happen. How hard can that be to understand.

        6. No. Muslims are not here to tell the European what he can and cannot do.
          The muslims should never be in a position where they can dictate the terms. Its a question of principle.
          Never sacrifice your native culture to appease the foreign aggressor. It will only encourage him to push for more.
          Stand your ground. And then retaliate with full force when the opportunity is given.

        7. they came to out land. they knew our rules about freedom of expression. pick another country to go to if you’re that offended numbnuts. we dont go parading crosses in mecca now do we fucktard?

        8. Or, just spit balling here, you expect your population to follow your rules and laws and put on their big boy pants when someone says something they don’t like?
          As opposed to, you know, fucking murdering people for drawing a cartoon.

        9. So all I’ve got to do is commit violence over something you said, and you promise to never speak again as long as I live?
          By your own logic …

        10. If I call you idiot and I get a punch in the face, then sure, I wont call you idiot again. Because I got some common sense. What I wont do is call you idiot over and over after getting punched in the face, because you might get so mad at me, you might stab me instead. And when I am bleeding on the floor, I might go “but freedom of speech!”, yet that wont change the fact that I was a jerk and some hot blooded guy stabbed me because I provoked him unnecesarily.

        11. Muslims cannot tell you to wear a burka or to read Coran. I fully agree on that. But what muslims can tell you to do is to stop insulting them with specific cartoons aimed at their beliefs. “Stop being a jerk to me”, we are so used to ignore that kind of requests that we forget that there are people who can react violently when you insist on insult them, even after they have warned you about the consequences (does that even make sense?!). And that is the mistake of the civilized man when dealing with barbarians. A civilized man does not react with violence to an insult, but a barbarian does. And this is an idea that has been around since Robert E. Howard.

        12. Christians and other religious minorities have for generations had their beliefs criticized and mocked. This is the way of life in europe.
          If muslims dont like it they should leave.
          I feel personally insulted by many things published in the media. But I pretty much endure it. Why should muslims receive special treatment?
          I dont accept this distinction between different standards applied to barbarians and the civilized. This is simply multicultural policy in action.
          Either you act civilized or you get the fuck out. This principle is fundamental for western civilization.

        13. You are right, of course. These barbarians should act civilized and accept the insults like we all do. But the fact is that a small minority in the minority are barbarians and they are not doing that. Instead of just shruging off the offenses in a civilized manner, they are reacting violently. So you either get rid of all of these barbarians (maybe getting rid of the entire minority) or better not insult them with funny cartoons. It is great that you are advancing the agenda of getting rid of all the population with Islamic beliefs and closing your borders to them, but until you manage to do that, keeping on with the insults to show them just how brave and stubborn you are seems like the wrong move here. That is my opinion.

        14. Well I see your point. I just disagree.
          Until muslims are repatriated, I dont think the West should dispense with its principles. It will only show up as a sign of weakness if you cave into the pressure.
          Terrorist murders are a price you need to pay for freedom of speech. But in the long run the muslims need to leave. Their culture is incompatible with European culture.
          Sp I prefer the collateral damage caused by free speech. Appeasing the barbarians will only encourage them to push for more demands and become more easily offended. Its a bad move when you look at the long term consequences, in addition to unprincipled thinking.
          Europe needs to draw a line in the sand.

        15. The problem I see is that the ones doing insults are not necessarily the ones that die as martyrs for the cause. Other people might die as collateral damage for the attacks. So even if we have brave cartoonists willing to risk their lives, I do not want me, my family or anyone else to be put in danger. Islamic terrorism will always be a risk, but publishing more of these cartoons is only increasing the risk for attacks. Call me a coward if you want, but I care zero for that so called “freedom of speech” (since I see it as just a farçe, like the main articule points out) and I dont want to be put at a higher risk than I am already because of the defense of something I do not believe in. If I work for a magazine and the director decides to publish the offensive cartoons, doesnt that put me in a bigger risk to die during a revenge terror attack? What if I live next to the magazine office? When it gets bombed away I could be caught in the explosion. What if these islamic fanatics decide that they cannot attack the magazine directly and go for a different target? Am I to die because someone with a deadwish published a cartoon?! There are things that are worth to die for (debatable, but still), but this “right to insult with cartoons” sure is not one of these, not in my book at least. So Europe better do something to reduce the threat. Allowing magazines to publish “funny” (offensive) cartoons of Mahoma while having such a heavy Islamic immigration seems to me like a suicidal policy.

        16. What you are calling for is general censorship. Yoy cant just narrow it Down to a an unspoken rule where certain Groups of muslims should not be offended.
          When you start censoring there is no limit to it. The West is already pressured with politicall correct censorship. What you recommend will only make it worse. Red pill discussions could easily be banned in a heavily regulated internet community.
          I see what the problem is. You really dont believe in freedom of speech, or dont care about it to much.
          I think on the other hand that its very important. So this is a fundamental difference in outlook.
          Its a heavy Price to pay for innocent people put under increased risk of terrorism. But I still think its worth it. At least in the long run, until the majority of muslims are sent packing.
          The alternative is a PC police state where ordinary people live under the threat of offending the easily offended, and the risk of prosecution. I clearly know what I prefer.

        17. I prefer if religious fanatics are not insulted publicly. In my country, mocking religious sensitivities is forbidden, you get fined for that. That is why France now has 12 dead people during an attack against a magazine instead of us. You also get fined if you praise people that have been involved in terrorism, and no one is complaining about censorship. And for the record, freedom of speech seems just the same here as everywhere else, just without magazines enraging the dangerous fanatics.

        18. Well of course freedom of speech is compromised if mocking religious sensitivities is forbidden. Maybe thats fine with the majority, but that is a whole seperate issue.
          May I ask which country you are from?

        19. So, your answer is yes, then. You would allow violence committed by someone who disagrees with you to stop you from speaking, instead if telling your attacker to go fly a kite and then DEFENDING yourself against the violence. Fair enough, I know what I need to know.

        20. Nice one, but derailing the discussion is not an excuse for avoiding arguments.
          Since you keep on referring to your home country which fines people for insulting religious sensitivities, I assume that you are not living in a western or european country.
          This implies that the standards and norms are completely different from an European cultural setting, comparisons are therefore of limited value.

        21. Where someone comes from does not invalidate any argument. Why would the opinion of someone living at X be more valuable than the opnion of someone living at Y? Should not the content of the actual arguments be discussed instead of where is the guy from, or what race he is? If I am talking about my country legislation, that is because I know my country legislation. Not so much the legislation of other countries. But I am pretty sure that if the magazine attacked in France was published in USA instead, it would not last long before it was shut down for hate speech. Just imagine if they published cartoons mocking the black populace, depicting them as monkeys or something. Imagine the uproar in USA for a magazine like that. There are sport fans that have been expelled from stadiums for racist chants. Where were the cries for freedom of speech then? (I am using this just as example, I am not saying that racist insults are fine, same as I do not think that religious insults are fine).
          You talk about freedom of speech as if it was something sacred that has to be defended at all cost. Why?? Is that our new religion now? Do we have dogmas like “men and women are all equally capable at anything they do”?
          Besides, history has shown that allowing “artists” to spread hate with funny cartoons often paves the road to actual, real life violence. Just ask the jews. Why cannot we learn from history.
          I, for one, dont want to become a target so some cartoonist can keep being a jerk to a particularily vengeful, violent prone people. At least the woman in miniskirt hanging out in bad neighborhoods does not get other women raped. That woman also has a right to dress as she wants and go anywhere, but I thought we had agreed here that such attitude was reckless and folly. So how publishing these insulting cartoons in a country full of Islamic inmigration is brave and commendable instead of reckless and folly? They are actually putting OTHER people in danger, not just the guys doing the magazine! That innocent people have to become martyrs for a cause they might not even believe in?! Last thing I read, they were planning publish another issue next week and not change a thing of their editorial policy, even though half their staff is dead now. So great job encouraging these guys to keep being insulting with your “je suis Charlie” messages, folks. It will send a loud and clear message to the savages: next time, make sure there are no survivors and dont spare anyone.

        22. Yes it does not invalidate the argument. What countries, and ultimately what civilizations, you are comparing, is very relevant, and potentially can invalidate the arguments.
          If you are comparing a west European country with say a majority muslim country, you are not just comparing the free speech Laws and customs, but entirely different political and cultural traditions.
          Comparisons are therefore of limited value if France is compared to some random country X. If I dont know what country X is, Its really hard to ascertain if this comparison is meaningful in any way.
          I dont know if freedom of speech is actually sacred in the West. But it no doubt is a hard earned right, which is at risk of being undermined at present due to mass immigration and the pursuit of multicultural policies. Some liberals perhaps believe it is sacred, I think this is an overstatement. I do however believe it is of value, but also that is something very specific to European culture.
          Non Europeans just have a tendency to value free speech very lowly.
          Hence the relevance of your background.
          I dont think that a shut down would have taken place in the US. The US still has its first amendment, and in principle has very Little material that is restricted, save for child pornography and other similar stuff.
          In the EU hate speech laws are much more extreme. You can even get jailed for “holocaust denial”, quite a compromise with free speech I would say.
          Your example with short skirt slut behaviour makes cultural background even more pertinent. What country are we talking about? A Scandinavian country where women show of their tits at the Beach, or Saudi arabia where women are supposed to cover up from head to toe?
          That you insist on hiding your cultural background makes this exercise very difficult.

        23. The short skirt “slut” (your word, not mine) is an example already discussed in these forums. I dont think it has any relation with a specific country, it is about women acting irresponsibly and people being outraged for asking them to be prudent. For example, when police gave advice to women to avoid getting sexually attacked, there was an uproar about it. Have you seen the image of a naked protester holding a “dont tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape” sign?
          The way I see it, the reasoning behind calling out a woman for making an irresponsible use of her freedom is very similar for the reasoning behind calling this magazine for its editorial policy. The fact that you agree or not with calling out a woman for dressing sluty in a bad neighborhood is irrelevant, what I am saying here is that the reasoning behind it should be the same as the case of a magazine publishing offensive cartoons in a country full of islamic inmigrants.
          And the writer of the article denounces “free speech” as what it is, a farce, with examples from England, Germany and United States. We do not really enjoy free speech, but we are being forced to risk our lives for this “hard earned right”. How hypocrital of these world leaders to get their mouths full talking about free speech when they are putting a gag on it themselves (incidentally, the president of my own country is doing the same, so dont think I am being dismissive toward other countries, mine is just as bad.)

        24. Yes it has a relation to specific countries, since irresponsible behaviour is culturally specific. Short skirt behaviour will in some countries not produce much more than a shoulder shrug, while in other countries it may be considered an invitation to rape. In some countries it will produce outrage in others not.
          This is also one of the reasons westerners are clashing with muslims in europe. You are simply dodging a key element on this topic.
          I might think that a women should dress respectably, and this implies something specifically to the culture in question. A muslim however would possibly think that it requires a full body cover, no alcohol consumption, etc.
          Respectable female behaviour varies according to culture. This even if the reasoning principles are very similar. the consequences are completely different. Context can never be ignored when dealing with norms and behaviour.
          No doubt free speech has been compromised. And some issues on race, sex and religion clearly are being censored. But until recently the West enjoyed a long tradition of (peaceful)religious critique. Built on the experiences with violent wars of religion and ideology. So the Charlie Hebdo case is just another nail in the free speech coffin. I agree that the politicians are acting very hypocritically in their dealings with the situation.
          This does however not imply that free speech is worthless, only that the principles are slowly and gradually being eroded over time.
          Sacrificing all free speech principles in the name of security to appease muslim fanatics living in europe, is surely equivalent to putting a very low value on free speech. It is also a sign of weakness and surrender, when you let a small Group of violent fanatics dictate the way of society.
          And it is furthermore not pragmatism as you suggest. It will just enrage the muslims further, making them less tolerant of dissent.
          You are practically giving the muslims an incentive for acting violently everytime you reward them with public censorship.
          It is therefore not only spineless, it is counterproductive in the long run.
          Sorry, but europeans have grown accustomed to basic liberal freedoms. Which in principle includes the right to think and speak freely what is on your mind. Giving free speech up now would amount to admitting that a vital part of your political and philosophical tradition is practically worthless.

        25. The miniskirt example is used because most people understands it (I see now that some people need clarification on what the cultural context is, apparently). For your benefit, you can change the miniskirt with any other clothing appropiate to your culture and the arguments remain the same, so there should be no problem. In USA it might be a miniskirt, in other parts of the world it might be uncovered hair, pants that dont reach under the ankle, whatever. You are the cultural expert here, the miniskirt example works well enough for me.
          I am not saying to sacrifice “all free speech principles”. I am not even saying that you should censorship free speech. As in the argument about the miniskirt, people is not demanding to forbid women to dress anyway they like, just asking them to use their freedom to do so with responsability. Put on your miniskirt only when in safe places and try to avoid conflict neigborhoods. Dont go get drunk at a frat boy party while dressed like a slut. Stuff like that. Which is what the french magazine should be told to do instead of everyone praising them for their “bravery”. My, they even are actually being elevated as modern martyrs of their faith! No matter how much you want to paint it with fancy talk about the defense of historical rights and freedoms, what they are doing is reckless and folly, not brave. That is what they should be told instead of “go ahead, keep on with the insults!”. How can we even ask radical Islam to disuade their people from performing acts of physicial violence (which is a reasonable demand) when we are encouraging our own people to perform acts of moral violence (which is another reasonable demand, yet so many among us, including you, are unable to perceive that as reasonable)? They will probably say that their fanatics are free do to as they please, just as we say that our fanatics are free to publish whatever they please (and I am sure that, same as we see their heroes as terrorists, they also see our supposed heroes of free speach as terrorists. It does not matter that they are wrong, the important thing is how people perceive these things). How about we educate our respective fanatics to respect each other and avoid conflict? And then they can go and do as they please. No censorship, aye? Maybe then they will start to see West differently. Right now, we are acting like arrogant scum that refuses to acknowledge the other side point of view and promote hate just as much as they do. That our haters draw pictures and their haters shoot guns only means we have much more to lose.

        26. No it doesnt remain the same when you change the context.
          If the offended react with violence, this is a very relevant factor to figure in the argument.
          If the westerners just demand a wome dress in a longer shirt, this is a minimal infringement on the womens personal freedom. If mulims on the other hand demand a hijab or even a burka to remain unoffended, this is a completely different situation.
          In my home country, and in many other western countries, muslims are calling European women for whores for just wearing makeup and stilettos.
          The cultural context is decisive, and it is exactly this cultural aspect which is creating the clash of civilizations.

        27. I think a woman should be aware of the culture they are surrounded by. If they are walking through a French neighborhood where Sharia law has been implemented, it seems unwise they go around dressed in clothes that the locals find offensive. They should go to the authorities and report that some neighborhood has been taken over by Sharia law before go and walk around with sitlettos and makeup, something that will be sure to provoke a reaction from the locals, a reaction that might escalate when the woman refuses to comply. It is the legal authorities who have to do something. If they do not, why immolate yourself to prove something. Is not that stupid? You speak of “what counts as slutty dress up is extremely varied”, but just with a bit of common sense an adult should be able to figure out what is appropiate and what is not to a variety of situations. Likewise, cartoonists should know what is appropiate and what is not. If they already had violent reactions to their insults, why could they not figure out that they were crossing the line? They are just like the woman dressing slutty and getting drunk in the frat party “I have a right to dress as I like, have fun and dont be molested for it!” Yes, of course you have that right, sweetheart, but since we cannot have a cop to watch over you while you are having your fun, it would be really so much better that you saved your slutty act for less wild parties. Even though the magazine did take measures to protect itself, with bodyguards, doors locked with codes and what not, it has proved to be ineffective. So unless the authorities come up with some kind of “long term solution” like the one you suggest, it would be really recommendable that they stopped it already with the insults. But of course, the fact they ended up dead does not matter for certain people. They are the “price to pay” you were talking about, just a commodity to sacrifice to further their agenda, “the removal of the bulk of muslims permanently from european soil”. And for that they need some useful idiots like the guys in the magazine willing to provoke the radicals into violence so that more people will support said solution until it finally comes true. Basically it is the same attitude as feminist have. They dont care for the rape victims, they encourage other women to put themseves at risk. The feminist also need these useful idiots so there are more assaulted victims to cause an uproar in society and further their own agenda. I will always support common sense instead, and that is stop provoking the easly provoked, be that either with crass insults against radicals or acting like a slut in front of a crowd of horny, half drunk frat boys. If that means that your precious freedom to have fun is compromised and you have to act in a more nuanced manner, so be it. Do not become another victim so that others can use you to prove that muslims have to be expelled/male sexuality is dangerous and we need laws to restrict it. But of course, once again, not asking here to have women/cartoonist to have their right to dress/express themselves restricted by law. Just give them this friendly recommendation until further solutions to fully guarantee their rights are implemented. Then we will have less people attacked, which should be the goal. The goal should not be to have more people attacked so society reacts and furthers our anti-inmigrant/feminist agenda.

        28. No, we dont go parading crosses in mecca, but neither are they demanding that you put on a burka. They are also not asking you to stop drawing cartoons altogether, just not to draw cartoons of a very particular figure of their faith. I believe you can even still poke fun at the muslims without drawing cartoons of said particular figure. Not the fine dead chaps at the french magazine, though. They were utterly unable to keep doing funnies about muslims without involving the very figure they had been asked not to involve. Asking them to leave that particular figure alone sounds reasonable to me. But if we instead press on the issue and go: “No, no, we are in our country, and we can poke fun at whatever we want!” (which is a fine declaration) and then we keep publishing funnies of the figure we have been asked to leave alone, then misunderstandings happen, some people get upset and some of that upset people react violently. Which do not get me wrong, is regrettable and the violents should be persecuted to the fully extent of the law. But if we can do something to lessen the burden on our brave cops that risk their lives to protect us, then lets do it and stop drawing funny pictures of Mahoma as they requested, I say.

        29. Well I have to admit that our goals seem to be quite different, if not directly opposed to each other.
          Its sensible for the woman to act precatiously if she is walking into a muslim ghetto. The problem is that these muslims also venture outside of their ghettos, into town centers and the like, and impose their backward norms on the rest of society. This means that all of society is effected by their muslim norms. Off course the logical conclusion to draw is that western women need to adjust their dress style to suit muslim sensibilities, no matter what the situation. Which entails that these vermin are now imposing their sharia norms on all of society!
          Muslims in large numbers simply destroy everything in the west which they get into contact with. There should therefore never be any sharia law in Europe in the first place!
          And this is why I support full scale repatriation of the bulk of muslims.
          It is not the cartoonist who need to understand what is appropriate.
          It is the muslim minority who need to STFU, and respect the local norms and customs. This includes respecting freedom of speech and a tradition of political and religious satire. European christians have had to endure mockery for centuries. Such is the way of life in europe. And these christians refrain from using violence. Muslims should do the exact same. But offcourse they wont, since they only know how to play the victim, and then react with violence and demands.
          Once Europeans start getting angry and violent as a reaction to muslim aggression, then the tables are turned. Now using your logic, it is the muslims that have to act sensible if they dont want their heads kicked in, and a one way ticket back to Arabia.
          “They are the “price to pay” you were talking about, just a commodity to sacrifice to further their agenda, “the removal of the bulk of muslims permanently from european soil”. And for that they need some useful idiots like the guys in the magazine willing to provoke the radicals into violence so that more people will support said solution until it finally comes true.”
          This is not a fully correct interpretation of the unfolding events. These cartoonists have a completely different agenda compared to the nationalist right wing factions of Europe.
          The leftwing cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo support mass immigration of muslims into Europe. Just as the majoity of politicians do. And these politicians actually are afraid that the recent Development will strenghten the right wing, not just in France, but in all of Europe.
          The right wing who wish for deportations, have never encouraged the cartoonists. They are actually enemies of the Front National, and have been mocking them for decades. So your feminist analogy is not appropriately chosen. The lefwing feminists and multiculturalists are for the most part acting in concert with the muslims. Constantly trying to appease thier muslim overlords. Charlie Hebdo is simply an outlier, who was challenged to mock Islam in the same way they have mocked christians and nationalists.
          The muslims and PC leftwingers(including feminists) are part of the same alliance. Just with the muslims calling the shots.
          This is also why you see muslim groups use violence together with ANTIFA scum in many parts of western Europe.
          In addition the muslim hypocrits vote for leftwing feminist and multicultural parties, since it suits their agenda. Lots of freebie welfare goodies await the supporters of the left.
          The left/muslim alliance is a two pronged destructive attack against europe.
          “I will always support common sense instead, and that is stop provoking the easly provoked,….”
          When nationalists start getting angry and violent then they will become easily provoked. And then I suppose you will support muslims getting in line, now that they are the weaker part?

        30. Does it really matter what the agenda of the cartoonists actually is? The fact their actions backfired on their real intentions do not matter. They were fools and the people is using their “martyrdom” to further their own agenda, they are just an argument to push anti-immigrant measures now that people feelings are raw. Why do you think there is so many people asking the media to print these cartoons in the cover? They want more deads to happen, they do not care about further people dying as long as it suits their arguments. I am honestly disgusted. And do not get me wrong, I am not against stricter anti inmigrant laws, but I do not want more people to die for that to happen. A reasonable debate about it should ensue, not an angry, irrational one, fueled by the deaths of people who do not know any better than provoke violent radicals.
          “Western women need to adjust their dress style to suit muslim sensibilities, no matter what the situation. Which entails that these vermin are now imposing their sharia norms on all of society!”
          To my knowledge, no one has done a terrorist attack because western women do not dress according to muslim sensibilities. I have heard about “Sharia zones” in western cities, but it has to be the legal authorities who deal with these ghettos breaking the law. If they allow it, then it is the authorities fault for letting them do so. But ghettos will be ghettos, and if you do not want these around, just get rid of them. I hardly see how the fact you have a ghetto of muslims justifies that a bunch of idiots go and offend the whole islam, provoking radicals into a killing frenzy. When will you all understand that they are NOT like us? They are savage and uncivilized, so you have to learn how to live with them as long as they are still part of your population. Doing something they find insulting (and not wearing burka is not insulting, making cartoons of Mahoma is, as they kindly explained) is not the way to go. Even if some people find it so enjoyable that there are more terrorist attacks to prove their point of them having some violent savages among their mist, I think we know already and we do not need further bloodshed to understand that.
          Now that you know you have a problem, you can debate what to do to fix it. But recommending your magazines to keep being jerks toward your minorities is definitely not the way to go. Instead, severe criticism at these provokative activities should be encouraged, same as we should criticise women for acting slutty at certain places and putting themselves in danger.

        31. How about neutralising potentially violent minorities, instead of blaming the victims?

        32. “A civilized man does not react with violence to an insult, but a barbarian does.”
          So, by your logic, the civilised man must pre-empt the barbarian, and mercilessly brutalise him at every opportunity, to avoid the outrageous results of insulting him.

        33. You’re appalled because you are civilised, friend.
          If you were a barbarian, you’d be insulted and then be compelled to murder, as you so thoughtfully pointed out to us.

      4. If someone wants to kill me and I kill them, I believe that will stop them from killing me. Do you agree?

      5. Bullshit. You kill them first. It works quite well.
        You’d have me disarmed in the face of depraved violence like this?
        You first, skippy.

      6. “There is nothing one can do to prevent someone motivated strongly enough to kill you.”
        Except pre-emption.

  17. I was abroad a few weeks ago and saw news of the hostage siege taking place back home in Sydney (Muslim caused). I went on social media to see if anyone I knew was one of the people killed (thankfully they weren’t), and all I could see were people promoting a hashtag called “illridewithyou” which I was informed represented Australians supporting the Australian-Muslim community against racist backlash post-siege. The SJW, pro-Islam posts far outweighed mourning for the innocent victims of the Muslim-caused attack.

    1. The Muslim backlash brigade used to at least wait until the victims were buried before piping up, they don’t even allow that now.

Comments are closed.