Salman Rushdie and Western Hypocrisy on Free Speech

[fireofice]

A few days ago, Salman Rushdie was attacked for writing a book he wrote in 1988 called "The Satanic Verses" after the leader of Iran put a fatwa on him in 1989. Many Western intellectuals have condemned this is an attack on free speech. But where was the outrage when the speech of holocaust deniers was being suppressed in the West? The West may be more advanced than Islamic countries in other ways, but it has no ground to stand on when it comes to free speech.

https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/08/16/sa ... hypocrisy/

[hermod]

Western hypocrisy on free speech is magic. It makes censorship disappear by turning banned speech into alleged hate speech. It also makes political prisoners disappear by turning dissident historians into thought criminals and alleged anti-Semitic inciters...

The same magic trick also works with corruption and lobbying.

[EtienneSC]

There is still a distinction between imprisonment and fines after (fundamentally flawed) legal process and encouraging hired assassins in alien jurisdictions.

I don't know of any revisionists being killed since the 1970s.

[hermod]

There is still a distinction between imprisonment and fines after (fundamentally flawed) legal process and encouraging hired assassins in alien jurisdictions.

I don't know of any revisionists being killed since the 1970s.

Why would (((they))) need to have any Holocaust revisionists killed? (((They))) have successfully silenced Holocaust revisionists (with media blackout, dismissal and ostracization in America and with 'hate speech' gag laws in EU, UK and Russia) almost everywhere.

Assassination is the bribery/lobbying of the powerless (aka the anti-Zionist), and bribery/lobbying is the assassination of the powerful (aka the Zionist) (*).






* "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." - Peter Ustinov

[Hektor]

Fun Fact. The FRG also got fatwas to arrest Holocaust Deniers worldwide.
Meanwhile they claim to be the freest and most democratic country of all Times.

If that's not collective schizophrenia, I don't know what is.

@Et. Killing Revisionists physically has the potential to create martyrs. So, if they did, this won't be headlines. It's far more important to them to destroy the reputation, civil life, family life, careers, social standing etc. of anyone challenging their narrative. It's far more work to do so, but less risk and less likely to backfire and it indeed does stabilize widespread belief in the narrative... Despite the claims they make being ludicrous and the whole affair of public cult being so parareligious in appearance, it's astonishing that not more people notice that... Some do (I recall a Germany during the 1990s telling me that. He must have been in his thirties than... )... But those are people with insight and the ability to notice such things. So most won't, the cult does have more effect on them. Dangerous, when they are in positions of power.

[Mortimer]

There is still a distinction between imprisonment and fines after (fundamentally flawed) legal process and encouraging hired assassins in alien jurisdictions.

I don't know of any revisionists being killed since the 1970s.

I presume you are talking about Francois Duprat who was assassinated by bomb in 1978 ? The fact that there have been no killings of revisionists since then does not make the violence against them any less disgraceful particularly in France.
https://codoh.com/library/document/jewi ... ore-of/en/

[hermod]

There is still a distinction between imprisonment and fines after (fundamentally flawed) legal process and encouraging hired assassins in alien jurisdictions.

I don't know of any revisionists being killed since the 1970s.

I presume you are talking about Francois Duprat who was assassinated by bomb in 1978 ? The fact that there have been no killings of revisionists since then does not make the violence against them any less disgraceful particularly in France.
https://codoh.com/library/document/jewi ... ore-of/en/

For info, Patrice Chairoff, the Jew who had singed out François Duprat for murder in a book, proudly stated afterwards that Duprat deserved to die for denying the Holocaust (for diffusing Richard Hartwood's Did Six Million Really Die? in France). In a letter published in Le Monde, Chairoff justified the murder of Duprat by a Jewish squad with the words "Duprat was overwhelmingly guilty and some guilts kill " (Duprat portait une écrasante responsabilité et il y a des responsabilités qui tuent ).

https://postimg.cc/sBgMh1Hn

[hermod]

Ditto when a Jewish squad attempted to murder Pr. Robert Faurisson a decade later...

https://postimg.cc/dkXJHjRf

For info, Pr. Faurisson's life was saved only because a man was in the vicinity and came to see what was going on. Whe he was told who the victim was, he said he regretted that he had interfered with that murder attempt.

[Hektor]

Ditto when a Jewish squad attempted to murder Pr. Robert Faurisson a decade later...

https://postimg.cc/dkXJHjRf

For info, Pr. Faurisson's life was saved only because a man was in the vicinity and came to see what was going on. Whe he was told who the victim was, he said he regretted that he had interfered with that murder attempt.

That's an indication of bad social climate... So the usual suspects are also bad for social cohesion. All things to factor in, if you want to understand history correctly.

On the other hand. Those murders/attempts and also the responses in *main stream* media (!) are telling. It indicates that the Holocaust got a status equivalent to the one of Koran, Islam, Mohammed to Muslims. It's all a bit more veiled, but IT IS a form of religion.

[hermod]

Those murders/attempts and also the responses in *main stream* media (!) are telling. It indicates that the Holocaust got a status equivalent to the one of Koran, Islam, Mohammed to Muslims. It's all a bit more veiled, but IT IS a form of religion.

It also indicates that the Holohoax itself, not Holocaust revisionism (unlike what Holohoaxers say), is hate speech.

[Mortimer]

There is a critical article about Salman Rushdie over at The Occidental Observer. Tobias Langdon considers him to be something of a fraud when it comes to free speech on the whole. Does anyone know if Rushdie has spoken out against the persecution of holocaust revisionists ?
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... defend-it/

[Mortimer]

Next month it will be 30 years since David Irving has been banned from Australia. He has been banned simply because he has non confirmist views on World War 2. Salman Rushdie on the other hand has visited Australia with no problems. The same politicians who banned Irving would never ban Rushdie. Irving offends Jews and is banned. Rushdie offens Muslims and is allowed entry. Double standards, much ? Some people are more equal than others in the Australian "democracy".
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... tralia/en/

[Hektor]

Next month it will be 30 years since David Irving has been banned from Australia. He has been banned simply because he has non confirmist views on World War 2. Salman Rushdie on the other hand has visited Australia with no problems. The same politicians who banned Irving would never ban Rushdie. Irving offends Jews and is banned. Rushdie offends Muslims and is allowed entry. Double standards, much ? Some people are more equal than others in the Australian "democracy".
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... tralia/en/

Well, Islam isn't the de facto religion in Australia. So why should they ban Rushdie. And offending traditional religions has become a sports in Western Countries... Admittedly, they prefer to do this with old brands of Christianity like Catholicism. And they for some strange reason prefer Islam over Christianity. That said, Islam doesn't have the same Status than Neo-Judaism does.

[Mortimer]

Next month it will be 30 years since David Irving has been banned from Australia. He has been banned simply because he has non confirmist views on World War 2. Salman Rushdie on the other hand has visited Australia with no problems. The same politicians who banned Irving would never ban Rushdie. Irving offends Jews and is banned. Rushdie offends Muslims and is allowed entry. Double standards, much ? Some people are more equal than others in the Australian "democracy".
https://codoh.com/library/document/irvi ... tralia/en/

Well, Islam isn't the de facto religion in Australia. So why should they ban Rushdie. And offending traditional religions has become a sports in Western Countries... Admittedly, they prefer to do this with old brands of Christianity like Catholicism. And they for some strange reason prefer Islam over Christianity. That said, Islam doesn't have the same Status than Neo-Judaism does.

David Icke has also been banned from Australia - since 2019 - because Jews don't like his views.
http://www.activistpost.com/2019/02/con ... ralia.html

[Hektor]

Next month....lia/en/

Well, Islam isn't the de facto religion in Australia. So why should they ban Rushdie. And offending traditional religions has become a sports in Western Countries... Admittedly, they prefer to do this with old brands of Christianity like Catholicism. And they for some strange reason prefer Islam over Christianity. That said, Islam doesn't have the same Status than Neo-Judaism does.

David Icke has also been banned from Australia - since 2019 - because Jews don't like his views.
http://www.activistpost.com/2019/02/con ... ralia.html

Well, with Icke's views on 'shape-shifting reptiles', he's a low-hanging view. It's a modern adaption.

They aren't so direct on this it seems:
"the government cited Icke’s skeptical views of vaccinations, global warming, and Israel’s policies as the reason for the ban."
How a ban is justified that way is however above me. Because this is almost a majority view that there are problems with vaccinations, global warming and/or 'Israel's' policies.

But citing 'shape shifting reptiles' is indeed a bit of an issue, when you consider that it stems from the 'serpent-seed-teaching' in traditional Judaism itself... https://www.thetorah.com/article/cain-s ... gel-samael
There is also some "Christian Identity" groups peddling that idea and it casts doubt onto their integrity as well.

I'm sorry, but people are not reptiles, even if they are very wicked and 'snakes'. They are physically HomoSapiens and not some genus of reptiles.

But well... When they cited Icke as a snake charmer, somebody may have brought up that he is not the only one teaching something like that.

Also funny: Apparently governments can keep people 'Out of the Country', that's if they really want to.