Tiberge at Gallia Watch is now writing that there is some kind of ongoing hostage situation involving the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo murders. This may get resolved quickly so by the time some of you read this, it will not be 'new news.'
It is a strange story overall. For an interesting take and some questions regarding the situation, check out Old Atlantic's post here.
The public reaction to the murders includes the expected emotional displays and public theater by the left, such as the 'Je suis Charlie' phenomenon and the makeshift shrines with flowers and teddy bears. Now, I know that the latter is meant as a gesture of mourning or respect on the part of some, but it is very much a recent phenomenon in Western culture; our displays of mourning in past eras were usually more private and less emotional. Or maybe that applies only to those of us in the Anglosphere. But somehow it always seems very liberal, very feminine, and rather adolescent, this public grieving over strangers. Of course we feel bad for the people who have lost their friends and loved ones, but can we really feel the same depth of grief for strangers as for real life friends and family? It all seems rather artificial to me.
A commenter on Vox Day's blog said something like 'don't bring a candlelight vigil to a gunfight', and that seems an apposite (and witty) comment, in my opinion.
It seems that in the aftermath of these attacks, there is a conspicuous lack of anger, or even righteous indignation. The political classes, of course, have to tread carefully not to offend some minority constituency, so they are oh-so-politically correct, and try to please everyone with bland platitudes, and talk of 'coming together' and so on. But there should, in a healthy people, also be a modicum of righteous anger. And yes, there is an anger that is righteous and just, regardless of what the liberal Christians-who-quote-Gandhi might say. Anger is not a sin per se; the Bible tells us, ''be angry, and sin not'', in other words, not all anger is sin, though some may be. And the PC therapeutic culture we live in would have us disown all ''negative'' human emotions in favor of bland niceness. This is producing a very unhealthy dynamic in Western countries, in my opinion. People are taught to deny and suppress natural emotions, and emotions (''hate'', for example) are now being criminalized in some countries -- very nearly so in our country, but not quite yet.
But we are being conditioned to suppress these so-called ''negative'' emotions, which are, for the most part, the more masculine, harder emotions. It's all part of the feminizing of our culture. But there is a rightful place for these 'masculine' feelings, and it's an injustice to try to strip people of what are honest feelings, especially those which conduce to our acting in self-defense, or which enable us to act against evil-doers. We are in effect being disarmed and neutered, as a people. This has to change; nature will not be denied, and God-given emotions should not be conditioned out of us.
I do see some righteous anger among many of us in the West, but the media continue to preach their treacly gospel of ''tolerance'' and ''inclusion'' and they continue to warn against 'backlashes' and 'hate.' The first backlash, if and when it comes, will be a backlash against ''liberals'' and those who have preached and inspired the liberal madness that led us to the current state of affairs.