Jewish Intellectual Activism for Internet Control

Back in March, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum makes a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day “Grand Sanhedrin,” the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum is essentially a central think tank for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It is also an internationally operational anti-White hate group that devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the Forum include a demand to adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism.” This, of course, would be a definition of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ that would serve Jewish interests most effectively. It goes without saying that such a definition would be sufficiently wide-ranging that it would preclude, under threat of severe punishment, any criticism of Jews or Israel.

In 2015 the Global Forum called for the adoption of global terms of service prohibiting the posting of materials critical of Jews, and the introduction of an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites.” The Global Forum’s plan to eliminate anti-Semitism is comprehensive. Among the 2015 recommendations were proposals to:

  • adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism;
  • apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries;
  • take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions;
  • direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.

Further recommendations to governments include the establishment of national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are absent.

It is quite telling that, despite the growth of anti-Jewish attitudes in Islamic countries, and among Islamic immigrant populations in Europe, the focus of the Global Forum continues to rest exclusively on the putative threat to Jews from White countries, White people, and the ‘Far Right.” As one attendee at the 2018 conference noted afterwards: “The issue of antisemitism in the Muslim world was largely ignored or minimized, even though it is the most pernicious form of antisemitism in the world today. … On the other hand, the antisemitism of the far Right was mentioned time and again.”

This is a group overwhelmingly preoccupied with the silencing of Whites, the end of freedom of speech in the West, and legal enforcement of multiculturalism.

Lecture titles from the three-day event are illustrative of the full kaleidoscope of Jewish paranoia and related tactical approaches:

  • Web Antisemitism and Cyberhate: The Search for New Solutions and Proactive Policies
  • Antisemitism and the Rise of Far Right Politics in Europe: Defining the Threat and Means of Societal and Political Response
  • Antisemitism in the Far Left — Intersectionality as a Cover for Hate Speech in Current Progressive Activism
  • Taming the Madding Crowd — The Persistence of Antisemitism in the Sports Arena
  • The Persistence of Christian Theological Antisemitism in the Mainline Protestant Church — Coping with Bigotry and Hate in the Spiritual Realm
  • Confronting Neo-Nazism and Antisemitism of the Extreme Right in the United States and Elsewhere
  • The Faith Traditions as a Resource for Combating Antisemitism and Hate Crime: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Leadership on Tolerance as a Spiritual Imperative
  • LGBTQ Expert Panel on Contemporary Antisemitism inside the Rainbow Coalition
  • Revisionism and the Politics of Holocaust Remembrance: Antisemitism in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
  • The Protection of Jewish and Muslim Religious Practice Against Legislative Assault in Europe

An interesting aspect of these discussion topics, in addition to the minimal attention to Islamic attitudes, is the growing Jewish unease with the Left. I recently remarked that it is entirely possible for the Left to become a cold house for Jews without becoming authentically, systematically, or traditionally anti-Semitic. I added that one might therefore expect Jews to regroup away from the radical left, occupying a political space best described as staunchly centrist — a centrism that leans left only to pursue multiculturalism and other destructive ‘egalitarian’ social policies, and leans ‘right’ only in order to obtain foreign policy assurances as well as elite protections and privileges [domestically for the Jewish community, internationally for Israel]. It goes without saying that those gathered in Jerusalem were wholly in support of multiculturalism and the LGBT agenda in the West, but also wanted the “privilege and protection” of increasingly authoritarian control over the speech of the Western masses. In keeping with my argument that Jews will increasingly posture themselves as the ultimate centrists or liberals, many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, a key figure in the Global Forum and perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. In one 2015 speech at the Global Forum, Cohen-Almagor, who poses as a defender of liberty, called for increased interactive efforts between governments, law officers, and anti-terrorism units, alongside companies and NGOs. He wants Big Brother watching you.

Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. He appears to have always had a keen interest in the use of communications — from 1995–2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance” Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a ‘defender of democracy,’ acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom.

Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,” appeared last month in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.[1] Along with an earlier piece from 2016,[2] the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. It deserves to be excised from the broader tumorous mass of similar activity and placed under the microscope.

The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and does inspire crime,” it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under legal penalties. We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations and other groups oppositional to our ideas could have hoped for. It therefore came as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: “On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).” Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert (39) the incident “illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.”

Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organisations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:

[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.

The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech” didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that “hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”

The essential tactic the Jewish anti-free speech campaign is extremely simple. Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues (40) that “White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups.” The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples. In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede (41) “quite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.” Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.”

It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.

In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate speech legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay (40) he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right (48), which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of “hate groups,” as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.”

Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to assassinate our freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.

Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic fellow activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us (42), often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos.” They offer “eye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.” Readers of such websites “talk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.” Members “use cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.” Website proprietors can also “make appeals for funding.”

Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.

Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate” buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: “Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.”[3] The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication.

Let me repeat: The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication. It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians.  Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.’ Cohen-Almagor writes (47):

Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.

Our opponents appear only too well aware that the Achilles Heel of our love of freedom is the primacy we place on moral order. They are playing to our weakness. A statement issued in 2015 by the Global Forum very cleverly presented the issue of restricting internet freedom as a moral imperative:

Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct.

If this moral posturing blackmail isn’t egregious enough, consider that Cohen-Almagor has called (47) for White advocacy sites to be treated like “other anti-social groups such as pedophiles and terrorists.”

It would be difficult to overstate how dangerous the activities of Cohen-Almagor and the wider Global Forum are to our freedom. These groups have developed a system of relatively sophisticated and manipulative legal and philosophical arguments based on blatant fabrications. The “recommendations” resulting from the deliberations of the Global Forum will receive disproportionate attention and influence in government due to top-level networking and co-operation with hostile elements of native elites. What we are seeing, hiding in plain sight, is the devising of a series of ‘protocols’ that will disenfranchise and gag us into submission. Internet freedom really is a last stand, and we will have to produce and disseminate appropriate counter-narratives before it’s too late. We could start by questioning the morality of a situation wherein restrictions on European freedoms are being dictated from Jerusalem.

[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.

[2] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.

[3] J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)

37 replies
  1. Doug Stilborn
    Doug Stilborn says:

    I see a Maltese flag there. I lived in Malta. An extremely wealthy, small overall, Semite nation with a sort of third world infrastructure and way of life. I was stuck there throughout the civil war in Yugoslavia where I’m from originally. Life on this planet is turning into a tyranny of the state, increased class segregation as wealth is seeping to the top 10 percent, before you know it gated communities will have armed soldiers like in Tijuana and cities and streets are turning into fascist police controlled open prisons. People have no Idea how much less freedom there is since the 80’s 70’s and so forth. We now live in a small minded, uptight era, where sort of edgy, anxiety ridden 20 dollar small portion avocado salad eating millennial breed is taking over. Who listen to music that has degenerated to much to a point thats it’s a sort of cynical farce of autotune noise and pure garbage. They have no historical or cultural reference points and are building a brave new world as if from nothing, as if from scratch, from a great flood that destroyed civilization. They are perpetually recreating a digital world from the ruins of the past. Authenticity and genuineness is no longer an emphases. Nothing is left to the imagination, the suspense of disbelief is replaced with cynicism. Technology is destroying the capitalism, and the world as we know it. Perhaps it is necessary.

  2. Pat the Cat
    Pat the Cat says:

    Excellent article but how about the idea that the events in question at Charlotesville were a ‘hoax’…………i.e. a staged operation. There are so many questionable aspects to this event that I think it quite logical to conclude it was a hoax. I am mostly talking about the James Fields & Heather Heyer aspects which were the most dramatic and what it is remembered for. This awareness of the ‘staged’ angle of many of these ‘events’ is something the Right in general seem not to be so aware of, to their great cost imo. Result is the Right are often tilting at windmills that are not even there.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      TO: Pat the Cat

      Thank you for raising this issue. I do wish your post had provoked a discussion. I’d love to know what really went on in that context. So little has seeped out, and even that brief flow dried up thoroughly. Yet Charlotteville looked so promising for a while. It really was the first big Right Wing display in the contemporary world, and it was glamorous. That alone makes one suspect strongly that the James Fields & Heather Heyer event was staged: memory of the awesome torchlit parade had to be displaced by something sordid. Do you know what happened to James Fields? Or was he dropped as a talking point?

  3. Steve
    Steve says:

    Well done for carrying out this much needed research and bringing it to public attention. This should really frighten, and wake, Whites, especially Trump and Brexit supporters. But how many of these people could locate an obsure, niche, highbrow website; seek out the specific issues that concern them [difficult as no search facility], and then be willing and able to plough through a, fully referenced, academic paper? I suspect very few. Now, on the other hand, if the same thing were presented via a Briebart style website….

  4. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    Thanks for another incisive article about a most vital issue, Andrew. It is almost surreal how relentless organized Jewry is in trying to stifle White resistance to their machinations. They are deadly serious in their baneful intent, and they are obviously playing for keeps. A clear warning to the West, if ever there was one!

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      Gee, they’ve been at it for 2,000 years. To say they take the long view would be an understatement. I’d say their latest ploy — massive non-white invasions, might finally be the tipping point. God knows, US whites don’t seem to be able to react in any way. Eastern and Southern Europe, possibly.

  5. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    Here is an Article of interest I happened upon a few days ago.
    -Corbynite left is hooked on conspiracy theories
    David Aaronovitch -The Times March 18-

  6. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    R.Cohen-Almagor’s definition of hate speech could easily be levelled against himself and his cronies. Cohen-Almagor no doubt has exempt status.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Absolutely correct. I was struck by the disconnect when “The Persistence of Christian Theological Antisemitism in the Mainline Protestant Church — Coping with Bigotry and Hate in the Spiritual Realm” is hate speech, at the same time quoting the anti-Christian/anti goy passages from the Talmud would also be Auntie Shem-itic hate speech, because the religious (in)tolerance of the chosenites would be infringed upon. Holocaust remembrance, of course is another example of religious intolerence. Those that fail to convert to Holocaustianity are heretics.
      Almost 40 years ago, here in Canada, Malcolm Ross was removed from his teaching position for “Holocaust denial”, ans was fount to be “anti-Semitic”. Ross, a deeply religious Presbyterian, had argued that because he was a devout Christian, by definition it made him opposed to Judaism, in the same way a devout Jew is opposed to Christianity, yet no one would label the devout Jew as an anti-anything. Our occupied Supreme Court didn’t buy that he had freedom of expression.
      It’s all been downhill since.

  7. adolf shickelgruber
    adolf shickelgruber says:

    Slightly off topic of this excellent article, but if President Trump is a traitor to his country(or so the liberal media tells us) then what about literally ALL of his predecessors since 1948? Havent they been guilty of treason by their unconditional support of a foreign nation,Israel, even putting its interests ahead of the USA

  8. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Thank you, Dr Joyce, for yet another impeccably researched, very necessary revelation. At least we now know of this horrifically sized Jewish conspiracy against freedom of speech. But, very sadly, this will not become general knowledge, for the mass media will not promulgate it.

    So what can we do with the frightening information you gave us? We can discuss it among ourselves, we can keep a safe record of it, we can communicate it to our MPs. At least, we can until these sorts of activities are declared ‘hate speech’, and proscribed. Sometimes I feel desperate. Will we ever be able to defeat the Jewish conspiracy against us?

  9. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    No sooner than being finished exercising the long term subconscious thought processes with respect to a comment on,
    Karl Nemmersdorf’s;
    The Art of Raising Children to Revere Their Race and Culture:

    am I confronted with the above new,
    and on balance equally or even more important,
    topic to contend with.

    How will my other projects ever get finished if constantly challenged with great articles such as these from TOO writers?

    With no disrespect intended to Karl Nemmersdorf, I must skip ahead and reply to this article, however, many of the comments below can and must be incorporated into the raising of children for that is where they originated.

    1) National Constitutions (I.e. US Constitution and Bill of Rights) the World Over,
    but especially those in White Nations where Native Europeans are still free to lobby in their own interests without legal interference from Jew-hijacked “…Law Enforcement Agencies..”,
    must add Amendments that…,
    RECOGNIZE the Jew World Order as a Collusive Criminal Conspiracy with objectives of Global Domination and the Enslavement of ALL Life.

    Anything short of such measures must be regarded as ineffective for,
    as the good Dr. Joyce has so incisively pointed out above,
    there is in fact a kaleidoscope of Jewish led groups that have over-reaching representations in almost all facets of the (once?) White West that are cooperating in unison to genocidally wipe out Western Man.

    Without having ;- the ability to openly discuss the seriousness of the threat that these Criminally Psychotic Jews pose to the individual sub-Races of the larger White World;-
    and by extension to ALL Life on the Planet…,
    and then ENSHRINED INTO LAW;-

    2) The above movement must be started in the USA, because:

    A) It is the USA that is the single greatest weapon the Jew World Order has Hi-jacked,
    yet it is also the only place left on the planet where challenges to the law,
    like those undertaken by Jared Taylor and his legal battle with Twitter,
    are still allowed to go forward.

    I make no claims that the Taylor v.s. Twitter legal battle is not just another Straw-man distraction,
    because Taylor is fighting within a Jew-debased and rigged system yet he
    refuses to name the true (((culprit behind))) his so called resistance to restrictions on White Advocacy. Even if he wins the battle we will lose the war.
    Nevertheless, the mere instigation of Taylor’s legal battle shows that,
    although continually assaulted,
    free speech is not dead yet in America.

    B) The above is however not the case in most of the rest of the White World.
    Europe, for example, has arguably been increasingly under the proxy control of the Rothschildian Satanic Beast and its many thousands if not 100’s of thousands or even millions of its tentacles, –
    a sample of which can be gleaned above in the 1000 or so Jewish Controlled Groups in Western Nations,-
    since the Battle of Waterloo where the Rothschild Family illegally gained proxy-control of the Balance of European Wealth.
    Many decades, or arguably centuries, ago Europeans were already IMO hopelessly castrated with respect to their taste for freedom.
    Being subjects in monarchical realms,
    having no real traditional wild hunting grounds left to feel what it is like to be free and,
    being subject to increasingly cultivated, oligopolized, contaminated and processed foods stuffs that can only be purchased with (((money))) from Jew owned retailers with Jew owned credit cards has left most Europeans as Spiritually Castrated and disconnected from reality as domestic cattle are disconnected from their wild buffalo ancestors.

    C) Although the re-invigorated White Spirit has in large measure already come from Trump, he alone is no match for this (((Cancerous Colossus))).
    Unless the Leading Frontal Wave of White Resistance (That’s us here at TOO and like minded folks…) is prepared to not only start punching like a boxer above his weight class but,
    to start attacking the Jews on a viral microbial (sub-conscious) level, all will be lost.
    The battle must be fought on a spiritual and subconscious plain as this is where the Jew has taken the fight against us Whites.
    By posturing his insidious and malicious initiatives in terms of the moral imperative, the Jew is wielding a sublime weapon against altruistic Whites.
    By Initiating a Movement in the USA that Advocates for an Amendment that Recognizes the Jew World Order for what it is, namely;
    a means through which to install a Jewish Caliphate tasked with the enslavement of ALL Life,
    Whites will go a long way to not only subliminally inciting a (((Taboo Conversation))) that is long over due, but also in saving their own skins.

    D) Americans have a population that is not only relatively huge in numbers compared to other White Nations, it is widely dispersed throughout a geographically huge nation and is armed to the teeth.
    This latter point is a formidable deterrent to (((Law Enforcement))) intervention and also one that most other European peoples have long ago (((allowed their right to possess removed))).
    Europeans have allowed their collective remembrance of what it was like to be free stolen from them by the Blasphemous Jews and their Monarchical Criminal Conspirators.
    The Trump Train has re-kindled the Spiritual Pilot Light of Freedom within hundreds if not thousands of Whites the World Over.
    By advocating that the EXISTENTIAL RECOGNITION AND THE ABILITY TO OPENLY DISCUSS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE THREAT THAT CRIMINALLY PSYCHOTIC JEWS POSE TO ALL LIFE be enshrined into law, the debate moves from “…whether or not to allow…” the recognition to “…what are we going to do about…” (((the problem))).

  10. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    Ynet reported in 2016 on a ‘New search engine to target anti-Semitism’:

    ‘Meet the Sniper, an app that will scan the net using a new algorithm, looking for anti-Jewish content. Individuals will be able to check the content and take action as needed.’

    Gilad Atzmon christens it a golem, ‘a robot created by the Jews to serve the chosen people and their tribal interests.’

  11. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    adopt a formal definition of anti-Europeanism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the European peoples and their right to exist, and all as forms of anti-Europeanism;

    apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Europeanism in all countries;

    take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of European communities, their members and institutions;

    direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Europeanism, and tolerance.

    It’s a two-way street!

  12. Alieu
    Alieu says:

    The most outrageous part of all is how they have the Israeli flag flying proud, despite the fact that Israel is an apartheid state which routinely slaughters thousands of people based on their ancestry and whose leaders (including the guest speaker Benjamin Netanyahu) routinely encourage genocidal hatred towards Arabs using language that would get him imprisoned if he lived Europe. And yet they are lecturing everyone else on how to prevent “hate” (which in reality means how to stop any criticism of Israel’s genocidal policy towards its native Palestinian population). The most intolerant and genocidal country in the entire world lecturing everyone else about how to fight intolerance and hatred. Apparently nobody is supposed to notice the glaring hypocrisy.

    Maybe we should follow Israel’s example and force all Jews in Europe out of their homes at gunpoint and then put them in giant concentration camps surrounded by concrete walls manned by armed guards. Maybe then we too could have our nation-states back. Just as Israel recently formally defined itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people, despite the fact that more than half the population isn’t Jewish, and that they’ve been living there for thousands of years, while the Jews have only been there for a century. After all, if it’s good enough for the “most moral state” then surely its good enough for us too?

  13. Joe
    Joe says:

    Okay…. here are netenyahu’s demands…

    Let’s tear them apart piece by piece (heh heh)…

    * “adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism;”

    Truth – Deny any and all evidence regarding the illegitimate establishment of the bastard state of Israel on stolen Palestinian land as well as the legitimacy of the native inhabitants to their rightful claim to their homelands.

    “Holocaust Denial”… Ahh… this means, thou shalt not question any outrageous claims of ANY survivor – no matter how ludicrous or impossible.

    * apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries;

    Truth – spy upon, ostracize and vilify ANY AND ALL honest citizens who dare to call out the machinations of the jews who pull strings in their respective countries.

    * take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions;

    Truth – defend the bacillus. Create a protective bubble around this anti-life entity to protect it against any white blood cell which might detect and reject it from the societal body.

    * direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.”

    Truth – use the gullible altruistic nature of the host against themselves to allow the pathogen to continue its progressive dissolution of the goy body.

    There you have it in plain English. Read. Learn. Act. Grow. Live. Prosper.
    All of this is possible ONLY if we address the jewish question honestly.

  14. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    How strange that the Jews are the only ethnic group on this planet that feels the need to fight “hate” against itself. The Italians have no “Global Forum for Combating Anti-Italianism” as far as I know, nor does any other ethnic group in the world. So why the Jews ? The Jews think to have found the answer to this “mystery” always in some moral defect in the “goyim”, never in themselves.

    But for us who have studied the Jewish Question for some time, the answer is not difficult : it is the mentality and behavior of the Jews themselves that is the cause of Jew-hatred. If you think that your own people is “chosen” to such an extend that only it is human while all others are actually “cattle in human form” created to serve it, and if you think that because of that “chosenness” you are entitled to all the wealth and the power of the world and work tirelessly to achieve that, then it is no wonder that you are hated by the whole world. Jewish supremacism is always accompanied by Jewish paranoia, without understanding that the paranoia is caused by the supremacism itself.

    Up until the invention of the Internet, the Jews could control the mind of the masses by their control of the media. Though the Jews do control some crucial parts of the Internet (search engines, encyclopedia, video services, pay services etc.), their control is not complete and they cannot stop the world wide exposure of their behavior. Hence they now try to impose censorship on the Internet under the guise of “fighting hate”. If we do not take counter measures these consummate lobbyists will succeed in their nefarious plan.

    We should form our own lobby group Global Forum for Combating Internet Censorship to secure freedom of speech on the Internet. Above all we should combat the idea that “hate” is a kind of crime. Hate like its opposite “love” is a normal human emotion and should never be considered a crime. The idea of “hate speech” as a crime is a Jewish invention to suppress free speech.

  15. alt.z2-6ixb9xv
    alt.z2-6ixb9xv says:

    This essay is a generous attempt to rationalise the pathological and the verbal necromancy applied in service of its aims.

    For my part I believe there is no purpose arguing with the rantings of madmen driven by libido dominandi.

    How do deranged Jewish supremacists have so much leverage? Primarily through the power of money? Then reform the money system and maybe, just maybe, you have the start of a road back to normalcy.

    Meantime here is something for UK readers to do in the real world.

    Solicitor Robin Tilbrook of the English Democrats published this article entitled “Sentencing Council Wants Tougher Sentences Against Opponents Of Political Correctness”:

    The Sentencing Council is basically proposing maximum sentences of up to 6 years in jail for promoting ‘hostility’ toward certain legislatively preferred classes of society including on grounds of race, sex, disability, religion etc etc. Here is the consultation document, complete with governmental typo:

    This despite the fact:
    (page 49, “Section seven: Racial hatred offences and hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation.”)

    “Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences. However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the Council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences.”

    Comments on the proposed changes in sentencing are to be received before 8 August 2018; addresses etc appear in the pdf linked.

    This should be made the catalyst for a proper debate on the substantive legislation, not just the penalties for offending.

    Aside from the Tilbrook article the only discussion of these proposals I have found online are from lay sources. Offhand I could not find anything on them even at lawyers’ blogs such as e.g.

    Consulting one of the legal updating periodicals I could find only proposals for sentencing changes regarding terrorist attacks and bladed weapons offences. Nothing on this raft of increased penalties for “hate speech” (undefined – sic).

    The Law Society Gazette is the Solicitors’ newspaper but inputting the above query revealed nothing immediately obvious on these particular proposals.

    It’s as if the subject has just been airbrushed out of the professional media.

    Insiders will however be reassured that tucked away within the above pdf is this:
    “A series of consultation meetings is also taking place. For further information please use the “Enquiries” contact details above.”

    The pdf is some 114 pages of dense legal verbiage. What it fails to acknowledge is that as stated in Mark Collett’s audios below, the effect of the substantive offences and the codes of practice for police in relation to them are effectively annulling certain other substantive offences and basically facilitating by means of selective enforcement and bias in categorisation an assault on the majority indigenous population. The regime purports in effect to eliminate or limit police and prosecutor discretion to pursue other crimes.

    Mark Collett: Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media.

    transcript and audio:

    Mark Collett: EXPOSED: Britain’s Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws.

    transcript and audio:

    College of Policing: Hate Crime Operational Guidance (2014)

    This is just more lawfare. What can you do? Well, at least maybe print and send in the transcripts, marked to highlight the most egregious points. Addressing details are in the consultation document linked first above.

    Given the media blackout, maybe the consultation should be extended for another 3 months.

    We are all Jack Cade now.

  16. Jesse
    Jesse says:

    Why is free speech important for a people?
    Answer exposer.
    Free speech helps one uncover corruption, lies, con artist, those who wish to destroy our rights, those who try to destroy our people and also shows us that which is hidden in the darkness that the corrupt don’t want you to know or see, etc.
    I could go on but you might not feel like reading a book.

    The reader will find it hard to find a book where that old Transylvanian Vampire Dracula loved the sun light. Quite the opposite we have been told.
    Jewish supremacist hate being exposed by the light that comes with free speech….like Dracula hates sunlight.

  17. Awake2JQ
    Awake2JQ says:

    Downright chilling! Thanks for the warning re this well-networked “Global Forum” vs. Free Speech & Common Sense Facts. What it really is, is a Global Effort to hide their centuries-long crimes, hoaxes, & frauds.

    __Time for Expulsion #210 (or would that make #211 countries by now?)

    __Or a voluntary mass “aliyah” of them all to Israel where they can live happily ever after among themselves.

    It really takes a lot of gall to presume they have the right to force-change laws of nationals/natives of other countries. Their “perpetual victim mindset” is soooo tiring.

    There’s no time like the present, while we still can, to continue to “Name the Jew” along with facts & evidence of their continuing crimes, meddling, debauchery, & control-freakery against free people everywhere.

  18. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Hate Speech: a made up category designed to gut The First Amendment and shut you up.” Tucker Carlson (from last night’s show).

  19. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    The Israeli statesman Abba Eban once said during a speech “Israel must be Jewish and Democratic.” It was well received by the audience. But there was something about it I didn’t quite get (keep in mind this was 30+years ago and I was new to the JQ).

    So, I asked a professor who was Jewish and lived in Israel for a while working for the Knesset what he thought of Eban’s statement. His response surprised me. He just laughed as if to say “Eban’s crazy.” And then said two things I’ve never forgotten. “How can anything Jewish be Democratic?” Which was followed by this one, “This is why Jews are the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.” He went further and it got personal adding, “This is why I didn’t marry a Jewish woman.”

    Anyway, there are lots of Jews who are made very uneasy about this kind of over the top, in your face, Jewish Supremacy. And not just Gilad Aztmon.

    But it’s us I’m concerned about. For that reason I think it’s better to knock off this whole doomsday, black armband take on the JQ. It’s so unbecoming of us. It’s like a form of self-betrayal. Let’s say we do give it our best and they do win. Well then, we gave it our best. But we might also not lose. Even better. Either way, we owe it to ourselves and our children to go out demonstrating the best we have to offer.

    And let’s face it brothers and sisters, what we have to offer IS the best, literally.

    Regarding their “thinking.” It’s not for nothing Schopenhauer said that Judaism can not be confused with Reason. He even referred to their thinking as “that Jewish stench.” It’s gotten worse since then.

    The one thing, among many, worth pointing out just on a procedural level is their transparent Cognitive Dissonance (CD). Or, what I like to call The Fallacy of The Single Variable.

    It’s thinking that instantly buckles under the weight of reality. It’s when a person’s response to something immediately collapses in a single variable and automatically mushrooms into an absurd absolute.

    For example, the single variable of racism.

    Racism Is Bad
    All Whites Are Racist
    All Whites Are Bad

    Which then mushrooms into an absurd absolute

    Racism Is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
    All Whites Are Racists
    All Whites Are Evil and Must Be Destroyed

    People whose thinking is driven by this kind of cognitive dissonance exhibit behavior accurately described as psychotic.

    Any person or group who responds in precisely the same way, no matter what the situation, is an extreme psychotic of a particular type. Whatever happens means the same thing to them. They have only one mode of responsive behavior, no matter what happens.

    This kind of thinking is fast spreading throughout the Western world in direct proportion to the rise of Jewish Supremacy. As everyone here knows, the consequences are immense.

    Whereas Western thought is far more penetrating, sublte and profound. And not just our thinking, but our spirit too. And both are driven, motivated, by a love of freedom.

    For this reason we need to stand and deliver and drop the Woe Is Us, All Is Lost response to their machinations and treachery. We’re between the sword and the wall, no question. We were when we started building the greatest civilization known to man at a time when we didn’t have any of the many tools and resources we have now.

    It’s time to hold our heads up high and show them what we’re made of.

  20. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    I agree this is a very fine article, and revealing of the latest efforts by the Jews/Zionists. I have written many articles/posts along these lines myself. However, I would argue that this type of focus by us on the Jews mainly feeds into their advance against us more than it helps us.

    What would help us most is to subject our people to ideas, plans, projects for our own advancement, and why that is important and necessary to us. I think we do a pretty good job on the WHY, but we really fall down on the WHAT.

    Think of it as energy. Where is the energy going? Attention is energy. Where is our attention going? Is it going to the Jews and what they’re doing — does that seem far more interesting and worthy of ink than what we’re doing? The answer is yes, because it IS more interesting. What are we doing? What are we building? The excuse for that is usually that there is a lack of money. But at times there has been the money and it’s been squandered. Bickering, unworthy ‘leaders’ and laziness, more than money, is the problem.

    Just as the “holocaust” is a huge selling point for the Jews (created by them for that purpose, btw), we need a big selling point for our people … and please, not “Western Civilization.” I’m talking about proof of our mistreatment at their hands; it does exist and can be crafted under one big heading of some kind that would appeal and be convincing to Whites. Why is this so difficult for us? The answer to that tells us where our problem really lays.

  21. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    Off topic(if such a term exists).
    3 Jewish newspapers in the UK have made a statement; ”Jermy Corbyn poses an existential threat to the Jews”.
    They also said ”we the 3 {leading}-(Jewish)newspapers are at odds with each other, we have come together in an event which we liken to the Christmas Truce between the German and British troops(!)-In order to combat the said existential Threat”{Paraphrased}.
    The general idea is that the Labour Party was a haven for Jewish voters until 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn took power.
    The argument is about Antizionism and antisemitism,
    To be fair, Jonathan rosenhead emeritus professor called into LBC radio to dismiss this claim as nonsense and made an
    excellent argument against this hysteria.

  22. Simonsays
    Simonsays says:

    We are headed down the hall, a door is at hand. We can just begin to make out the room number; looks like room 101. What’s in there?

  23. Mace
    Mace says:

    “What we are seeing, hiding in plain sight, is the devising of a series of ‘protocols’ that will disenfranchise and gag us into submission. Internet freedom really is a last stand, and we will have to produce and disseminate appropriate counter-narratives before it’s too late. We could start by questioning the morality of a situation wherein restrictions on European freedoms are being dictated from Jerusalem.”

    Well, the fact that these protocols are established by learned elders in Zion are how you know they’re good!

  24. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    A picture may be worth a thousand words. The picture chosen by Dr. Joyce is worth a hundred pages.

    01 I shows a female speaker who apparently was initially seated among the remaining three.
    02 This speaker has a glass of water on her podium, with also a sliver of a black folder protruding over it.
    03 Elsewhere in the comprehensive coverage of this Conference on the net, we see the same shot and scene on video; same water glass in the same position and the protruding folder.
    04 This video clip is clearer and her name is legible.
    05 She is none less than the absolutely despicable Israeli Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked.
    06 She called for genocide of the Palestinians, repeatedly, in quickly removed but captured and translated tweets, which earned her thousands of likes, in addition to her own writings and statements, still extant.
    07 All of which does not prevent this shyster lawyer, in the tradition of her tribe, AND IN ITS RENOWNED ADHERENCE TO LOGIC, TO SPREAD HER TRADITIONAL MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES AT A CONFERENCE AGAINST HATE.
    08 She co-founded the right to Likud Party, the ” Jewish Home ” Party, with Naftalie Bennett who opined on more than one occasion, that Palestinians are cockroaches and vermin, and muttered, along with psychopath and former Moldovan disco-bouncer and present Israeli Minister of Defense, Lieberman, about running them into the sea. [ This obligated me to ask Merkel rhetorically, through her personal e-mail, whether her statement that ” ISRAEL’S SECURITY IS THE VERY RAISON D’ETAT FOR GERMANY “, means, that she would accede to that gangster country’s application to NATO, and whether in my lifetime I might yet observe the Bundeswehr helping Israel to run the Palestinians into the sea, after a false flag operation activates the Charter’s Chapter 5. I was not listed for a reply – though most certainly elsewhere ].
    09 This Bennett is also listed among the many speakers at plenum and panel discussions; available on the net under the ” Conference “.
    10 Predictably adhering to their facilely recognizable pattern, we can see all races and attired leaders of various religions among group and crowd shots and scenes in the videos.
    11 Shaked, with concurrence, cited the most vile actions to be taken in this war between two peoples. The mothers of the ” terrorists ” to follow their sons to hell, thereby disabling them from rearing even more ” little snakes “, their homes to be levelled. A ” moral war ! “.
    13 Instead of continuing ad infinitum in this vein, read it for yourselves, starting with:

    Repeated in Mondoweiss and even the ever reliable Washington Post, as well as Israeli media.

    Mondoweiss sourced citations:


    [ Obliged to interrupt ! ]

  25. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    [ And obliged to continue ]

    14 Erroneously I deemed myself well-informed on the JQ, because I had never heard of ISGAP, the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy; of Manhattan and of course world-wide.

    While most of us here are more than conversant with the JQ throughout history, we had best keep an eye on their Policy components, along with their expressed intentions, including cyberspace technology, to shoot Revere’s mount from under us.

    Much has been written on how they suborn many educators, indeed numerous entire education departments at all levels, to peddle their otherwise inexplicable victimology arguments and Israeli policies. In fact, on July 29th, 18, the fourth annual symposium to train professors and graduate students in fighting anti-Semitism will be held at Oxford University, while simultaneously creating commensurate curricula for general take-home consumption. Hasbara in an Oxford dinner jacket.

    15 After referring to the video of Shaked at the Conference, at the beginning of my previous comment with some awkwardness, I then found the original, which is linked below: for your disbelief.

    Since we do not wish to morph into those we detest, I need to add, that a very great number of Jewish NGO’s, private citizens and even their media took umbrage at this misanthropy.

  26. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    The IAJLJ (International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists) regularly convenes to develop ways of harnessing the forces of government to the muzzling of anyone who might manage in any public way to say anything adverse about Jews, Jewry, Judaism, or the nation-state that recently declared its entire fealty to the aforementioned.

  27. Anti-Termite!!!
    Anti-Termite!!! says:



    I oppose proactively hateful ethno-supremecist Jews behaving as termites gnawing often latently but ever unceasingly in instinctive concert at the cultural structure of white Christian society as they have been doing since arriving en masse in the United States circa 1880 pursuing their apparent goal to eradicate all people of European descent.

    Your unencumbered clarity of thought fortifies at every reading time after time, Dr. Joyce. Your heroic work serves humanity in the most needed way.

  28. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    This article makes for very uncomfortable reading and that is probably why I am drawn to such content to get to grips on the architects of control.
    I learnt from Professor E.Michael Jones on his Blog that the conflagration at Charlottesville, Virginia was engineered: You have the Mayor Michael Signer, who is Jewish, and his deputy Mayor, who is African, Wes Bellamy. They apparently removed the police line separating the fantifa (fascist ‘anti-facists) from the pro-historical statue protesters.
    I noted a programme on the Vice channel titled, “Cyber Supramacy + Japan Rising (?)” Synopsis: “Israels rise as world leader in cybersecurity and revolutionary impact of hacking on warfare”. How pertinent…

Comments are closed.