Free Speech

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. Read more

Semites, Self-Pity, Aggressiveness, and Censorship, Part 2: Freedom of Meech

Pug’s paw: Mark Meechan’s hate-crime

Go to Part 1.

New Labour served Jewish interests in another very important way. Jews do not like free discussion of Jewish behaviour, racial differences and the consequences of Third-World immigration. New Labour obligingly strengthened Britain’s already harsh laws against “hate speech.” The taboo on discussing Jewish behaviour is apparent even in those who criticize New Labour’s laws. We can see this in the reaction to the conviction of a White man called Mark Meechan. In March 2018, he was “found guilty of breaching Section 127 of the 2003 U.K. Communications Act, which prohibits ‘grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing’ electronic communications.”

How did Meechan fall foul of this New Labour law? He posted a YouTube video of his girlfriend’s pug “perform[ing] a Nazi salute when he said ‘Sieg Heil’ or ‘gas the Jews’.” This was, according to the judge, “grossly offensive” and a clear breach of the 2003 Communications Act. Prominent British comedians like Ricky Gervais and the repulsive David Baddiel (who is Jewish) have criticized the conviction and defended Meechan’s right to free speech. They say that a highly subjective test like “offensiveness” is completely wrong for comedy, which should have the freedom to break taboos and question everything. I agree with them and with the other British liberals who are saying the same thing. But I note that all of these liberals are silent on some highly relevant aspects of the case. For example, they don’t say that it was effectively a blasphemy conviction under Britain’s new state religions of Holocaustianity and minority worship. Read more

National Action, Islam, and Britain’s Lamentable Terrorism Priorities

The failed improvised explosive device claimed by ISIS


The irony couldn’t have been stronger, nor the despair it engendered more stinging. For ten days the British government, the media, and hostile anti-White social elements had binged on feigned panic and self-satisfaction following the arrest and charging of seven young ethno-nationalists for ‘terrorism’ and ‘race hate’ offences (see here and here). During the course of this Orwellian ‘Ten Day Hate,’ few paused to consider the fact that none of the alleged activities of these individuals met any dictionary definition of terrorism. They were allegedly members of the non-violent, and dubiously proscribed organization ‘National Action.’ They had allegedly engaged in ‘racist’ online conversations. It was claimed they had placed ‘offensive’ stickers around a university campus. But were they terrorists according to the Oxford Dictionary, and most legal understandings of the term? Had they engaged in “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”? No such charges had ever been made by the British criminal justice system against National Action, and they have not been made against the recently arrested men.

But you wouldn’t have guessed that from the hyperbolic government statements that poured forth in the hours and days after the arrests. We were told that jailing these young men was a matter of grave national security. The Guardian enthusiastically waded into the fray, reporting that, because some of those arrested were soldiers, the nation should beware a mass ‘neo-nazi’ infiltration of the British armed forces. Interested parties began agitating for yet more non-violent White advocacy groups to be banned. The nebulous threat of ‘racist extremists’ was everywhere and yet nowhere.

And then, just we were reaching peak hysteria about the ‘terrorism threat’ from the ‘Far Right,’ reality reasserted itself, and the stickers and pranks were forgotten. A Muslim terrorist, later claimed by ISIS, left an improvised explosive device on a busy London train at Parsons Green with the intention of causing mass death and destruction. A further rebuke to the delusions of the masses, and the manipulations of the elite arrived in the form of the growing realisation that the bomber may have been working with a former ‘child refugee’ from Syria, a man who had been taken into the home of an elderly and cartoonishly altruistic British couple.

In the final act of this Islamic plot, the device failed to activate as its designers had intended. But in the chaos which followed the burst of flame and rancid smoke, Britons received a perfectly-timed reminder of what terrorism really is, and from which quarters it truly emanates. Read more

Silent Sisterhood Revisited: Another Vibrant Rape Gang, Another Liberal Lie-Fest

When you’re studying the behaviour of animals, it’s pointless to look for motives like “truth-seeking” and “compassion.” Animals aren’t interested in discovering the truth and Making the World a Better Place. They’re interested in survival — in eating and not being eaten.

“All white women are only good for one thing…”

Something similar applies when you’re studying the behaviour of liberals. Whatever they might claim, they’re not interested in truth or world-improvement: they’re interested in power — in dominating and not being dominated. As I pointed out in “The Silent Sisterhood,” feminists prefer to ignore sex-crimes committed by non-White men, because such crimes contradict their insistence on the Omnipotent Evil of the Stale Pale Male. Now more proof of feminist double-standards has arrived, because another Muslim rape-gang has hit the headlines in Brave New Britain.

It’s vibrant up north: the Newcastle rape-gang

Newcastle, in north-east England, was the vibro-centre this time. Seventeen Muslim men from “backgrounds” of dazzling diversity — “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish” — have been found guilty of the “rape and human trafficking” of more than 200 “vulnerable women and girls.” One of those men, Badrul Hussain, is reported to have espoused a shockingly toxic mixture of racism, misogyny and male supremacism. His alleged words, addressed to a White female ticket-inspector, should have set feminist keyboards rattling right around the world. They went like this: “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to fuck and use like trash. That’s all women like you are worth.” Read more

Another Adventure in Advertising: The Pepperdine Graphic

Our ad company submitted an ad to the student newspaper at Pepperdine University, the Graphic, and, lo and behold, it was approved and published. Now that in itself is a major accomplishment, although I can’t say that I noticed an uptick in subscriptions for TOQ or traffic to TOO. But it was nice to see that it was actually published.

But then it turns out that it was only published because of an oversight — an accident if you will. The head of the Advertising Department, Falon Opsahl, didn’t perform due diligence on the content: “Accidents are not excuses.”

My stomach churned as I scrolled through headline after headline bashing Jews, Blacks and immigrants. The only exceptions were articles that were too busy praising Anglo-Saxon superiority. I felt sick. …

The senior leaders and I made a serious mistake. We don’t advertise anything that propagates racism, sexism or dehumanization. We regret that we failed our own standards.

Pepperdine Graphic Media is a place of representation, where we strive to make all students voices heard and valued, such as in the Race, Faith and Sex special editions.

We must all remember that racism — virulent, active racism — is alive and well. It is heartbreaking and life-destroying. The Graphic staff and I are deeply apologetic and we have learned from our mistake.

Read more

Intellectual Terrorism against Free Speech

Ed. note: Apropos the University of Chicago’s Orwellian stance on free speech, Dr. Sunic, based on his experience growing up in Yugoslavia, ties the war on free speech to communism. Originally published in Pravda, February 9, 2002.

The modern thought police is hard to spot, as it often seeks cover under soothing words such as “democracy” and “human rights.” While each member state of the European Union likes to show off the beauties of its constitutional paragraph, seldom does it attempt to talk about the ambiguities of its criminal code. Last year, in June and November, the European Commission held poorly publicized meetings in Brussels and Strasbourg whose historical importance regarding the future of free speech could overshadow the recent launching of the new euro currency.

At issue is the enactment of the new European legislation whose objective is to counter the growing suspicion about the viability of the multiracial European Union. Following the events of September 11, and in the wake of occasionally veiled anti-Israeli comments in some American and European journals, the desire of the European Commission is to exercise maximum damage control via maximum thought control. If the new bill sponsored by the European Commission regarding “hate crime” passes through the European parliament, the judiciary of any individual EU member state in which this alleged “verbal offence ” has been committed, will no longer carry legal weight. Legal proceedings and “appropriate” punishment will become the prerequisite of the European Union’s supra-national courts. If this proposed law is adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Union, it automatically becomes law in all European Union member states; from Greece to Belgium, from Denmark to Portugal. Pursuant to this law’s ambiguous wording of the concept of ” hate crime” or “racial incitement,” anyone convicted of such an ill-defined verbal offense in country “A” of the European Union, can be fined or imprisoned in country “B ” of the European Union. Read more

The University of Chicago’s Hypocrisy on Free Speech

chicago-half-page-01

 

We at TOO are cooperating with a new ad agency, Free Press Promotions, to attempt to get ads for TOO and TOQ into college newspapers. We thought the University of Chicago would be a good place to start given that they have loudly proclaimed themselves opposed to safe spaces and trigger warnings. Two possible ads were submitted (shown above and below here), and both were rejected by the newspaper with the simple statement, “unfortunately, our editors did not approve them.” Free Press Promotions emailed the president and the dean to get their reactions, but so far no response.

chicago-half-page-02

Read more