Free Speech

Summary of State Laws Protecting Political Dissidents against Discrimination

If you are a political dissident and have experienced employment-based adverse treatment (including threats) because of your beliefs, the Free Expression Foundation may be able to provide you with important legal information to help you fight back.

One source of your legal rights may be your employment contract, if you have one. This includes collective bargaining employment contracts such as those negotiated by unions. Because union members frequently engage in political activity, union contracts commonly contain express prohibitions against political discrimination.

If you do not have an employment contract, you are almost certainly an “at-will” employee. The general legal rule is that an employer may fire an at-will employee for any reason or no reason at all, unless the employee falls into a protected class such as those based on race or gender, and persons holding dissident political views are not a protected class.

There are, however, 18 state or local laws (according to FEF’s latest research) that, to a greater or lesser extent, provide potential redress for an employer’s adverse action against an at-will employee based on the employee’s political beliefs or activities. It bears emphasis that these laws differ greatly from each other. Some have been around for many years; some are quite new. Some are broad in scope and expressly protect the employee’s First Amendment rights; others are drawn narrowly, and arguably apply only to specific contexts relating to specific events, such as elections. Some provide only for criminal penalties; some also provide a civil cause of action for damages. Some have been interpreted by their state courts many times; some have never been interpreted.

California [CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 1101 and 1102]

Colorado [COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24-34-402.5]

Connecticut [CONN. GEN. STAT. § 31-51q]

District of Columbia [D.C. CODE § 2-1402.01] and [DC Guide}

Louisiana [LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 23:961 and 23:962]

Minnesota [MINN. STAT. ANN. § 10A.36]

Missouri [MO. ANN. STAT. § 115.637(6) and § 130.028]

Montana [MONT. CODE ANN. § 39-2-904 and MONT. CONST. art. 2, § 4]

Nebraska [NEB. REV. STAT. ANN. § 32-1537]

Nevada [NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 613.040]

North Dakota [N.D. CENT. CODE ANN. § 14-02.4-03]

New Mexico [N.M. STAT. ANN. § 1-20-13 and § 3-8-78(A)]

New York [N.Y. LAB. LAW § 201-d]

South Carolina [S.C. CODE ANN. § 16-17-560]

Utah [UTAH CODE ANN. § 34A-5-112]

Washington [Seattle only; SEATTLE, WASH. MUN. CODE. § 14.04.040]

West Virginia [W. VA. CODE ANN. § 3-8-11(b) and § 3-9-15]

Wisconsin [Madison only; MADISON, WIS. MUN. CODE § 39.03]

If you have been the victim of adverse treatment by your employer based on your political beliefs or activities, FEF will try to help to the degree it is able. The help FEF can offer will depend on the particular facts of your case, the jurisdiction whose laws apply, and the resources FEF has available. At a minimum, however, FEF will consult with you for free, a consultation that may include speaking with an attorney acting on FEF’s behalf.

If you found this information useful, please consider making a small tax-deductible donation to the FEF by clicking here. Every dollar counts in our fight to keep Free Expression free.


Information herein and throughout this website is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice directed towards individuals, groups, or organizations.

FEF does maintain relationships with lawyers, law firms, and other experts throughout the United States and can help direct people towards such resources and, to an extent, serve in an advisory capacity. But the FEF is not, in any way, a law firm or legal partnership.

The FEF recommends that legal advice should always be obtained by a qualified attorney licensed to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction.

Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad

As Francis Carr-Begbie pointed out long ago at the Occidental Observer, one cultural phenomenon is guaranteed to cause bafflement among liberals, libertarians and cuckservatives. It is the extraordinary spectacle of Muslims behaving like Muslims. Again and again members of Britain’s intellectual elite have been disturbed and dismayed to learn that Muslims don’t behave like Buddhists, Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses. No, Muslims behave like Muslims.

Ho-ho Mo-Show No-No

Who could have seen that one coming? And while libtards wail about Muslim pathologies, Muslims calmly wait for mass immigration and high birth-rates to bring them political and cultural victory. Now we have a new example of libtard uproar at Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. A teacher at Batley Grammar School in the heavily enriched English county of Yorkshire showed his pupils some satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Did Muslim activists in the area respond like fans of Voltaire and warmly support the free speech of the teacher? No, they responded like Muslims and resolutely opposed his free speech. They demonstrated intimidatingly at the school and issued death-threats against the teacher, who has been driven into hiding with his wife and four children.

Muslims behaving like Muslims outside Batley Grammar School

The school itself and local Labour politicians have, of course, immediately capitulated to Muslim intimidation. The headmaster Gary Kibble grovelled like this: “The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a religious studies lesson. It should not have been used. … We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course, and we are revising how we go forward with the support of all communities represented in our school. … The member of staff has been suspended pending an independent formal investigation.”

But it’s hard to blame the headmaster for grovelling or the teacher for going into hiding. After all, look at what happened in France in October 2020. A teacher called Samuel Paty was literally beheaded by an angry Muslim teenager after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of Muhammad.

Something rotten in the county of Yorkshire

I wrote about the murder of Samuel Paty in “Headchopping for Muhammad” and discussed the dishonesty and reality-evasion of the supposed libertarians at Spiked Online, which is the latest incarnation of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a “weird [Trotskyist] sect” founded in the 1970s by the Hungarian-Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. The libtards at Spiked loudly condemned Samuel Paty’s murder, but they had ignored the very similar murder of Asad Shah on British soil in 2016. Shah, a gentle, tolerant Ahmadi Muslim living in Glasgow, was stabbed to death by a free-speech-hating Sunni Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed, who travelled hundreds of miles from Yorkshire to defend the honour of the Prophet against Ahmadi blasphemies. If Spiked hadn’t ignored Shah’s murder, they could have made an important point in their current noisy condemnation of the “shameful capitulation” at Batley Grammar School, namely, that something is rotten in the county of Yorkshire.

But spotting patterns is not something that libertarians are interested in. Instead, Spiked proved once again the truth of Francis Carr-Begbie’s observation about the blindness of libtards, or liberals and libertarians who support open borders for Third-World people, then bewail the inevitable consequences. According to Paul Stott at Spiked, “Video footage from outside the school is disquieting.” Yes, when Muslims behave like Muslims it’s “disquieting” rather than wholly predictable. Stott went on to claim that “schoolkids” should be free to see satirical cartoons of Muhammad, because “Batley Grammar is a secondary school in a liberal democratic society.”

“What most of the country undoubtedly wanted”

He’s wrong. If Britain were a “democratic society,” mass immigration would never have taken place here against the clearly expressed wishes of the White majority. The treacherous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” If repatriation had taken place then — or, far better, mass immigration had never begun in the first place — Britain would have avoided all the Third-world pathologies we see flourishing here in 2021, from attacks on free speech to rape-gangs and acid-throwing.

And if Britain were a “liberal society,” it would not have passed so many laws (at Jewish instigation) to stifle the entirely legitimate opposition of British Whites to their dispossession. For example, the British state would not have twice attempted to jail Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party (BNP), for speaking the truth about Muslim rape-gangs in Yorkshire. In 2004 Griffin had made a highly accurate prediction about Islamic terrorism in Britain. He said it was inevitable and that the “terrorists will turn out to be either asylum-seekers or second-generation Pakistanis, probably from somewhere like Bradford.” Whatever you think about Griffin, it’s clear that he isn’t a libtard. He wasn’t “disquieted” by Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Instead, he observed their behaviour, analysed it, and understood exactly how and why it would worsen.

Ancient wisdom for modern libtards

But even if Paul Stott at Spiked were correct to call Britain a “liberal democratic society,” he would still have to admit that large parts of Britain have seceded from liberalism. Surprisingly enough, when Pakistanis emigrate to the liberal West, they bring illiberal Pakistani culture with them. Well, it’s surprising to libtards, but the Roman poet Horace did even better than Nick Griffin in predicting the consequences of mass immigration. More than 2000 years ago, Horace said this: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their sky, not their soul, who rush across the sea.”

Horace and other great classical writers would once have been central to lessons at the scene of the current uproar about Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Batley Grammar School was “founded in 1612 by the Rev. William Lee” and provided early education for Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), one of the creators of modern chemistry. Priestley “strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas” and “advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters.” But it’s unlikely that Batley Grammar will be producing any more great scientists and supporters of free speech. As the BBC points out, “According to a 2015 Ofsted report Batley Grammar had 689 pupils of which almost three-quarters were from a minority ethnic background [i.e., were Pakistani Muslims].”

More and more pressure against free speech

Have many libtards noticed the irony of pupils who form “almost three-quarters” of a school being described as “from a minority”? I doubt it. I also doubt that Paul Stott at Spiked will celebrate democracy-in-action at Batley Grammar School. If the majority of the parents are Muslim and they don’t want their children exposed to anti-Muslim satire, why shouldn’t they get what they want? As the Muslim population of Britain and other Western nations continues to grow, there will be more and more pressure against free speech and other archaic Western customs. The libtards at Spiked want to pretend that this is the fault of Whites for refusing to stand up for “Enlightenment values.”

It isn’t. When Tanveer Ahmed murdered Asad Shah on British soil in 2016, he was consciously imitating two Muslim hero-martyrs: Ilm Ud-Deen, who murdered a Hindu publisher under the British Raj in 1929, and Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered a politician in Pakistan in 2011. Both men were defending the honour of the Prophet, both were executed by the state, and both are celebrated today in Pakistan as ghazi and shahid — “hero” and “martyr.” And in 1938, Muslims in London “ceremoniously” burned a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World “because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive.” Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad and hate free speech not because they’ve been led astray by any Western ideology, but because they are Muslims. How difficult is that to understand?

No limits on Muslim immigration

Very difficult for the libtards at Spiked, it appears. Their chief propagandist, Brendan O’Neill, has announced that “Britain is not an Islamic country. We do not live under Sharia law. It might be a punishable offence in Islamic nations to make or display an image of Muhammad, but it isn’t here.” In fact, “Sharia law” does operate in large parts of Britain that are de facto “Islamic” because — guess what — they have Muslim majorities after relentless Muslim immigration and on-site population growth. And what do the libtards at Spiked think about Muslim immigration? They want all limits on it removed. In 2015 Brendan O’Neill called for open borders under the stirring headline of “Let them in”:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (Let Them In, Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

In 2021 O’Neill is condemning “religious extremists” and “religious intolerance” in Batley. But Muslims there are displaying precisely the “gumption and perseverance” he celebrated in 2015. O’Neill is also condemning the “slippery way” in which the term “Islamophobia” is used to “conflat[e] discussion of Islam with racism.” That is, he doesn’t like Muslims using “guile,” which he thought was such a positive thing in the aspiring migrants of 2015. What’s happening in Batley is the inevitable consequence of the mass immigration O’Neill has so strongly supported for so many years.

Dedicated to narcissistic self-indulgence

He has also strongly supported unrestricted abortion. And here again we see the stupidity of libertarian support for Third-World immigration. Muslims are not merely entering the West in large numbers: they are being subsidized to have large numbers of children here. In my article “Narcissism and Nihilism,” I contrasted Yetto Souiriy, a Muslim woman in France who had had five children, with Julie Burchill, a liberal woman in Britain who had had five abortions. Indeed, Burchill positively celebrated them: “I’m so glad I had all those abortions. … I’d as soon weep over my taken tonsils or my absent appendix as snivel over those abortions. I had a choice, and I chose life — mine.” The fervent philosemite Burchill writes regularly for Spiked and other libtard outlets in praise of Jews and condemnation of Muslims. She’s an excellent example of libtardism in action. Her choice of “life” was actually a choice of narcissistic self-indulgence. And while she was having abortions, snorting cocaine and experimenting with lesbianism, Muslims were having lots of little Muslims and steadily strengthening their political and cultural power.

Sex, drugs and five abortions(!!): the fervent philosemite Julie Burchill

So here’s a question for Julie and her fellow libtards at Spiked: Who’s going to win a demographic battle between those who believe in lots of abortions and those who believe in lots of children? You won’t need many guesses. But let’s be fair: Burchill’s self-indulgence hasn’t just lost her the war of wombs with Muslims. It’s also lost her the war of words. In December 2020, Burchill defended her fellow philosemite Rod Liddle against a Bangladeshi Muslim woman called Ash Sarkar, who had criticized Liddle for making a joke about having sex with schoolgirls. Burchill tried to exploit the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad first had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. But Burchill’s choice of words was so crude, intemperate and ignorant, and the behaviour of the supporters she enlisted so unpleasant, that Sarkar was able to bring a successful action for defamation.

“Muslims and Jews are natural allies”

Burchill had to pay “substantial damages,” cover Sarkar’s legal costs, and make a grovelling public apology. Sarkar’s lawyer Zillur Rahman triumphantly announced: “I am delighted for Ash, it really is a resounding victory. As a Muslim myself, this case meant more because of the grossly offensive comment made concerning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who is dear to all Muslims.” If all their enemies were like Julie Burchill, Muslims would have much less need of their good friends in the Jewish community. And they certainly have many good friends in the Jewish community, from Dr Richard Stone, the prominent anti-racist who proclaimed that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies” in 2001, to Richard Benson, the former head of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) who began helping Muslims “battle Islamophobia” in 2014. Here are a few more examples of the warm support given by Jews to Muslims:

But the fervent philosemites Julie Burchill and Rod Liddle have never discussed — let alone condemned — the central Jewish role in fomenting the Muslim pathologies now so prominent in the West. It’s yet another example of libtard blindness. So is the claim made by Tom Slater at Spiked that the Muslim protestors in Batley are “dickheads.” In fact, Muslims aren’t foolish or misguided to oppose free speech, because they know it is bad for Muslim interests. As a former Trotskyist, Slater may recall that Josef Stalin used censorship very successfully to maintain his own power and defeat his enemies. History teaches us that censorship works very well to defend authoritarian systems, while free speech is a very rare and fragile phenomenon. History also teaches us that free speech was created by stale pale males like John Stuart Mill in Britain and the Founding Fathers in America. In other words, it’s a White thing — Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites neither created it nor want it.

The “libertarians” at Spiked believe in protecting the rare and fragile phenomenon of free speech by opening the borders of White nations to unlimited numbers of highly illiberal tribalists from the Third World. So here’s another question for Tom, Brendan, Julie and the other libtards at Spiked: If you support free speech and open borders for Muslims, while Muslims support censorship and open borders for Muslims, who exactly are the dickheads?

Free Expression Foundation needs help in this huge battle

Free Speech Worth Supporting

Getting free speech rights would be really easy these days if we donned black masks and helmets, threw on some all-black military fatigues, grabbed a few bags of dog poo and a truncheon, and showed up to harass anyone showing pride in America or our U.S. culture heroes. Who knows? You might even be able to slam seven people in the head with a metal bike lock and get away with it, as did college professor and anti-free speech activist Eric Clanton. 

Fortunately, however, we here at the Free Expression Foundation (FEF) believe in the rule of law, and we believe in free speech for everyone, whether you are a red leftist or an ultra-conservative red, white, and blue patriot.

But, we are sad to say, that is not the way those in charge think in America today.

You know that’s true, because, every once in a while, you turn on the TV and sit through a FINK broadcast—the “Fake Industrial News Komplex.” You may have also realized that never before in American history has the news been so blatantly fictional. Every mass shooter is a “white supremacist” (even if he or she is for universal healthcare, saving gay whales, stopping “apocalyptic” climate change or inspired by communist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). For instance, the “fascist” shooter in the recent El Paso massacre described himself as a progressive leftist!

In his “manifesto,” he warned that, “[T]he media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric.” He then stated, “The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”

But who cares about the truth? And who cares about open and stimulating political debate? Certainly not the Democrats, who have adopted the bogus narrative that white people in general and conservative white males in particular are the worst plague to have infected mankind since the first flea jumped off the first rat and bit a human, passing on the Yersinia pestis bacterium thus kicking off the Black Death. Leftists today are only concerned about acquiring complete political power, and they will support any lie to regain the White House.

And, really, the Republicans are hardly better, scratching and clawing over one another to claim their spot on the censorship bandwagon. We can’t count on them to protect free speech and to defend those whose First Amendment rights are being fed through the shredder.

We’ll have to do this ourselves—average Americans and the Free Expression Foundation. Read more

Amazon Bans Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents

Twenty-one years after a respected academic publisher, Praeger, published Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents, they have been banned on Amazon. A People that Shall Dwell Alone is still available. This comes only around two weeks after they banned books by Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. This is an extension of the de-platforming from financial sites and PayPal, Patreon, Coinbase, and credit card companies that has hit pretty much all sites on the dissident right, including TOO and TOQ. Clearly the establishment is terrified that these ideas are gaining traction, and it illustrates once again, that the culturally dominant left cares nothing for free speech as a pillar of American civilization. I am now deeply worried that if the left obtains power in the next election, what has happened thus far will pale in comparison to what lies ahead. Private companies like Amazon cannot impose criminal penalties, but if the left manages to redefine the First Amendment, as they would certainly love to do, there will be a very real prospect of imprisonment and heavy fines — even for well-argued, well-supported statements and writings.  This has already happened in several parts of the EU, and the left has already developed sophisticated legal theories aimed at getting around the First Amendment. Supreme Court liberals, like Elena Kagan (who has already shown her proclivities in this area), are sure to be thinking along these lines.

Like pretty much everyone associated with the dissident right, I celebrated the election of Donald Trump. However, it’s clear that the populist, anti-immigration themes of Trump’s rhetoric have energized the left to a fever pitch. Trump has been unsuccessful or unwilling to carry through his promises on immigration, and there has been a barrage of investigations and impeachment talk beginning as soon as he took office. The liberal/left cultural establishment might have let things continue as they had been going for several decades if Jeb or Hillary had been elected. From the perspective on the left, everything was on course. There would be polite disagreements between Democrats and Republicans while the latter gradually ceded ever more ground in the culture wars; in the not too distant future, the Republican viability in national elections would be destroyed by the new Democrat voters they collaborated in importing. But it would all be very gradual.

However, Trump won, and to make things worse, there were populist stirrings in Europe, with the success of Brexit and with several European governments openly defying their EU masters on immigration and the ideal of multiculturalism. The response of the left, which should have been completely predictable, has been to do everything they can to ramp up immigration and even lower the voting age so that they are assured of winning future elections. And they have targeted the ideas of the dissident/populist right for suppression. Again, we are just seeing the beginning of what promises to be a very ugly war.

Like others on the dissident/populist right, we will not stop doing what we are doing, even if it means less visibility for our ideas and less financial support. It’s inevitable that Whites wake up to their dispossession and to the increasing hate directed against them from our cultural elites. Barring a USSR-type government, I’m not at all sure that our ideas can be prevented from triumphing. And that has our hostile elites very worried.

These books are still available from the publisher:
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

From Barnes & Nobel (when I click on the link, I get a pop-up with a 15% discount)”
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

In Canada, at
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

This is what I got from Amazon. In subsequent emails, they just keep repeating that these books were found to violate “content guidelines,” even though I pointed out that they were published 21 years ago by a respected academic publisher. No specifics. No appeal process.

From: Kindle Direct Publishing
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Kevin MacDonald
Subject: Alert from Amazon KDP for 2 Title(s)


We’re contacting you regarding the following book:

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism by MacDonald, Kevin (AUTHOR) (ID: 4392904)
The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by MacDonald, Kevin (AUTHOR) (ID: 3285482)

During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale. If we identify additional submissions with similar content that violates our guidelines you may lose access to optional KDP services and/or face account level actions up to and including termination.

You can find our content guidelines on the KDP website:<>

Best regards,

Amazon KDP

Jewish Attitudes toward Free Speech: What’s Good for the Jews

Amazon is no longer selling books linked to White nationalism by the thought police at Quartz. It’s obvious that in the EU and since the 2016 election in the US, there have been campaigns to destroy the media presence of the dissident right by deplatforming from financial sites like PayPal, limiting followers and shadow-banning on Twitter, etc. Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter and Charles Murray have had talks at universities cancelled amidst violence and threats of violence The campaign against free speech is clearly heating up. Since Jewish issues are discussed on this site (who knows for how long!), I thought it appropriate to comment on the recent history of Jewish attitudes toward free speech.

There is a huge contrast between the stance of the organized Jewish community regarding free speech depending on whether it’s “good for the Jews.” During the 1950s, the organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security. Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like Sen. Joe McCarthy’s inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman.

On the other hand, during the 1920s and 1930s mainstream Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals rationalized Soviet despotism and turned a blind eye to Soviet mass murder during a period when Jews were an elite within the Soviet Union. And in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the $PLC, engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles.

During the 1950s, Jews were also deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was  mainly concerned to protect communist  professors and other leftist dissidents targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials.

Although quite powerful, the culture  of  the left was not yet the dominant elite  that it has become since the 1960s; it had powerful enemies in McCarthy and his allies, and these forces had strong popular support. The rise of this new elite has coincided with the power of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39-40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the one that destroyed Jason Richwine. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the SPLC is implicitly condemned for its persecution of race realists and White advocates.

Words Like Violence: The Left’s Total War on Freedom of Speech

Editor’s note: This a chapter of Richard Houck’s Liberalism Unmasked. Richard is an amazing young writer who doubtless has a great future on the dissident right. (Click here to see his other TOO articles.) It’s so great to see a recent college graduate who not only has his head screwed on right after all the propaganda he has been exposed to, but also has the courage and skill to write about it. As this chapter shows, his research is exhaustive and his arguments compelling.

Strongly recommended. And to be followed shortly by Andrew Joyce’s review. Stay tuned.

*    *   *   *

About Richard, from the Arktos website:

Richard’s favorite films are over twenty years old, and all his favorite bands broke up in the 80s. Somewhat out of place in the modern world, much of his time is spent away from the city, on narrow forest paths. As a radical traditionalist, he admires the bygone virtues of perseverance, loyalty, courage, and honor.

*    *   *   *

Liberalism Unmasked
Richard Houck
Arktos, 2018
Available at Arktos and Amazon (all 5-star reviews)

 HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!” the purple-haired, cigarette-smoking, degenerate, screamed at me from the top of her tiny, black lungs at a campus protest. Her hands clenched in fists of rage in front of her “Fuck Trump” tank top, she snarled at me with the rabid expression of hatred on her face, feverishly awaiting my reply. 

And that’s where you’re wrong, darling. Hate speech, is the noblest form of free speech,” I calmly replied. As I sauntered down the brick walkway, on a cold autumn day, the wind blew my hair into a wild mane, my trench coat flowing eloquently behind me in some unintended, yet ornate display of regality.

Free speech is not, and has never been, a value of the oppressive Left.

And why would it be? In the face of really free speech, the false narratives of the Left, built upon half-truths and whole lies, would come crumbling down in a magnificent disaster, leaving them exposed as the charlatans they are.

Free speech in the United States is scarcely limited; the only restrictions are on speech which incites immediate violence. Nowhere else in the world is this liberty so protected.1 In fact, as we will see, even many of our fellow American citizens do not share this value.

In Germany, hate speech and criticism of heads of state can result in five years in prison. German people have had their homes raided for comments they have left on social media criticizing the migrant population or the immigration policies that have caused a rape and crime epidemic in their nation.2 I’m not talking about Germany during the Weimar Republic or Soviet-occupied East Germany; it happens frequently in the present day, under Angela Merkel – the German leader that Hillary Clinton said she most admired. This is worth reflecting on; this is how close we were to catastrophe in America. We were standing on the edge, looking into the abyss. There is no longer any time to mess around.

What is the justification for laws against certain kinds of speech? “Hate speech” might cause emotional turmoil for the “victim,” or it might incite hatred against a certain group. Which means that currently, a person can be fined or imprisoned in so-called developed nations all over the world merely for hurting somebody’s feelings.

The idea of fining or imprisoning somebody for speech is beyond barbaric. Considering how “progressive” the Left is, it is surprising that it has no issue instituting Draconian blasphemy laws of this kind. How ironic that the same group of people holding signs that read “No human being is illegal” seem to have no qualm making you illegal if you hold the wrong political views.

A man in Cambridge, UK, has been given four years in prison for making “hateful” comments online.3 An 88 year-old woman in Germany, Ursula Haverbeck, has been sentenced to prison for two years for daring question historical events dating back to seventy years ago; her crime is “Holocaust denial.”4 These two stories are by no means exceptional or extraordinary cases; they are the creeping norm in much of Europe today. In 2016 in the UK, over 3,300 people were arrested for offensive online comments. Let us repeat that. Per a communications act which makes it illegal to “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another,” over 3,300 people have been terrorized by their own government. Generally, these are only white citizens, as people making anti-white comments online are typically left alone.5 European lawmakers now make a higher priority of jailing people for offensive comments, than stopping the massive sex trafficking rings and gang rapes that currently plague their nations.

Woe to whomever commits a Thought Crime; for that mistake, the Thought Police come knocking. Even tourists are now experiencing its tyrannical reach. Two Chinese men were arrested and fined for taking photos in front of the Reichstag building while making “illegal Hitler salutes.”6 Germany is no longer a serious country.

Here is a list to consider:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Australia, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom.

None of the citizens of these nations are free folk.

They all have laws outlawing what politicians arbitrarily deem to be “hate speech” – or more accurately, Crime Think, as Orwell foretold.

One in four countries across the globe outlaw blasphemy. Blasphemy laws are concentrated primarily in North Africa and the Middle East, places that have fallen under Islamic influence. However, blasphemy laws also exist in Europe and South America. Punishments range from fines and imprisonment to death.7

Thanks to the Left, many European countries claim that hate speech laws are an effort to stop fascism; in an effort to stop “authoritarianism,” they became totalitarians themselves. Brilliant play lads. It is not that the Left has any real objection to authoritarianism, so long as they are in control.

But I’m starting to realize more and more that countries with theocratic totalitarian regimes are not all that different from “progressive” Liberal nations. And why would they be? Liberalism itself is more of a mentally deranged dogmatic cult than a political philosophy. Hate speech is blasphemy, and hate speech laws are blasphemy laws. Viewed in this light, everything starts to come together.

The United Nations has issued a “warning” to the United States, urging us to abandon our value of free speech, so that our inalienable rights are not “misused” to promote “hate speech.”8 The largest political organization on Earth is now agitating for the abolition of our most fundamental right. In a bygone time, better men would have seen this as an act of total war against our people by a hostile elite.

It is useful for us to look at what is happening in Europe today; it gives us a glimpse into our own future, – what might have been our present, had the 2016 election gone differently. This book is more than a political treatise; it does not seek only to illuminate and dissect the destructive nature of modern Liberal policies and ideals. This book is a warning of what lies ahead if we are not vigilant today. Our eternal vigilance has always been the high price we must pay for our freedom.

University campuses all over the nation have already composed disturbing lists of banned words and phrases, side by side with acceptable phrases (Newspeak). College students with no moral convictions and weak characters have been calling for “safe spaces” and bans on hate speech for some time. Even US news organizations have urged a revision of our freedom of speech, modeled on the “progressive” European and Canadian speech laws. Their claim is similar to that of European nations and others that have enacted such laws: certain words or phrases create a “safety” issue for people. We should therefore silence this language in order to protect the exceedingly fragile and volatile Liberal mind from a state of danger. This is a classic example of the collective nature of the Left compared to the individualism of the Right. Even if preventing one person from speaking would spare the feelings of an entire group, that one person’s freedom to speak should triumph over the hegemony.

Recent Pew research on the freedom of expression polled US citizens from the ages of eighteen to thirty-four, as to whether they thought the government should have the ability to prevent people from making offensive statements about “minorities.” A whopping 40% of those surveyed answered in the affirmative: the government should have the ability to stop people from making “offensive statements.” Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to say the government should have the authority to regulate such statements. Of those surveyed in Europe, 49% were in favor of government intervention of offensive comments.9

There is some hope in the fact that 60% surveyed in America disagree with government censorship. On one hand, it is shocking that 40% of young Americans, people my own age, would be in favor of forfeiting their fundamental, inalienable, rights. On the other hand, it must be remembered that most people, long soaked in the propaganda of the Left, do not even realize that their thoughts are hardly their own anymore.

The startling aspect of the trend towards approval for hate speech laws is that each generation becomes more and more tolerant of censorship. Only 12% US adults aged seventy to eighty-seven were in favor of the government being able to regulate offensive comments. Each generation thereafter become more and more willing to submit to the State.

A 2017 study asked whether its subjects would support hate speech laws in the United States. 56% of black citizens supported hate speech laws. 58% of Hispanic citizens supported them. Only 33% of white Americans supported the banning of hate speech. 52% of Democrats were in favor of hate speech laws in America, while 27% of Republicans were in favor.10

It is clear to whom we must look for the defense of our freedoms.

Please Choose from the List of Approved Words and Phrases before Speaking

In Orwell’s prophetic classic, 1984, not only could a citizen be found guilty of a Thought Crime, but information that might threaten the official Party doctrine was also censored and destroyed. History books and articles were commonly rewritten to reflect the current agenda, and as always, thought criminals were routinely disappeared.

New York City passed a law that makes it illegal to address a person by the wrong title, pronouns, or gender. All businesses, professionals, and landlords, are required to address a person by their preferred title or pronoun. If a man wants to be referred to as “her,” “ze,” “xir,” or any other randomly imagined name, employers, professionals, and landlords are required by law to abide, else they face a fine of $125,000 to $250,000. “Mis-gendering” a person is now illegal in New York City. The law also includes provisions to inhibit the enforcing a “gendered” dress code at work. Meaning, you cannot ask a male employee not to wear a dress and high heels to work. NYC has now made it illegal to observe a fundamental, biological reality.11

In California, State Senator, Scott Weiner, who is gay and Jewish, wrote a similar bill, one that would charge people criminally, and have them jailed for up to one year, for the crime of mis-gendering a person.12 13 Weiner also introduced a bill that would no longer make it a felony to knowingly infect another person with HIV. The bill applies to blood banks, meaning an HIV positive person would face only a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of six months in jail, for donating infected blood and not informing the blood bank of their HIV status.14 In California, to call a person by the wrong gender now carries a heavier sentence, than does knowingly infecting a person with HIV. This is clown world.

I’m not against referring to people by their preferred name. In fact, if you want to paint your face green, wear a giant turtle shell, and carry around nunchaku, I’ll gladly refer to you as Michelangelo from here to hereafter. Want to wear fangs, a cape, and only come out at night? You’re Count Dracula for me. I’ll be happy to entertain your delusion. I love a good character anyway.

The issue is that currently throughout the world, it is becoming a norm to criminalize and police language. I’m not appealing to some slippery slope, where I think this is going to spin out of control. It already has. Societies either need to decide that we can say whatever we want, or not. Somebody not calling you by your preferred name in no way inhibits you from being you. I would like it if from now on, everybody only referred to me as, King Richard the Wild Hearted, Last of his Kind, Hero to all Free Folk. Yes, the whole thing. I would like it quite a lot actually.

Imagine if everywhere I went, people affectionately greeted me that way. Walk into the coffee shop or the gym or class, “Good morrow, King Richard the Wild Hearted, Last of his Kind, Hero to all Free Folk, your standard espresso and muffin?” Life would be grand. But I do not think forcing anybody to call me by such a title under the threat of financial sanction or worse is reasonable in a fair and just society.

Hate speech laws are only the beginning. “Progressive” nations like Sweden quickly move on to censoring even the access of information, such as the recent denial by the Justice Minister at the request of updated crime statistics.15 This is a classic tactic used by every communist regime we have ever seen. Controlling what people can say is a way to control what they think. Controlling what information people have access to is a way to control what they think. This is about keeping a population in the dark, stupid, weak, and dependent on the State. Liberals today have the same value system that communist dictators have always had. They are the very authoritarians that they claim to fight. The deceitful Left needs to censor speech and restrict access to information, for those are the only two necessary weapons in the battle for truth. Liberals can never win in a fair fight of facts and reason. So, they use the State to limit the arms of the opposition by denying us access to information, and denying us the ability to speak the truth. The Left by nature is anti-truth.

Incidents all over Europe have been intentionally covered up to keep people unaware of what is happening to their homelands. From the Rotherham sex-operation cover up, to the New Year’s Eve sexual assault scandal in Germany, we are only scratching the surface. In Sweden, gangs of Afghan men raped and sexually assaulted girls as young as eleven at a music festival. When asked about the incident in an interview, a Swedish politician said that often times, they will leave out stories of this nature, as they worry the information may “play into the hands” of the Right-wing, nationalist party.16 The Left understands what it is doing very well; it knows that if people knew the truth of their victimization they would naturally gravitate towards the Right and towards nationalism. It is intentionally keeping these stories, and thousands like them, under cover, at the grave expense of people’s lives and safety – all so it may continue to rule with impunity.

Sadly, the same trend is beginning to emerge in the US as well. After a string of robberies committed by non-whites on the Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco authorities chose to not release footage of the crimes. Despite the fact that releasing the footage would certainly help to apprehend the criminals, authorities felt releasing the video might perpetuate stereotyping. Further, one of the BART directors stated that the footage “would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”17 Once again we see that those in positions of authority are more concerned with protecting the people who victimize, than with stopping further victimization. There is a large-scale cover up the world over on the part of the Left of all the crimes non-whites commit against whites. This war against us is being deliberately waged under the guise of tolerance and political correctness.

Liberals in America have resorted to more indirect ways of silencing dissenters; due to our first two amendments, they cannot throw us in jail for speaking the truth. For now. The Left has therefore essentially privatized and outsourced the censorship. Instead of having the State censor us, as in so many other “advanced” nations, American censorship is done via private entities. Instead of using the State to directly police our voices – as happens in Europe – censorship has been out-sourced and renamed “terms of service.” Liberals and tech giants now leverage their terms of service as little more than a virtual Article 58, a way to grant carte blanche to the cyber secret police.

Tech companies such as YouTube, Google, and Facebook have hired armies of people to find and remove upsetting or offensive content. Not content such as animal cruelty, violent pornography, and calls for rape and white genocide, but content that might be labeled as “hate speech,” according to the Nuevo-Ministry of Truth.18 19 They are actively censoring and manipulating search results, in an effort to ensure we do not stumble upon any content they wouldn’t want us to see. Thousands of accounts have been banned from social media such as Twitter and Facebook simply because they promote white interests and stand against mass migration. The Daily Stormer’s website has become the most censored publication in history, being thrown off of dozens of domain-hosting companies.

Payment processing companies have followed suite as well, ensuring that those who sell Right-wing books and produce Right-wing radio shows or run Right-wing websites are hindered financially. None of these people are advocating violence, not one of them posts illegal content, as say videos of brutality against animals or violent pornography. That material can easily be found online. But political musing that cuts at the establishment is met with ferocious obstruction. There has been a virtual Hanging Order issued to suppress all forms of dissident thought.

Speaking of which, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is building a “command center,” with the goal of combating hate speech, meaning anything Right-wing. It is easy to imagine what this will entail: a campaign to remove all instances of Wrong Think that might be found anywhere on the internet.20 The ADL is working with Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and YouTube to remove any content deemed to include “hate speech.”21 22 The same group of people that declare cartoon frogs to be the enemy of mankind are now working with the largest video-hosting site, search engine, and social media networks on Earth to determine what people can and cannot access. Horrifying.

Large online book retailers have been pressured by Leftists organizations to ban “problematic” books. The most degenerate pornography is universally available – but books with the wrong political message are beyond the pale.

It is important to note that there is indeed a racial element to this. Those considered to be white nationalists are silenced with quick action. However, nationalists of other varieties are left alone, and generally even celebrated. Jewish nationalists, black nationalists, Latin nationalists, Muslim and Arab nationalists, are all welcomed. Nobody is censoring the many Zionist organizations, Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or the Muslim Brotherhood. However, if you are pro-white the Left views that as an existential threat to their hegemony.

The Washington Post ran an article entitled, “How do you stop fake news? In Germany, with a law.” The piece praises Germany for expanding their crackdown on Wrong Think by fining websites that do not remove “fake news” and “hate speech” quickly enough.23 And who gets to decide what is and is not fake news and hate speech? The same people that claim there are more than two genders, that race is merely a social construct, that unborn humans are not living beings, and that public beheadings are the trappings of a peaceful religion.

German heads of state are so dedicated to the cause of censorship that they have hired a former Stasi agent to patrol social media for “xenophobic” content. How appropriate, granting a former member of the communist East German secret police the power once again to hunt down dissidents.24

German officials behind the new laws claim that the rise in violence in Germany and across Europe is the result of increased “hate speech,” posted online. They actually have the gall to tell us that European citizens speaking out against the huge surge in rape and violent crimes, is the cause of the same. A United Nations Secretary General, a socialist, has expressed similar thoughts, by suggesting that the rise in global terror is caused by the rise of “Islamophobic hate speech.”25

In a similar act of prodigious stupidity, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio blamed Donald Trump’s “hate speech” on the rise of “hate crimes,” thus attributing one totally imaginary thing to another.26 This, despite the fact that hundreds of alleged “hate crimes” turned out to be hoaxes entirely fabricated by the “victims.” In reality, the Left fabricates hundreds of “hate crimes” with one hand, and attacks the Right with the other, blaming those they attack for their own violent behavior, and then using it all as an excuse to silence opposing views.

Sweden passed a new law which makes it illegal to criticize migrants, the LGTBQ community, or government officials.27 Even if such criticisms entail factual claims. Like the fact that the rate of rape in Sweden committed by Muslim migrants is over 20 times higher than that committed by native Swedes. Or the fact that the rise in rapes has been caused almost entirely by mass Muslim migration. Just for mentioning these demonstrable facts, you might face four years in prison.28

A police officer in Sweden is now being criminally investigated for speaking out against open-border policies and the crime they have caused. Officer Peter Springare did nothing but state publicly what everybody already knows. He affirmed that the investigations of violent crime he undertook per his detective job revealed that nearly all of the criminals are foreign, coming mostly from Muslim or African nations. For the offense of speaking the truth, Swedish government prosecutors are investigating officer Springare.29

London’s first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, recently launched a new police unit within Scotland Yard specifically devoted to policing “online hate crime.”30 It goes without saying that hate speech laws are never created to protect whites or Christians, despite the fact that whites and Christians are in fact the most persecuted group of people on planet Earth. Reports from the Center for Studies on New Religions reveal that in 2016 over 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith.31 Yet there are no special laws protecting them. We are seeing precisely what happens when a nation allows individuals with no connection to its own people or culture to make the laws and govern them. We hear constantly of the rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, and “hate crimes” targeting migrants, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Liberals hide behind the guise of not wanting to “incite hatred” or to “insult” anyone; they use this as an excuse to incessantly pass laws limiting public access to data about their own victimization. This has never been about protecting a targeted group of people. This is simply about forcibly protecting the Liberal multicultural doctrine.

The same lunacy is rearing its ugly head in the United States as well.

California recently introduced Senate Bill 1161, the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016. The new act would allow those who spoke out against the accepted “truth” of climate change to be sued for damages.32 “Fraud” in regard to climate change would be grounds for prosecution. Liberals have even suggested jail time as an appropriate penalty for so much as challenging the climate narrative

Liberals would love to see us all in Room 101 or reeducation camps, so that we can learn what is politically correct – just as their Bolshevik forefathers once did.

Interestingly enough, when it came to light that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had manipulated data in their report for the United Nations 2015 climate conference in Paris, Liberals did not seem particularly interested in the news. NOAA was found to have been emphasizing and omitting data in order to exaggerate the effects of global warming, while downplaying the slowdown in warming patters.33

Where are the outraged Leftist organizations that claim to protect civil liberties during these blatant assaults on our freedom? They are naturally off supporting bills like the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016, which seeks to shut down criticism of Israeli foreign policy in higher education. This bill, which arose after pro-Palestinian activists dared protest the conflict between Israel and Palestine, makes “demonizing Israel” a legitimate cause for investigation of college students.34

Pro-Israeli lobbyist groups like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) provide incredible financial incentives to sway our politicians to create laws prohibiting criticism of the foreign policy of foreign nations.35 This is unacceptable: nobody, no idea, and nothing, is above criticism. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are merely organizations furnishing weapons for the illegitimate war on Crime Think. The bills they urge Congress to pass are nothing but tools to police and humiliate dissenting opinions.

The same Liberal organizations that claim to support the protection of civil liberties are on the forefront of every movement to undermine them. No matter what they claim, it is clear from their actions that these virulent organizations do not support free speech whatsoever. They support approved speech, speech which does not threaten their narrative. And it is well worth asking why they find this so necessary. If Liberals were on the right side of the issues, if they had nothing to hide with regard to foreign conflicts, crime data, and migrant data, if they had the truth on their side, why would they go through such extreme lengths to ensure that nobody speaks about these topics?

It’s incredibly telling that in America, you can freely criticize American foreign policy. Yet if you criticize the foreign policy of Israel, a country on the other side of the planet, groups with hundred-million-dollar budgets immediately lobby Congress to silence you. And our politicians, in an incredible show of cowardice and greed, capitulate. The US State Department even has an entire department called The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Our tax dollars are going to provide programs ensuring that certain foreign peoples are not having their feelings hurt. In America.

The absurdity of the situation is incredible. Imagine if there were a massive pro-Russia lobby that made it illegal to disagree with or criticize Russian foreign policy. Or what if there were a white anti-hate bill passed that could fine a private citizen up to a quarter of a million dollars for speaking negatively about white people? We are creating a society in which free-born Americans are going to be living in fear that what they say might be subjected to legislation like the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. If this isn’t stopped now, more will soon follow. One has only to glance at Europe if one wants the proof.

Censorship is so out of control we have essentially been reduced to dealing “hate facts” and truth on the black market through underground tunnels, ensuring we don’t tip off the Stasi.

Do you think the Left would be very pleased if we reversed the roles for a change? Maybe it is time we lobby for anti-Anglo, anti-Celtic, anti-Russo, anti-Slavic, anti-Nordic, anti-Hellenic, anti-Native, anti-Saxon, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Christian laws – that is to say, laws against anything anti-white. Maybe once Liberals start facing investigation, fines, and jail, once their names are smeared merely because they have the wrong opinion about the wrong people, maybe then they will understand the totalitarian intolerance of their ways. In America, whites and Christians are fair game for criticism and mockery, yet everybody else is off limits. In fact, that is precisely how some “entertainers” have made their entire living. Everybody else is a part of some protected “minority” class, but the war on whites rages on.

I am beyond weary of their insolence. I am tired of foreigners coming to America, foreigners who have no connection to this land or people, foreigners who take advantage of the nation our ancestors built, using its own best qualities to destroy it in their attempt to rebuild a new nation in their image. If “antisemitism” is so bad, go home to Israel. If “Islamophobia” is so awful in America and Europe, go back to one of the fifty Muslims caliphates in the desert.

The idea of making it illegal for Americans to say whatever they want about anybody they want is an insurrection against the people native to this nation. Those who agitate for laws to protect any groups other than the ancestors of the people who built this nation should be immediately deported via helicopter. Jews are not the heirs to this land. Arabs and Muslims are not the heirs to this land. Africans are not the heirs to this land. Mexicans are not the heirs to this land. I am. We are. And I am sick of people trying to tell me what I can and cannot say in my own homeland.

An identical pattern repeats itself time and time again: a group of aliens migrate to a new nation; they play the victim; they complain that they are being discriminated against, that they are not well enough represented in government. The government in question acquiesces to their every demand. Then, once they possess a large enough percentage of the population or a strong enough influence, they vote their own group into power, and begin to pass laws granting themselves special immunities and privileges, heedless of the effects on the previous culture, or the erosion of the rights of the peoples who built these nations.

Advocating or passing “hate speech” laws or making it especially illegal to criticize one group, is fundamentally un-American, anti-Western, and inherently unequal. It flies in the face of true equality. Equality means we are all the same in the eyes of the law and of God. It does not mean that saying “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide” should be legal, while saying “All I want for Christmas is [Insert ethic or religions group here] Genocide” should be punishable. Either they are both accepted, or neither is: that is true equality.

The quantity of mainstream articles favoring censorship laws is illuminating. The outlets that produce them are not in the business of truth or honesty. They are interested in selling a very particular narrative. With the rise of the internet and independent media outlets, the Ministry of Truth is squirming to find a way to bury the truth.

Because Liberals cannot refute the facts or logic of our arguments, their only recourse becomes censorship. The Left sees too much danger in laying out the facts; it is threatened by the prospect of allowing people to make up their own minds.

Liberal narratives are eternally hollow and held up only by lies. The truth fears no investigation, and has no need of the crutch of censorship.

Silence or Violence

For quite some time now Liberals have resorted to simple name calling as a means to win arguments. Their ideas are weak and fragile. Factual reality weighs so heavily on their narrative that it would collapse at once in the added pressure of reasonable debate. To circumvent the onerous duty of actually proving their case, they label anybody who disagrees with them as sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, transphobic, misogynistic – the list goes on and on. This tactic used to work well because of the social stigma attached to these terms. Liberals took full advantage of this, silencing dissident opinions with a label, thus forcing their interlocutors to defend themselves, rather than focusing on the argument and the facts at hand. This worked wonders for the Left. It did not need to defend its grotesque and harmful immigration policies, because its adversaries were too busy defending their character, explaining how they are not in fact racist, assuring everyone ad nauseam of how many black friends they had.

As the Right has caught onto this tired game, it has stopped being so effective; thus, the Liberals have moved on to the next level: when screaming “BIGOT!” and screeching horrifically at the top of their lungs fails to silence dissenters, violence is the natural next move in the Liberal strategy. The Left justifies violence against its political foes in a simple, two-step process.

First, it equates its opposition – that is, anyone who stands anywhere to the Right of Lenin – to generally despised historical figures or groups, like the KKK or the Nazis.

Second, it asserts that violence against groups like the KKK and the Nazis is in all cases inherently justified.

There’s some sleight of hand going on here we must bring to light. The term “racist” and “Nazi” are now so loosely defined by the Left, the political spectrum has shifted so far its way, that anybody who is not willing to give up his nation to hordes of third world invaders, pass hate speech laws on a whim, and limit gun rights, immediately becomes a racist and a Nazi. Liberals have moved so far into their collectivist group-thinking hive-mind, that merely wanting to enforce current immigration laws, makes you Himmler. That means you too, you who are presently reading this work of blasphemy against the Liberal god, have furnished enough evidence that the communist Left can label you a Nazi, and act accordingly.

There is a slogan I’ve seen online and on signs of protesters that read, “Make racists afraid again!” And how is the Left going to go about this? The same way it always has. The same way every Leftist regime has through history. With extreme violence.

During protests, the neo-KPD, based on the Antifaschistische Aktion group, known as Antifa can be frequently seen bearing a banner that reads, “The only good fascist is a dead one.” The alarming part of this is that the Left has long openly declared Donald Trump a fascist, as well as all the nearly 63,000,000 people who voted for him. Logically meaning – they want us all dead. Not only has the ADL and SPLC covered for Antifa, but CNN has as well. CNN ran a piece about the group which claimed that Antifa “seeks peace through violence.” NBC interviewed Dartmouth professor Bray, who explained the “ethics” of Antifa and their violent actions. Professor Bray defended and justified the virulent group, equating violence against the Right with “self-defense.”36

The media, the press, and academia make these claims, thinking people will take them seriously, perhaps will even support political violence against us. But what are these Antifa even fighting for? Billion dollar corporations do not condemn them; in fact, they cover for them. Nor does the ADL, SPLC, or any Liberal politician disavow them. This Antifa claims to be the “resistance,” yet every major organization, university, corporation, media outlet, and celebrity supports its messages and goals.

The truth is that the members of this “resistance” serve as the useful idiots for the international Left. It is painfully clear that they are fighting against us as a people. The Left fights for a debased democracy in which hordes of invaders on welfare have just as much a vote as those of us whose ancestors built these great nations. They fight for more mindless egalitarianism to achieve their debased pseudo-democracy; they fight for more ugliness, more disorder; they fight to destroy everything good and beautiful. They are fighting to censor us, disarm us, cheat us. Finally, they are fighting to orchestrate our eradication. They are fighting for a Final Solution to the White Problem.

The reason nobody on the Left will denounce Antifa is very simple. They share one and the same end goal. Antifa is simply the “street” division of the SPLC, the ADL, and the press. Every Leftists organization is moving in the same direction: against us and our people.

As the prevailing media, press, and politicians rush to defend the anarcho-communists, any whites that organize, hold rallies, and advocate for the interest of their people are violently shut down, de-platformed, and made into pariahs. They are called “terrorists” and “supremacists,” in the total absence of supporting evidence, while Antifa and BLM burn entire cities, and nary a negative word uttered in reply. But when a white man advocates for his people, the world comes to a standstill. The real crime these whites seemed to have universally committed was being white, articulate, racially consciousness, and fighting for their people, when nobody else would. Simply wanting to opt-out of the massively failed experiment of multiculturalism is now grounds for accusations of terrorism.

As with the term “Nazi,” the Left has now redefined “fascism” to cover anyone who opposes the open-border tyranny of globalism. It is used as a political smear. Simply a tool to demonize, dehumanize, and un-person political adversaries, so the truculent Left may justify its violence.

During the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, political author, advocate, and speaker Richard Spencer was attacked while giving an interview. Following the assault, social media as well as mainstream news outlets began debating the morality of whether or not it was acceptable to “punch a Nazi.” Even the New York Times ran a piece asking, “Is it O.K. to punch a Nazi?”37 Mother Jones published another entitled “The Long History of Nazi Punching.38

The overwhelming reaction by the Left was yes, it is indeed not only reasonable, but morally righteous and even obligatory, to attack a random person for having different political views.

During the interview in which Spencer was attacked, he had just finished explaining to a protester that he was not a neo-Nazi, nor a Klan member. This, it was subsequently argued, was mere covering for his actual beliefs. But in truth, anybody that wishes to defend the sovereignty of Western nations, anyone who shows even a shred of nationalism, an iota of pride in his heritage, is now called a white-supremacist, a fascist, a Nazi, no matter what he really thinks about these positions.

Following Donald Trump’s Inauguration, The Forward, published an article entitled, “Pulling No Punches In Fight Against ‘Alt-Right’ And Neo-Nazis.” Discussed in the piece was the rise of the “Anti-Fascists,” who are ready to use violence to suppress anybody they label a Nazi. A black-clad man was depicted stomping the face of another man supine on the ground. The man on the ground was wearing a shirt with a Celtic cross. A text around the image read, “Good Night White Pride.”39

These groups advocating violence in the streets are of course never labeled as hate organizations by the ADL or SPLC. Richard Spencer, however, is listed by their organizations as a white supremacist. This despite the fact that he has never attacked anyone, nor advocated violence against anyone; to the Left, he is clearly the real threat to society. For while Richard Spencer does not pose an imminent threat, his ideas menace the Left’s regime. His ideas, like so many of our ideas, are starting to make too much sense. They are becoming almost self-evidently true to too many people.

Let us be clear. People defending themselves from violent, hostile anti-white, Liberal aggression is not a manifestation of “white supremacy”: it is simple self-preservation. Our enemies recognize that we are in a war: every other group can be Pro-black, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Muslim, Pro-Latino Pro-Gay, Pro-whatever, and be proud of their heritage and culture. But white Pride, and Christianity, clearly, need to be stomped out of existence.

The Antifa is ready to do the stomping, the national and international press is ready to cover for them, and the organizations which proclaim themselves in favor of the First Amendment are ready to fund and defend the entire charade. Those of us who see clearly know what has happened: the essence of the First Amendment is dead; they have killed it.


“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
1984, George Orwell


I watched as so-called Anti-Fascists rioted and burned the Berkeley campus in objection to the unacceptable prospect of journalist Milo Yiannopoulos giving a speech.40 If you’re unfamiliar with Milo, he is a gay, Jewish journalist from England, with a bit of character. He’s anti-Islam, anti-abortion, and pro-Trump. The “tolerant and progressive” Liberal students were so outraged at his opinions that they physically attacked other students who were merely going to watch his speech. They held signs reading “This is war,” “Kill Trump,” and “Kill Fascists.” The behavior we have seen all across the country by the violent Left, attacking conservatives, rioting, silencing dissident opinions, is actual, definitional authoritarianism. It is the very thing these “Antifa” are claiming to fight. We have really reached the point that a gay, Jewish, journalist from England is branded a Nazi and silenced accordingly.

During the riot coverage on the news I did not see police doing anything to halt the violence. It appeared they were ordered to stand down. Liberals are allowed to riot and attack their political opposition with total impunity while law enforcement, universities, and the media simply watch on. Nobody is holding them accountable. In fact, this kind of activity is actually being encouraged all over social media and in speeches given by other Leftists, reporters, celebrities (read: court jesters) at award ceremonies and protests.

This is nothing but the American Left showing its true colors now that power has been taken from it. I have said that they want us suffering, demeaned, and dead; that is no understatement. During an interview, Tim Kaine, once vice-president hopeful, urged his listeners to take the fight to the streets, saying that this is the time to “act.”41 While accepting an award at the Screen Actors Guild, actor David Harbour received a standing ovation after encouraging viewers to go out and punch people in the face – for their political views, of course.42

CNN referred to Milo as an “extremist” while reporting on the incident, but did not deign to comment in such terms on the violent rioters throwing bottles and attacking the students that wanted to see his speech. Ironically enough, Milo speaks quite a bit about the censorship of Right-wing thoughts, and had come to Berkeley to speak about this subject exactly. The only people who were injured in that riot were the students trying to see a damn speech. All the while, CNN has the audacity to refer to the “fake news” of independent journalists. The Left is nothing less than deranged.

Imagine if a group of Trump supporters violently rioted and forced the shutdown of a Left-wing speaker – which by the way, is a fair description of nearly every professor or speaker on college campuses. Imagine if a group of Trump supporters walked around cities in masks, starting fires, beating up Hilary supporters. Do you think CNN would have the same take on the event? Doubtful.

We have here yet another example of how the Left effectively silences heretics, those who dare attack the Liberal machine. This is neither the first nor the last time a Right-wing event is shut down by the Left. A Free Speech Rally in Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park turned violent as Antifa arrived to protest the radical Right-wing view that there should be free speech.43 Evidently, free speech is not a value that the Left shares with us.

The Antifa, taking its inspiration from the Bolsheviks and German Communist Party (KPD), has staged protests and riots at numerous colleges in order to stop speeches from taking place. Free speech advocate Dave Rubin, was forced to cancel a talk at University of Southern California due to security concerns.44 Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech for the same reason.45 It would be tedious to recount all the examples that have occurred in the past year alone.

When violent mobs are not adequate for silencing those guilty of Thought Crimes, the Leftist faction at the Southern Poverty Law Center gladly steps in. The SPLC, which has declared itself the de facto Thought Police, labels any group or person it disagrees with politically a “hate group.” Thus, the SPLC declared for instance that the non-profit research organization, Center for Immigration Studies, warrants a place on their “hate watch” list, alongside the likes of the KKK, the Skinheads, and the Black Panthers.46 The SPLC answers to no one; it does not bother to explain why the violent Antifa group does not make the “hate list,” while a data-collecting non-profit organization does. The SPLC claims to be a neutral, non-partisan entity – yet it is quite clear it does not engage in any sort of objective neutrality, nor holds even a single objective standard.

Despite the fact that the Antifa group has physically assaulted Trump supporters at the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, the SPLC refuses to comment. Despite the fact that 230 Antifa members were arrested for felony rioting.47 Despite the fact that they smash windows of businesses, set fires in the street, employ mob violence from Berkeley to D.C., the SPLC will not so much as mention their violence. Let alone grant them a coveted spot on its “hate watch” list.

The “hate list” is little more than a blacklist and defamation tactic, setting the innocent alongside the guilty and thus arbitrarily forcing guilt by association.

Limiting speech limits your thoughts. The ideas you cannot speak soon become the ideas you do not think. If you believe even for a second that censorship and hate speech laws are really about protecting somebody’s feelings, understand – this is about protecting the narrative, this is nothing but a concerted effort to police thoughts. The Left fears that those who speak out against their lies might begin to awaken others to the false narrative of Liberalism. Free speech is deeply dangerous to the Left, which is precisely why we have seen an all out war on freedom of expression across the Western world.

Laws, policies, and actions that restrict speech are always instituted by the Left. Never the Right. For the Liberal narrative cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas or on the battlefield of facts in a fair fight. How could they? So far as facts go, they come unarmed. Silencing dissident views is for that reason a cornerstone of Leftist policy. Those who speak with honesty and integrity never fear what their opponent might say, for nothing is as powerful as the truth. The Left cannot defeat this. It will never be able to hide the truth, no matter how much it censors, bans, and lies. There will dawn a day when the truth the Left has fought so hard to bury will rise from the ash heap of history to triumph again.

Those of us who still have the courage of our beliefs will never tire and never despair. We will speak the truth when it costs us friends. We will speak the truth when it is unpopular. We will speak the truth when it becomes illegal. We will speak the truth when it is seen an as act of heresy. We will speak the truth even when our voices shake.

And sooner or later, our speaking of the truth will be the downfall of the international Left.

The Truth is No Longer Good Think

One fine autumn day, about a week before the 2016 election, a pro-life group set up a series of posters showing an unborn child’s development. The posters depicted the size of the child in the womb compared to other objects for reference. There were photos of when the heart beats for the first time, photographs of facial development, of when babies start to yawn, of when they start to smile. As you walked through the display the tone changed. Suddenly there were photos of the abortion process. The suction method, the extraction method. In the latter, the child has its limbs severed, its tiny head decapitated, crushed, and forceps shoved into its spine to severe its little brain stem. And finally, posters that show actual photos of the aftermath of the murder.

Soon after the display was set up, a group of Liberal degenerates gathered round with signs to protest the right of the pro-life group to express their beliefs and show the truth of abortion procedures. They held signs reading “my body my choice,” “get your religion out of my uterus,” and “reproductive rights matter.” These green-, blue-, and purple-haired mental patients stood at the ends of the walkway where the posters were set in order stop people from walking through the display and seeing the photos. They claimed they were there to keep people from feeling “unsafe” and to protest this act of “hate speech.”

I had some time before my next class, so I was standing near one of the posters having a nice conversation with one of the people from the pro-life organization when I was accosted by a rabid Liberal woman (?) who was already screaming at me. Amidst her babble, I made out that I was creating an “unsafe environment” by being there and “normalizing” this act of “hate speech” and “aggression” against women. I was, she informed me, creating an unsafe environment for women on campus that have had abortions, and that I am inhibiting a woman’s right to choose.

Being the sporting chap I am, I engaged her. I responded that women who have had abortions did have a choice – the choice to not get pregnant – and that they do not deserve a “safe space” to hide from their act of infanticide. That sent her into a wild tirade about my espousing of “hate speech.” And suddenly I understood why Liberals are so hell-bent on censorship.

They know that if more people knew how soon this so-called “fetus” begins to look and act just like them, a tiny human, fewer and fewer voters would approve of the act of infanticide. They know that if people knew what “dilation” and “evacuation” procedures actually look like, fewer and fewer would vote for the wretched Democrats who support these barbarities.

The New York Times article, “When is Speech Violence?” sought to make the same claim as the rabid Liberal I encountered. They argued that because certain speech can cause stress, which can be seen as a form of harm, then stressful “hate speech” is consequently a form of violence:

“If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech – at least certain types of speech – can be a form of violence.”

“By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.”48

The argument of the Janus-masked Left goes like this;

  1. People have the right not to feel unsafe or have their feelings hurt.
  2. Some speech hurts feelings and makes people feel unsafe.
  3. Therefore, you do not have the right to speech that make others feel unsafe or hurts their feelings.

But their first premise is deeply flawed. People do not have any intrinsic right to have their sentiments spared. This effete attempt to put the subjective value of feelings over that of the right to express one’s ideas freely is a Pandora’s box. Once we create laws based on the utterly subjective “feelings” of some Liberal goblin, everything becomes fair game, anything can be silenced, and the real right to freedom of speech, clearly identified by our Constitution, diminishes to the point of vanishing. Claiming your feelings are more important than another person’s freedom of expression is the true violation of human rights.

Merely because I had looked at photos and engaged in conversation with one of the advocates for the human rights of unborn children, I was guilty of creating an “unsafe environment” for my fellow students. I did not speak to these students, I did not put up the photos, I did not provoke anyone in any way. I was simply an observer. Which was enough to make me an enemy of the Left – and thus, presumably, a Nazi, and fair target for Leftist violence.

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In truth, the First Amendment is designed precisely to protect “hate speech.” No one needs protection for run-of-the-mill, garden variety comments; it would be nonsense to make an amendment to the Constitution protecting a person’s right to say something that everyone under the sun agrees with. It is only “hate speech” that needs protection from persecution.

Perhaps I feel this problem more sharply than others. I am, after all, a regular proponent of “hate speech.” Some people golf. Some people play cards, or collect things. I like to make offensive and provocative statements. Most people, especially Liberals, are eternally worried about offending anybody, even by mistake. I, however, find great joy in the propagation of facts and thoughts which most find uncomfortable. I believe it to be one of the finer things in life. I don’t even know how many forums, chat rooms, social media platforms, and comment sections I have been banned from for having the wrong views and opinions. For posting facts that discredit the narrative, for not appropriately participating in the Two Minutes of Hate, and for being the first to stop clapping.

So perhaps this is why, of all the perverse meanderings of Liberalism, I find the assault on free speech to be of the foulest. We owe it to our First and Second Amendments if laws limiting our speech have not yet been passed in the US. Because the Left has already lost the argument. Our ideas, and the evidence we can adduce in their favor, are so much stronger that the only option the Left has now is censorship – turning dissenters into pariahs, against whom violence is not only acceptable but even encouraged.

We are the only ones being silenced because we are the only ones left with the courage to speak truth to power. The First Amendment exists to protect the likes of us, and the Left knows it. Every single time a Leftists regime has taken hold of country, one of the first things they do is silence those who speak against them. One way, or the other. From the Gulags to the Killing Fields, those who refuse to fall in line are dealt with severely. If the day ever comes to the United States when people are thrown in prison for “hate speech,” as they are all over Europe, then people like myself will have only a few options left: do hard time in the Gulag, wind up dead in a snowy forest – or pick up a rifle.

Manifestations of the Liberal Illness: Freedom of Speech

During the 2017 White House Correspondence Dinner, member after member of the lying press stood up and accused Donald Trump of stifling freedom of press, of not understanding the First Amendment. Liberal after Liberal accused President Trump – with no supporting evidence – of doing precisely what the Left does on a constant basis.

This is a classic example of projection. The lying Liberal media, the same people who support “hate speech” laws and “fake news” censorship, are accusing the Right of their own attitude. The Left fails to see its own hypocrisy and the double standard in its actions and statements. You cannot say you support freedom of expression while advocating for hate speech laws.

Once again, the Left hides its contradictions by appealing to altered and redefined words. Claiming there is a difference between “free speech” and “hate speech” is the most egregious example. Feelings of victimization are again common here. The Left feels that if they hear things that upset them, they have moral grounds to shut that person down, one way or the other. Their feelings of victimization simultaneously enhance their feelings of moral superiority. We see this in the way they claim to be the arbiters of who can say what.

The desire to police speech is nothing but another form of the desire for control. Thus, the Liberal illness makes itself felt yet again. In the debate over free speech, we see symptoms 1, 2, 4, and 5 from Cluster I appearing, and symptoms 6,7, 8, and 9 appearing from Cluster II. [These refer to traits commonly found among liberals described earlier in the book.]

Cluster I

  1. Deceitfulness, indicated by repeated lying, grand exaggerations, or omission of contrary information, with the purpose to advance their chosen narrative and discrediting others.
  1. Irritability or aggressiveness towards anybody that questions or opposes their views. Coupled with the inability to recognize they own hypocrisy, double standards, and doublethink.
  1. Inability to adjust views when presented with information contrary to their own beliefs.
  1. Frequent projections of their own traits onto others.
  1. Difficulty in dealing with a loss of control or power, or a strong desire for control and power.

Cluster II

  1. Appeals to altered and redefined definitions of words, or relies on fictitious terms for argumentation.
  1. Consistent feelings of having been victimized or wronged, without any actual harm being done. Seen also as playing the victim after attacking others.
  1. Intense sense of righteousness or moral superiority.
  1. The inability to recognize the negative outcomes of their own actions. Often placing the blame on others.
  1. Intense guilt or self-hatred, often manifests as hatred towards one’s larger group identity.

1Adam Liptak. “Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.” The New York Times. June 11, 2008. []


2 Joshua Yasmeh. “Thought Crime: German Police Raid Homes Of People Who Made ’Hateful Postings’ On The Internet.” Daily Wire. June 21, 2017. []


3Tom Pilgrim. “Cambridge extremist jailed for race hate.” Cambridge news. March 11, 2017. []


4Isabelle Gerretsen. “Nazi grandma Ursula Haverbeck sent to prison for holocaust denial.” IBT. August 29, 2017. []


5Jack Montgomery. “British Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People for ’Offensive’ Online Comments in One Year.” Breitbart . October, 14. 2017. []


6“Chinese tourists arrested for making Hitler salutes outside Reichstag.” The Guardian. August 05, 2017. []


7Angelina E. Theodorou. “Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?” Pew Research Center. July 29, 2016. []


8Margaret Menge. “United Nations Urges U.S. to Give Up Free Expression to Combat Racism.” LifeZette. November 21, 2017. []


9Jacob Poushter. “40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities.” Pew Research Center. November 20, 2015. []


10Emily Ekins. “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America.” Cato Institute. October 31, 2017. []


11Joe Tacopino. “Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined.” New York Post. May 19, 2016. []


12Georgi Boorman. “CA Passes Bill To Punish Nurses Who Dont Use Trans Pronouns.” The Federalist. September 15, 2017. []


13C.W. Nevius. “In world of S.F. politics, Scott Wiener is a serious player.” SFGate. January, 14, 2015. []


14Alaa Elassar and Laura Diaz-Zuniga. “California lowers penalty for HIV exposure.” CNN. October 10, 2017. []

15 Virginia Hale. “Sweden Blocks Request for Data on Crime and Immigration.” Breitbart. January 18, 2017. []


16Cynthia Kroet. “Sweden investigates sex assault cover-Up.” POLITICO. January 11, 2016. []


17 Amanda Prestigiacomo. “San Fran Transit: We Refuse To Release Crime Surveillance Videos Because It Will Make People Racist.” Daily Wire. July 12, 2017. []


18Nikita Biryukov. “Google Turns to ’Quality Raters’ to Combat Fake, Offensive Results.” NBC News. March 17, 2017. []


19Ingrid Lunden. “Facebook to add 3,000 to team reviewing posts with hate speech, crimes, and other harming posts.” TechCrunch. May 03, 2017.


20Andrew Tobin. “ADL To Combat Online Hate From Heart Of Silicon Valley.” The Forward. March 13, 2017. []


21Allum Bokhari. “YouTube Will Censor Non-Rulebreaking Content, Manipulate Search Results, And Work With ADL.” Breitbart. August 01, 2017. []


22Allum Bokhari. “Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Join Forces With ADL to Create ‘Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab’.” Breitbart. October 10, 2017. []

23Anthony Faiola and Stephanie Kirchner. “How do you stop fake news? In Germany, with a law.” The Washington Post. April 05, 2017.


24Donna Rachel Edmunds. “Former Stasi Agent Hired By German Govt To Patrol Facebook For ’Xenophobic’ Comments.” Breitbart. September 17, 2015. []


25Leo Hohmann. “U.N. leader blames ‘Islamophobia’ for rising global terror.” WND. February 17, 2017. []


26“NYC mayor blames Trump, hate speech for hate crime rise.” Detroit News. December 06, 2016.


27Selwyn Duke. “New Swedish Law Criminalizes Anti-immigration Internet Speech.” The New American. April 23, 2014. []


28Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard. “Sweden: Rape Capital of the West.” February 14, 2015. []


29Virginia Hale. “Police Officer Who Spoke out on Migrant Crime Now Under Investigation for Racial Hatred.” Breitbart. February 08, 2017. []

30Justin Davenport. “New Scotland Yard unit to probe online hate crime launched.” Evening Standard. April 24, 2017. []


31Perry Chiaramonte. “Christians the most persecuted group in world for second year: Study.” Fox News. January 06, 2017. []


32Valerie Richardson. “California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.” The Washington Times. June 02, 2016. []


33David Rose. “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” Daily Mail Online. February 04, 2017. []


34Colleen Flaherty. “Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill Passes Senate.” Inside Higher Ed. December 02, 2016. []


35Richard Sandler. “We need to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act to fight hate and bigotry.” The Hill. April 07, 2017. []


36Benjy Sarlin. “Antifa Violence Is Ethical? This Author Explains Why.” NBC News. August 26, 2017. []


37Liam Stack. “Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi?” The New York Times. January 21, 2017. []


38Wes Enzinna. “The long history of “Nazi punching”-and the return of the “antifas” in the time of Trump.” Mother Jones. June 26, 2017. []


39Sam Kestenbaum. “Pulling No Punches In Fight Against ’Alt-Right’ And Neo-Nazis.” The Forward. March 08, 2017. []


40Madison Park and Kyung Lah. “Berkeley protests of Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 in damage.” CNN. February 02, 2017. []


41Pam Key. “Kaine: Democrats Have to ’Fight in the Streets’ Against Trump.” Breitbart. January 31, 2017. []


42Scott Greer. “Hollywood Gives Standing Ovation For Punching Political Foes At Awards Show.” The Daily Caller. January 30, 2017. []


43Rob Shimshock. “Antifa And Trump Supporters Battle At Berkeley.” The Daily Caller. April 15, 2017. []


44Tom Ciccotta. “USC Shuts Down Scheduled Event with Free Speech Advocate Dave Rubin.” Breitbart. March 02, 2017. []


45Susan Svrluga, William Wan, and Elizabeth Dwoskin. ”There was no Ann Coulter speech. But protesters converged on Berkeley.” The Washington Post. April 27, 2107. []


46Mark Krikorian. “How labeling my organization a hate group shuts down public debate.” The Washington Post. March 17, 2017.


47Anna Hopkins. “Majority of 230 protesters arrested on Inauguration Day will face 10 years in prison and $25k fine as US attorney says they will be charged with felony rioting.” Daily Mail Online. January 21, 2017. []


48Lisa Feldman Barrett. “When Is Speech Violence?” The New York Times. July 14, 2017. []

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