Category: Free Speech
Anti-Racism is a Jewish Construct.
Anti-Racism is Cartesian.
It is Not innocent.
It is prejudiced,
It is hurting and
It is killing people.
These are both sound aphorisms: either could be a “mantra”, with a caveat regarding mantras - that for best effect they will have to be used with discretion, changed sometimes and crafted on account of context and audience. Such is the judgement and deft rhetoric required of Praxis as opposed to the plodding imperviousness of scientism.
The two aphorisms can go well together:
Anti-racism is Cartesian, it is Not innocent, it is prejudice, it is hurting and it is killing people. Anti-racism is a Jewish construct.
The essential abstract of “race” is taxonomic classification of peoples. Locke’s Cartesian notion of civil individual rights took issue with discrimination based on social classifications. For their ethnocentric reasons, Jews weaponized this anti-classification and anti-discrimination by Whites on the basis of social classifications as “anti-racism.”
That is what it is in essence. It is true that the Jews have associated “racism” with supremacism, exploitation and genocide; but even taking away those elements, the common denominator of prohibition of discrimination based on social classifications, however benign, remains - as “racism.” Thus, David Duke is wrong (theory is not his strong suit) to campaign against “racism.” While that will gain popularity with the disingenuous and puerile, in so doing, he is reconstructing the liberal hegemony and its stigmatization of social classification for genetically conservative and discriminatory purposes. Moreover, classifications will happen whether they are acknowledged, deliberate or not, but we are much better-off rendering them consciously - as these classifications are essential to accountability and human ecological management.
Other Mantras - -
Fat boy’s mantra is good too:
“If we had our own country this would not be happening.”
Optional - “If White people had their own country this would not be happening.”
Whitaker’s, “Anti-racism” is a code-word for anti-White” will be effective in many instances, but in other cases will run into complications: in some cases, it will come across as a dead-ringer for subjective concern; a request for a definition of “White” can ruin the effect; it has also been criticized for having liberal underpinnings in its long form, which is true. Still, a good one if it takes into account context and audience.
Sometimes it is best to avoid the consternation of the J.Q. but rather undermine (as Cartesian disingenuousness) the underlying coup de grâce of “racism” and “anti-racism” by itself. At times, this will be even more problematic for Jews to contend with (why do you think I am so unpopular?).
Tanstaafl’s proposition of naming it a Jewish construct is important too and good to do where the audience is only slightly less primed. Because active anti-racism, as opposed to the mere “prejudice against prejudice” is, indeed, a Jewish construct. No argument.
Here are two more aphorisms/mantras that I have found to work well over the years:
You wouldn’t want to cut-down a rain forest would you? Then why would you want to cut-down ancient peoples of Europe?
This next one is somewhat harder to sell, but it has been a relief to me as a personal mantra and probably would be for other men as well:
To men, miscegenating women are as rapists are to women. They should be ostracized as a minimum punishment and in no way should their mixed offspring be able to participate in the resources of European men - as it makes our men servants to the worst betrayers of our 41,000 years of genetic evolution.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 04:46 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Free Speech, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Comments (5) |
“To ensure that Wikipedia is Zionist in nature”
In response to Jewish troll JamesUK on February 05, 2015
I was blocked from submitting an article on the obvious phenomenon of “mulatto supremacism” - which even has notable historical precedent in Haiti’s mulatto supremacist genocide of Whites on the island.
Wikipedia is censored to protect Jewish interests.
Proof of their influence on Wikipedia is to be found in videos which reveal Israeli boiler rooms - groups of people put up to spin wiki articles in a jewish way.
I don’t now what Wikipedia’s policy is on creating entries on its site so I can’t comment on that it.
I heard of Jewish commentators on YouTube like to Israel but not Wikipedia.
Where are the videos?
It is so basically factual to anyone who has had dealings with Wikipedia and White activism that I don’t even feel obligated to make the case as a public service; I will leave you to further secretarial detail rather than getting caught up in your game of arguing over the obvious. Instead, I will provide just this one video example which you act as if difficult to find - a ready example of Jewish manipulation of Wikipedia:
Yesha Council in conjunction with “My Israel” has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal is to teach people how to edit in Wiki- pedia, which is the number one source of information in the world. As way of example, if someone searches “the Gaza Flotilla” we want to be there, we want to be the guys who influence what is written there, how its written and to ensure that its ‘balanced’ and Zionist in nature.
In defense of Edgar Steele’s position in, “In defense of anti-Semitism” (excerpted at the bottom of the post), I said:
The i.q. factor has been adjusted for, to show that Jews are vastly overrepresented due to nepotism and other corrupt means.
JamesUK said in response:
I seriously doubt that seeing how the same pattern can be seen in other countries where they have less influence in state positions like in Russia.
Your serious doubt is wrong.
I don’t think so.
Well, you are wrong and not worth arguing with.
Seeing how it is an opinion either way there is not much to discuss.
Well that’s it. You want to bring into question the obvious. That may show a dull chutzpah but it is only a tedious obstruction as it will not yield significantly new information - there is no scarcity of evidence to the contrary of your position.
But of necessity, I will offer this perfunctory summation: After factors of i.q. are taken into account, matters of Jewish nepotism, hyper-ethnocentrism, incommensurate ways of life and moral standards which do disservice to European interests and ways, Jewish coercion, bullying, bribery, brainwashing all have to be taken into account for what they should not be able to do at any rate - head European nations and peoples (which includes Russians), irrespective of the high i.q. of some Jews.
Regarding Duke and Black, we are not here to defend them, they can defend them- selves. We are here to defend Whites and White patterns that need defending.
I don’t but they do run on an openly white political agenda and are members of openly pro-white organisations for decades.
They are the most high profile leaders of the WN movement in the US so they are the political representation of what WN believe in the US.
Other WN’s include Pierce and associates who are a mix of terrorists, mass shooters, a would be wife killer and a paedophile.
You don’t get to say who is represented by Duke and Black. They represent them- selves, or anybody who wants to be represented by them, which is not in all ways us.
They are not the only ones who care about European people and not comprehensively representative.
Steele was not a would-be wife killer. That was a set-up.
Facts say otherwise hence his conviction.
On the contrary. These are the facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1NG07kU8to Facts say that he was set up. A handyman (Larry Fairfax) that Steele hired to help around his property was a federal informant hired to set him up on the charge of murder for hire of his wife for her insurance. His wife, Cindy, didn’t have insurance. An audio- tape was fabricated to allege his having solicited the hit on Cindy for her insurance money. Audio experts were blocked by the (corrupt) judge from testifying as such.
What motive was there for Steele to kill his wife for non-existent insurance money? On the other hand, if you listen to, or read, Steele’s, “In defense of anti semitism” (an excerpt from the text is provided below, though the link to the site where the audio and text were is no longer available - I wonder why?), there was plenty of motive for Jewish interests to silence Steele.
What a jew you are
Not Jewish but it is like Blacks complaining about racism with problems in there own community.
You are doing the bidding of Jews at any rate. You say WN are “complaining”, as if its trivial. But we are not “like blacks complaining about racism” around here. At MR we survey all concerns - centering on our own human ecological systems first and attending to problems and antagonists as they emerge relevant. Jews happen to be salient among antagonists in their genetic pattern and in 7 power points: finance, politics, law, religion, business, academia, media.
WN aren’t “complaining” ab. immigration and jews, we’re noting blockage to our sovereignty, destruction of our well being, deliberately imposed threat to our survival.
Apart from the US other western countries especially Eastern Europe do not have significant immigration to come anywhere near close to threatening the actual survival of the host countries that as I said before most are economic migrants from new EU countries.
“Apart from the US and other western countries” .... a ‘little thing’ like The US and Western nations being destroyed. We’re supposed to shrug that off, right?
“especially Eastern Europe do not have significant immigration to come anywhere near close to threatening the actual survival”
Even if we were so crass, indignant, egregious as to not care about western European nations, and if the western countries were to go under, then eventually the eastern countries would be submerged in spill-over tides of non-Whites as well. You know it.
most are economic migrants from new EU countries.
You want Europeans to fight each other, like good right-wingers, don’t you?
Is that why you want to crash us together antagonistically with your EU? Perhaps you think Americans should vote for Republican neo cons and your Jewish war complex?
You think we should have gone to Hungary?
It must have been a good thing to Not do.
Go to hell.
Yes that did get media attention and the few media outlets that covered it admitted it looked favourable towards the organisers on the issue of free speech.
That conference was too right-wing reactionary and probably played into the hands of how Jews would like us to be - the Gottfrieds, the Atzmons, the Dugins, the Jared Taylors, the scary scientistic factualizers to turn-off normal people.
Excerpt from Edgar Steele’s “In defense of anti-Semitism”
Note: JamesUK cited I.Q. statistics for Jewish success, which have been factored into equations of proportional representation in The Ivy league and professions, revealing that Jews are vastly overrepresented by dint of nepotism, political and religious propaganda, financial and legal manipulation.
Beneath Every Rock
Supposedly, Jews account for 2-1/2 per cent of the American population. Why, then, is half the student body at Harvard and most every Ivy League college Jewish? Statistics simply are not kept as to the percentage of Jews in this profession or that, but when was the last time you saw a doctor whose name did not end in “berg,” “man” or “stein?” I’m not sure I have ever met a psychiatrist who wasn’t Jewish. On the other hand, have you ever seen a Jewish farmer or mechanic?
Rarely do I appear in court, but the guy on the other side of the courtroom - and often as not, the judge, too - is Jewish. And, it is incredible the deference paid by the bench to the Jewish DA, or whoever, sitting at the other counsel table. There has been more than one trial where I could have merely phoned in my participation, for all the good it mattered that I was even there.
So many complain about what bankers, especially the international and central bankers, are doing to our country. Yet, hardly anybody seems to have noticed that those people are almost exclusively Jewish.
Behind Every Tree
They are everywhere in the media, particularly Hollywood. Talking heads, movie stars and the like. ...Pay attention and you will be amazed. The names won’t always be a good guideline, however, given how many changed their names at the turn of last century, so as to meld into the American population of that time.
Jews seem to comprise about 50% of America’s population, based upon those in visible positions. Looks can be deceiving, like Harvard, where they are drawn to those positions by their money, their intelligence and, most importantly, the indulgence of their kosher comrades.
People refuse to notice the Jewish hands on virtually ever power lever in the US federal government. Or at the helm of virtually every media organization that exists, and throughout the executive and editorial ranks. And, it’s not just Jews that control America - they are Zionists. Even Ariel Sharon, Israel’s current Prime Minister, has said openly, “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it” Oct.‘01. Problem is, most of us seem not to know it
The Power Behind the Throne
Books have been written on the subject, but, essentially, a group of late 19th-century elites, comprised of Rockefeller, Morgan and others, mostly Jewish, established an organization designed to consolidate their control of America and, eventually, the entire world. It was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Offshoots, such as Bilderbergers, have formed since, but the objective has never slipped from their sight.
One of the first acts of CFR’s members was to survey the newspaper field, the sole mass media of the time, and conclude that purchasing control of only 25 major newspapers would give them effective control of news dissemination. They bought those papers and, since then, many, many more. Today, members of these shadowy organizations literally run virtually all of the media, control the political structure in America, much of world business and are firmly in control of world banking.
That is why the two political parties in America have become identical, so as to provide us rubes with the illusion of throwing the rascals out come election time, yet with the same old agenda not missing a beat. Did you really see a difference from Bush to Clinton to Bush? They knew what NAFTA would do to America’s manufacturing base and job structure, yet both parties embraced it. We’re firmly on path to one-world government. America writ large, but the America now being molded without individual civil rights, not the America of the 20th Century. And it’s largely kosher.
Read about The “Israeli Spy Ring Scandal” for a particularly chilling look into the extent of the Israeli spy ring recently uncovered in America and Israel’s extensive US telephone network ownership.
It is not the purpose of this essay to prove Jewish control of America. There is ample material available on the internet for those who wish to prove it for themselves. Rather, it is my purpose to show that there are perfectly valid and understandable, even laudable, reasons for being anti-Semitic. Resenting those who manipulate us on a daily basis, against our own best interests, is primary among them.
Hate laws are a singularly Jewish invention being foisted upon an unsuspecting public, so as to preemptively remove the possibility of criticism of themselves. Often written by the ADL, the organization that lobbies for their adoption, state by state, the laws are designed to stifle dissent and speaking out.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, February 6, 2015 at 01:27 AM in Activism, Free Speech, Global Elitism, Media, That Question Again, Thread Wars, White Genocide Project
Comments (29) |
Susan Lindauer, peace activist, 9/11 activist, former CIA asset, and true American patriot, talks to DanielS and GW about power, politics and corruption, immigration, and the future of America and the West. You cannot fail to learn something new from an hour’s conservation with this remarkable woman..
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 07:07 PM in 9/11, Activism, Awakenings, Free Speech, Global Elitism, Immigration and Politics, MR Radio, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War on Terror
Comments (26) |
Don’t Joke with Islam… or Jewish Interests, International Banksters, Neoliberals, Christian idiots, right-wing idiots, Negroes, mudsharks, La Razza…
“Unlike its predecessor Hara Kiri, Charlie Hebdo, the liberal-libertarian newspaper, has become one of the organs of the dominant ideology. They can recognize their own.”
- Alain de Benoist
They recognize their own..
Free speech for who?
As such, Tanstaafl’s account is even more descriptively accurate of those behind the policies of Charlie Hebdo - they’re an organ of “neoconservatism” (a Jewish platform):
And they recognize their own under attack..
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 10:25 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, Military Matters, White Nationalism
Comments (51) |
On the radio page now, Paul Weston, the man who managed to get himself arrested for reading from Winston Churchill’s The River War, talks to GW and DanielS about himself, his party, nationalism and the political climate, the nature of UKIP, blogging on the DT, that adventure in Winchester, and (even) the JQ. He’s a good guy. You should listen.
Upon Winchester Guildhall, Paul Weston quoted the following passage from Churchill’s “The River War”:
‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,’ wrote Churchill.
‘Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
‘The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
‘The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’
Paul Weston’s “I am a racist”
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 22, 2014 at 02:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Law & Order, Media, MR Radio, Political analysis
Comments (16) |
Thread Wars 3:
MR taking it to the threads, stepping-it-up and further cultivating strategies, noting successes, charting obstructions to bringing nativist nationalism to public acceptance.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Free Speech, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Journalism, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Thread Wars
Comments (0) |
Posted by Morgoth on April 27, 2014, 06:58 AM | #
Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.
Weston on preventing White genocide and implications of Muslim population explosion in Britain and other European nations:
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Law, White Genocide: Europe
Comments (66) |
For those who might be put-off, initially or even ultimately, by the subject matter discussed here, I would refer to that old adage, that “if all you know well is one thing, then you really don’t even know that very well.”
Part 3 of the analysis of
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
Comments (2) |
I wouldn’t be normally posting here at this time, but something needing
the immediate attention of sincere patriots, activists, nationalists, etc. has
come up, and it’s an excellent documentation of who the enemy really is.
The prothink network comprises of a group of websites dedicated to
documenting the activities of, opposing and fighting our common enemy, a
4-letter word beginning with J. The people behind the prothink network are
mostly young and passionate individuals, not necessarily correct on all counts,
but sincere and activist, which is what matters as their heart’s in the right
place and they’re doing something constructive.
The J-enemy has targeted goddady, their registrar and web host, which caved
in and has given them 2 days to find another domain registrar and host [#1,
Now, these individuals are advised to separate their domain registrars from web
hosts, and it’s plural so that they spread out their domains and websites
across different service providers.
The prothink network comprises of websites such as prothink.org, zioncrimefactory.com, prothink.tv, jewishproblem.com, 911missinglinks.com, etc. That their
work is noteworthy can be ascertained from 911missinglinks.com receiving
accolades from ADL’s honcho, Abe, and zioncrimefactory having had blog after
blog deleted by google and wordpress. Michael Delaney, the mastermind behind
911missinglinks.com, has tirelessly campaigned, on the streets and online, to
educate Americans about who really orchestrated 9/11.
Extend these fine individuals your support, which can be in the form of
donations, moral support, mirroring their content, giving their case studies
publicity on your blogs, offering them hosting space in the event you own a
server, etc. Be advised that I have no affiliation with the prothink
In the event that the prothink network is down, which it most probably will
be for some time, you may contact some of the key individuals [remove
[prothink] [@] [yahoo.com]
[zioncrimefactory] [@] [hotmail.com]
The address to which paypal donations should be
[mikedelaney6575] [@] [gmail.com]
Had the prothink network targeted Arabs, Nazis, Blacks, Muslims, Latinos,
liberals, conservatives, feminists, or other assorted groups aside from the
J-enemy, rest assured they’d not only be left unmolested, but encouraged. If
the prothink network used superficial criticism of the J-enemy as cover for
J-excusing and disinformation, like the typical website in the nationalist
genre, they’d be left alone. But they’re the real deal. Accordingly, it
isn’t difficult to determine who the enemy really is. Act against this enemy
by supporting those fighting them.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 06:15 PM in Activism, Blogs & Blogging, Free Speech, That Question Again
Comments (11) |
One of the most striking things about the religious hatred legislation is how determined New Labour was to introduce it, and how keen it was, initially, not only to criminalise the ‘stirring up’ of hatred but also any potentially hurtful criticism and ridicule of a religion and its followers. New Labour first floated the idea of criminalising religious hatred and ridicule after 9/11, when it predicted, wrongly of course, that there would be an outbreak of mob madness against Muslims. After much wrangling, and boosted by another, post-7/7 panic about anti-Muslim uprisings (which again was wrong), New Labour finally introduced the legislation in 2006.
- Libertarian Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.
Of course, talking of an attempt to criminalise any potentially hurtful criticism of a religion and its followers is being coy. I don’t think Christians are protected by this, unless Dawkins has landed himself in gaol, and certainly not the nasty sort of Christians who aren’t gay friendly enough. It is Islam, specifically, that this is designed to protect.
Equally obviously, Islam and Christianity and the distinction between the two are not actually about your precise opinion of whether god is Holy or Great, and what the best way to pray to him is. It is about Middle Eastern and White.
Having said this, I think there’s nothing to be gained from pointing this out incessantly and under all circumstances. If pc and the multi-cult harms us, we can point out these harms without talking about why these things were introduced in the first place. A speech code with any other justification would oppress as much.
Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 03:16 PM in Free Speech
Comments (4) |
From the sturdy Continued...
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 06:20 PM in Free Speech
Comments (7) |
This weekend my wife and I saw the documentary movie “Expelled.” It stars Ben Stein, trying to show the heavy hand of scientific Darwinists in suppressing any scientists that do not agree with the modern synthesis. That is, suppressing any alternative to Darwinism’s rejection of intelligent design (creationism). How intolerant is science to intelligent design? From watching the movie not much—Stein only covers a couple of examples, spending most of the movie showing him walking from one campus or office to another.
The primary premise in the movie is that the simplest organisms that first evolved on earth are far too complex and statistically could not have been created from the primordial soup without a designer. The purpose of Stein’s movie seems to be not so much against science, as to show that there is a god because life needed a designer to even begin the process of evolution. And why is such an intelligent person like Stein taking on this issue? I can only speculate, but it seems to be part of the Neocon’s strategy to maintain the guiding hand of the prophets (primarily the Jews), the administrators like Bush and other government officials, and the masses who need religion in place of open intellectualism. That is, the masses do not need the truth, but need a sustaining dogma to follow blindly where the Neocons lead them.
Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 06:12 PM in Free Speech
Comments (41) |
My thanks to Micheal R for this link, an article by the near-libertarian Jewish-Russian-American blogger Eugene Volokh.
Richard Warman, a lawyer who worked as an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, often filed complaints against “hate speech” sites — complaints that were generally upheld under Canadian speech restrictions. Fromm, a defender of various Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, has been publicly condemning Warman for, among other things, being “an enemy of free speech.” Warman sued, claiming that these condemnations are defamatory.
Friday, the Ontario Superior Court held for Warman — chiefly on the grounds that because Warman’s claims were accepted by the legal system, they couldn’t accurately be called an attack on free speech. Thus, for instance:
 The implication, as well as the clear of meaning of the words [“an enemy of free speech” and “escalated the war on free speech”], is that the plaintiff is doing something wrong. The comment “Well, see your tax dollars at work” also implies that Mr. Warman misused public funds for this “war on free speech”.
 The plaintiff was using legal means to complain of speech that he alleged was “hate” speech.
 The evidence was that Mr. Warman was successful in both the complaint and a libel action which he instituted.
 Freedom of expression is not a right that has no boundaries. These parameters are outlined in various legislative directives and jurisprudence. I find Mr. Fromm has exceeded these. This posting is defamatory.
Likewise, apropos another statement (“Since then, a number of dissidents have been dragged before human rights tribunals, largely through the efforts of CHRC hatchetman Richard Warman”), the court responds:
 While opposition to legislation is permitted, it is defamatory to say that Mr. Warman is largely responsible for “dragging” dissidents before the human rights tribunal, when in fact the “dissidents” were disseminating prohibited hate speech. The tribunal upheld the complaint. This posting is also defamatory.
Likewise, here’s another statement that the court treated as defamatory and legally punishable:
 At the press conference after Mr. Fromm’s comments, he introduced three other people who spoke of their “problems with Richard Warman.” Mr. Fromm added, after one speaker:
Thank you very much, Jason. So, for posting an opinion, the same sort of opinion that might have appeared in editorial pages in newspapers across this country, Jason and the Northern Alliance, his site has come under attack and people who are just ordinary Canadians find themselves in front of the courts for nothing more serious than expressing their opinion. This is being done with taxpayers’ money. I find that reprehensible.
 In one posting Mr. Fromm describes Mr. Warman’s “campaign of intimidation” recitingvarious actions taken by Mr. Warman. He states that freedom of the Internet was the key issue.
 Again Mr. Warman was referred to as acting like a one-man thought police agency.
 The plaintiff is accused of using taxpayer money to “restrict freedom of speech” and of refusing “to allow those with differing opinions the right to express their views.”
 The tone of all these allegations is derisive and holds the plaintiff up to ridicule and contempt. The words themselves and the inferences to be drawn are all defamatory.
Likewise, the court says, “ Mr. Warman is criticized for his anti-hate speech stance, and his professionalism and integrity are attacked. This would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that the plaintiff was an ideologue who wanted only to deny freedom of speech to those with whom he disagrees. [60 ]I find this posting defamatory.”
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 08:08 PM in Free Speech
Comments (30) |
Oxford Unite Against Fascism, Oxford University Student Union, Oxford & District Trades Council, Oxford University Labour Club, Oxfordshire UNISON Health, Oxford Brookes University Unison branch and Unite Against Fascism have called a peaceful demonstration against fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving who are due to speak in the free speech form [sic] on Monday 26th November at the Oxford Union.
... Fascism threatens the safety of Black, Jewish, Muslim, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of Oxford including students and academics. Wherever fascists are active or have a presence, racist attacks and other hate crimes increase.
For transport/coach details, please contact National UAF office ...
So ran the instructions to the thousand freaks, self-haters, simple minds and Jewish and “BEM” activists who screamed and occasionally became violent outside the Oxford Union Free Speech Forum last night. How far we have come from the “rainbow coalition” invented by Ken Livingstone in his GLC administration of the early 80s. Now the heir to this poisonous confection dictates acceptable speech and even debate about acceptable speech.
Anyhow, let’s get a flavour of what it was like inside the building.
Simon Darby of the BNP managed to record part of Nick Griffin’s speech - albeit, apparently, by employing technology no more effective than the wax disc. You can hear it, complete with the baying mob without, and a heartening round of applause from Griffin’s audience to finish, here.
Griffin spoke in a separate room from Irving, who was in the main debating chamber. The mob had made it impossible for some of the ticket-holders to access the latter. So the police, who don’t seem to have been especially effective, ushered them to another room. The speakers were split accordingly.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 07:27 PM in Free Speech
Comments (5) |
Along the road to the reclamation of homeland lies the reclamation of free-thinking and free speech. A few days ago The Times put up a discussion topic titled, Do migrants make us or break us? Despite the fact that this is, in mainstream terms, precisely the gateway question - the beginning of understanding - there have only been 24 comments at the time of posting this entry. Compare that to the 205 that The Guardian musters for a piece titled The toxic Powell legacy, written by a sub-con named Sunder Katwala.
OK, the very fact that immigration is now dominating all the serious rags is a great advance on the conspiracy of silence of five years ago. But really ... 24 comments on what is, after all, the choice between a prosperity predicated, supposedly, on racial egalitarianism and the Darwinian meaning of life itself! When the circulation of The Times is 700,000 and The Guardian 375,000!
Well, I decided to conduct a (necessarily very small) experiment on The Times’ thread. Since the headline question is the precurser to a proper political understanding of race and modernity, I’ve stretched it a little by submitting to The Times’ moderator a few rather more cogent questions. Here they are:-
Questions to sleepers.
1) Is good business a good enough reason for English children to lose their birthright to England?
2) Is it fair or moral of the self-hating left and self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the actual survival of the English people?
3) Do you believe that the English have a moral right to survive?
4) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity? Do you believe that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?
5) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory for us is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination, do you think it is better to repatriate immigrants wholesale or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow extinction?
6) Will the hyper-moral return of tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?
7) If you are English, do you love your people? Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?
Now, these are the sort of questions that have twice got me banned at The Guardian, once as Guessedworker, once just the other day as this guy John Standing. Will they survive the cut at The Times? Has freedom of expression recovered to that point, or is it only permissable for mainstreamers to ask the questions?
And, of course, if the comment is published, will any readers answer? Will they be Englishmen or opportunistic cryptos?
We shall, as the blind man said, see.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 08:32 AM in Free Speech
Comments (33) |
Italy approves law making Holocaust denial a crime
Italy’s government Thursday approved a bill that makes denying the Holocaust a crime and stiffens prison sentences for those found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
Ministry officials said those found guilty of spreading ideas about a race being superior to another would now risk up to three years in prison while acts designed to incite racial, ethnic, religious or sexual violence would be punishable with a maximum four- year prison sentence.
Here’s the interesting part:
Initially conceived to target Holocaust deniers, the bill was broadened to include all forms of intolerance after some members of Prodi’s centre-left coalition had expressed reservations about the appropriateness of using the criminal code to honour the millions of Jews killed in the Shoah.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 08:45 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (6) |
...of countries that criminalize heresy:
Editors Fined For Printing Anti-Semitic Letter
Two newspaper editors were fined for publishing a letter that said violence against Jews was justified and that the Holocaust was acceptable.
State Prosecutor Mika Illman said Uusimaa, a regional newspaper, and the Kansan Uutisetpaper broke the law in July by publishing the letter by Usko Takkumaki, which criticized Jews and Israel.
The WaPo and Israel Today carried the story as well.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 06:15 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Germany wants EU-wide law against denying the Holocaust
BERLIN - Germany wants to make denying the Holocaust punishable by law in every member state of the European Union during its current presidency of the bloc, Brigitte Zypries, the Justice Minister, said yesterday. “Denial of the Holocaust is an example of what would be punishable by law if standardization took place,” she said at a press conference to present the German government’s program on justice matters for the next six months. Previous attempts to unify legal standards for Holocaust denial and other xenophobic attacks were blocked by Italy, but the new Italian government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi has dropped its opposition, Ms. Zypries said. Among EU members, there are laws against denying the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain. In a recent high-profile case, controversial British historian David Irving spent 13 months in jail in Austria for challenging the Holocaust before being released on probation last month. Germany took over the rotating six-month presidency of the 27-country EU on Jan. 1.
So it’s news in Canada.
It’s news in the international non-Arab Semite Anglophone press:
Germany aims for E.U. ban on Holocaust denial
German politicians are pushing for a ban on Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial throughout the European Union.
Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain.
Germany wants Holocaust denial to be EU-wide crime
That seems to be the source of the article at Canada.com.
It’s news to lawyers:
Germany to push for EU law criminalizing Holocaust denial
It’s not news to Americans.
Points of interest:
The holocaust was all about non-Arab Semites. The rest who died (usually anonymously included in an 11 million figure, if at all) are shit.
The proposed law is all about the non-Arab Semite holocaust. The myriad other racial sensitivities the world over are shit.
It seems okay to tell Canadians (used to draconian suppression of free speech), non-Arab Semites (in favor of and benefiting from draconian suppression of free speech), and lawyers (in the business of draconian suppression of free speech) about the desire to expand across the EU the suppression of free speech, but not Americans (none too fond of any kind of suppression of free speech). They don’t need to know about such things. They might get the wrong ideas.
Race-realism has predictive power: I predict not a peep from the American freedom lobby about this.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 04:46 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Should UK Ban Shoah Denial?
Britain should hold a debate on whether to introduce a law banning Holocaust denial, a senior government minister said this week.
Police and Security Minister Tony McNulty, was speaking exclusively to the Jewish News less than two weeks after Holocaust denier David Irving arrived back in Britain after serving 13 months in an Austrian jail.
As far as I can tell, this story is indeed a Totally Jewish exclusive; Google News shows no other results (“Tony McNulty” holocaust). It isn’t too hard to suss out who Tony’s pandering to.
Lord Janner, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, welcomed McNulty’s views. He said such legislation would be “great”. However he was pessimistic over the chances of such a law being introduced. “Holocaust denial is worse than libel, but it won’t happen. The chances of getting it in the UK are nil.”
At least libel laws are subject to defense, wherein the defendant can prove himself innocent by proving the truth of what he said. With Holocaust laws the only truth that matters is that heresy has been committed.
McNulty added: “The MCB is wrong to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, whatever they feel about other events in history, it misses the point. For all the other atrocities in history, the Holocaust was so mechanised, so formal in a way we have not seen before and happily not since.”
Translation: THE HOLOCAUST is special because non-Arab Semites are special; the 20+ millions (mostly Christian) killed by the Soviets (wildly disproportionately non-Arab Semite) aren’t special.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 04:34 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (31) |
The Austrian government has magnanimously released convicted (and confessed) heretic David Irving.
Or at least, that’s the impression I get. In between telling us the sentences Austria metes out to heretics for their heresy, how evil Austria is for producing Nazis, the right-leanings of the judge who’s cut his sentence short, etc., the non-Arab Semite mouthpiece has overlooked telling us when he’ll be released, or even if his release has been ordered.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 07:21 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (0) |
Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 07:34 PM in Free Speech, That Question Again
Comments (9) |
Swiss minister wants to legalise genocide deniers
Switzerland’s justice minister has called on the Swiss government to reverse a law which makes historical revisionism illegal.
Minister Christoph Blocher is on a campaign to change the law, according to the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ) newspaper – even if it will impinge upon the sensitivities of minority groups, including the country’s Jewish communities.
Blocher claims that freedom of expression is more important than protecting the sensibilities of minority groups, NZZ wrote.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 04:21 PM in Free Speech
A MEMBER of the British National Party was convicted yesterday of racially abusing an Asian woman, although the victim has never been traced and the exact words that he used could not be heard by the only witness.
Robert McGlynn, 40, was seen shouting abuse at the unknown woman through the open window of his car as he drove through Swansea, South Wales, in June.
He was arrested after a receptionist, Lydia Rees, 43, took down details of his car and reported him to police.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, September 23, 2006 at 04:22 PM in Free Speech, Marxism & Culture War
Comments (9) |
BNP teacher can only teach whites
A council has sparked outrage after allegedly ordering a school to make sure a teacher who stood as a candidate for the British National Party only teaches white pupils.
Teachers claim Clive Jones has been kept away from ethnic minority children once his ties with the far-right group became known.
Union leaders have written to Derby City Council accusing it of playing into the hands of the party which has been widely condemned for its extremist views.
I think that this is a wonderful idea, and that the principle implicit in it should be extended further. Socialists should only teach the underclass, gay activists should only teach practising queens and black activists should only teach blacks. Multiculturalists should only teach genetically engineered race-less test-tube babies.
Posted by Alex Zeka on Saturday, July 15, 2006 at 10:07 AM in British Politics, Far Right, Free Speech, Oh Tempora, Oh Mores
Comments (5) |
Holland moves to ban Holocaust denial
When a Dutch family comes back to Holland after eight years of living in Israel, people tend to assume its members are Jewish.
So says Leon Meijer, and he should know. Meijer, who completed his doctorate at the Technion, learned that lesson the hard way when his 11-year-old daughter was told by a classmate soon after her return: “It’s a pity Hitler didn’t finish the job.”
Meijer was shocked not only by the comment, but by the discovery that the Netherlands has no laws clearly outlawing Holocaust denial.
I’m shocked, shocked as well! It’s (not) odd that this is (shocking!) news in the jewish press (for jews), but not in the jewish press (for goyim).
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 06:29 PM in Free Speech, Revisionism
Comments (5) |