Tag Archives: speech

Woe is Charles C. Johnson

woe_is_charles_c_johnsonAlternative Start-Ups Cut Off from Financial Services in Overnight Political Purge by Stripe:

“This canceling of our business was done for political reasons by Edwin Wee, a Democratic political operative turned Stripe employee, and it exposes the libertarian lie that one can simply just go and create a competitor if one dislikes Silicon Valley ventures,” said Charles C. Johnson, CEO of Freestartr. “You can’t. We need to get over that canard.”

Johnson, who’s been accused of being a Holocaust denier and of using racial slurs and making false charges against several individuals, is right on this issue. [Update: Johnson denies the allegations that he's a Holocaust denier. See his explanation below.] Every time reports of conservatives being silenced on social media platforms come out, a large percentage of libertarians shout, “but private companies can serve whoever they want! Build your own platforms.” It is a constant criticism of anyone saying that social media and Silicon Valley need regulation or that political viewpoints need protection under the law. But when marginalized voices create their own platforms, the puppet masters of Silicon Valley who control all the infrastructure shut them down.

. . .

Update 5:12 p.m. EST: Charles Johnson vehemently denies being a Holocaust denier. “I am not, nor have I ever been a Holocaust denier. I am a strong supporter of both the state of Israel and the Jewish people,” he told PJM. “It’s awkward to have even to say this, but the #FakeNews is trying to smear me and hurt my friends and allies because I have worked tirelessly to expose the Russia collusion lie at great personal expense and to support candidates who want to release the memo.”

Johnson told PJM, “I am one of the Yad Vashem World Holocaust Remembrance Center’s largest donors.” More here.

Charles C. Johnson Responds To Defamation – Updated:

If my persecutors are hoping that they will scare me off, they are sorely mistaken. They have just opened my wallet further.

. . .

I unambiguously believe the Holocaust happened, that 6 million Jews died, that some of those Jews who died in labor camps, gas chambers, ovens, and in all manner of dehumanizing ways. Without question, the program to exterminate the Jewry stands out as one of the 20th century’s worst crimes. My actions, as reflected in my previous statement, reflect my long-standing commitment to that historic fact. My Jewish friends, family, and allies know well my positions and others know well my financial and intellectual contributions.

I sincerely apologize to both the survivors of the Holocaust and their family members who may have been hurt by my words and I pledge never again to exploit the Holocaust — and especially Holocaust denial — in political fights against my foes. It is precisely out of respect for their plight and of those of other victims of tyranny that have I fought so hard against censorship online. Those who burn books may well wind up burning people.

. . .

In summation: I apologize to those who may be offended by some of the tactics I have used and while they have been effective at my narrow political goals they have harmed positive relations among all people and for that I am sorry. I commit never to using such a tactic again because its use is ultimately harmful to the Holocaust survivor community and to the greater cause of good will among Jew and Gentile alike.

Kikeservative psychology. The kick-lick dynamic. Jew York Syndrome. So vile.

Whatever else Johnson has said or believes, the point of the excerpts above is that he believes free access to banking services and the internet hinges on expressing a positive attitude toward jews. He is trying so desperately to signal how deferential and worshipful he is and has always been toward jews exactly because he understands his persecutors are jews.

The “holocaust survivor community” bit made me LOL. A perfect illustration of Poe’s Law. The point stands.

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

The full text of their monolithic demands, via The Jewish Chronicle:

Today, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers — Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph — take the unprecedented step of speaking as one by publishing the same front page.

We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel.

The stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

From Chakrabarti to Livingstone, there have been many alarming lows. Last week’s stubborn refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, provoking Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge to call her leader an antisemite to his face, was the most sinister yet.

Labour has diluted the IHRA definition, accepted in full by the government and more than 130 local councils, deleting and amending four key examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.

Under its adapted guidelines, a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless “intent” – whatever that means – can be proved. “Dirty Jew” is wrong, “Zionist bitch” fair game?

In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial anti-Semitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political anti-Semitism targeting Israel (acceptable).

The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.

With the government in Brexit disarray, there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister.

On 5 September, Labour MPs vote on an emergency motion, calling for the party to adopt the full IHRA definition into its rulebook.

Following that, it will face a binary choice: implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party. After three deeply painful years for our community, September is finally make or break.

These jews are shamelessly singling out and demanding privileged treatment for jews, in terms spelled out by jews, solely because they are jews. The Labour party has in fact already conceded on all these points. The increasingly hysterical screeching of these jews, as if they are victims of some injustice, is aimed at extending the privileged treatment even to jews who are openly acting as agents of a foreign state.

Taylor vs Twitter

unless_you_are_white

Some twits and a press release this week claimed Jared Taylor’s lawyers had “won the first round” against Twitter. Reading the court transcript there are a few more realistic things to say about it.

First, hearings like this are by design biased in the plaintiff’s favor. Twitter doesn’t want to go to trial, so they’re trying to convince the judge that Taylor’s claims are baseless. The judge argued in this instance almost as if he were an advocate for Taylor. He favors a trial, but intimated several times that his attitude during a trial would be different.

Second, no surprise, Taylor’s complaint does not focus on race. He is not challenging Twitter’s anti-White censorship, much less highlighting the central role organized jewry has played in driving that agenda. Instead the focus of the complaint is on “viewpoint discrimination” and whether Twitter falsely led users to believe they really allow “all types of speech”. The judge sees it as a public interest lawsuit. Twitter’s lawyer argued that Taylor brought the suit to serve the narrower interests of himself and his non-profit organization. As he put it:

this is a suit about these two plaintiffs with an enormous public stake in this case; they say that their whole enterprise of spewing… white — you know, white racism to the world depends on Twitter; that they built their enterprise around this.

Finally, in comments like this one and the ones below Twitter’s lawyer made it clear that Twitter does indeed engage in anti-White censorship and asserted that they have the legal right to do so. While trying to excuse Twitter’s not-so-free speech fraud the lawyer said:

And that was not a promise that, for a — six, seven, eight years, everybody who’s come onto the platform, no matter what they do, no matter whether they’re white supremacist or not, contrary to the Twitter’s, you know, evolved standards, that was not a promise that we never can take your account down.

. . .

Your Honor, you’re suggesting that a general statement six years ago somehow binds Twitter — when does that stop? When does that — when does that stop? Twitter can’t evolve, as the world changes vastly, and sees that white supremacy is having a major problem on its platform, it can’t act to control that?

The lawyer admits that Twitter banned Taylor because of race. He takes it for granted they are justified to ban Whites merely for being White, at least as long as they tack on the semitic buzzterms “racist” or “supremacist”. This is the heart of the issue, despite Taylor’s attempt to avoid it.

White Opposition to Jewing is Illegal Because Jews are the Opposite of White

JEZWhite supremacist on trial for Downing Street speech calling on his ‘soldiers to rise up against the Jews’

This short jewsmedia article about Jez Turner’s prosecution in Britain is just long enough to include jewry’s most common buzzterms:

“singled out the group for hatred”

“defendant is absolutely obsessed with Jewish people and he despises the Jewish race”

“peddled conspiracy theories that Jews control the banks and the media and are determined to achieve world domination”

“The speech was a racial character assassination”

“some sort of white supremacist”

To read such an article is to see the world through the carnie’s funhouse mirror, but translating this psychoanalytic jewspeak into plain English isn’t hard. The banks and media are controlled by jews, and it’s illegal to say so because the government is also controlled by jews. The banks and media and government shit on Whites because jews are the racial, political, and legal opposite of White.

Fake News, Real Power

cy_vz-euqaaps7v-jpglarge

ADL jew Etzion Neuer twits: “Today’s @NYDailyNews front page confirms what @ADL_NY knew: it has been far too busy in the last month. #fighthate”

Neurotic jews busy painting mangled swastikas. The jewsmedia and lobbyists busy screeching, “FIGHT HATE!!1!”. Kikeservatives in government and academia busy serving the jews:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) have introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act which according to a statement on Casey’s website is meant to “to ensure the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents” on college campuses.

Citing a recent FBI report stating over half of all reported hate crimes in 2015 were of an anti-Semitic nature, the senators claim their bill is necessary to provide the DOE with the “firm guidance” it needs to determine “what constitutes anti-Semitism.”

The bill’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is directly culled from a 2010 State Department memo, which The University of California Board of Regents considered adopting as official policy, before ultimately agreeing to a softer condemnation of “Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism,” but not a blanket ban on anti-Zionist expression itself.

Unfortunately, the bill also proposes the following as examples of hate crimes:

  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
  • Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all inter-religious or political tensions
  • Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation

No other other group has government departments specifically dedicated to promoting their interests. No other group enjoys the privileged protection of speech codes and laws which specifically condemn and even criminalize their political opponents. Only the jews.

The Jew Menace

the_jewish_argument

The big news this week is that the jews have very openly and collectively, as jews, called upon governments everywhere, but especially in Europe, to provide them special treatment, to protect and serve the jews specifically by suppressing and punishing any expression of whatever the jews decide to define as “anti-semitism”.

Effectively the jews and their worshippers are calling for a ban on blasphemy against the jews. They’re seeking to criminalize any expression of irreverence, disrespect, distaste, disagreement, or even mere disregard for the complaints and demands that jews are constantly making. Complaints and demands such as the ones they’re making this week – which we’re going to critique in some detail. This is precisely the sort of critique that the jews are demanding goverments illegalize. Everywhere.

Let’s start by noting that there are two very specific kinds of blasphemy that the jews are most keen to stop. The first they call “holocaust denial”, by which they mean any form of challenge to or rejection of their version of history, their narrative about the period of European history which used to be known as World War II. The second kind of blasphemy they want governments to stop is any and all forms of criticism of their ethnostate, Israel.

This is actually old news in that the jews have been making these same complaints and demands for decades – especially since the war ended. It is a difficult fact for White people to face – and even 70 years after that war most still will not think about it in such terms – but the White race, all European peoples whatever their nationality and wherever they may live today, lost that war. The jews won.

There is no clearer indication of this than the unrivalled position of power from which the jews have been able to dictate to Whites everywhere what can and can’t be said about jews or virtually anything jews feel impinges on their interests. Most especially having to do with that war. Thus it is less and less even referred to as World War II, and more and more “The Holocaust”, or “Shoah”. Because that is how the jews see it. And, as everyone can see now, if only because the jews’ media and political power compels it, that war was all about the jews.

The most elementary point I’d like to make here is that these three things – the jews, Israel, and their holocaust narrative – are connected. They come in a package. And it is this way because the jews themselves insist upon it. Yet they also insist that if anyone else makes this connection it is “anti-semitism”. As I mentioned the last time, when describing jew-worship and blasphemy, the double-standards jews promote seem surreal, almost magical in nature. But I think it’s really just a reflection of their dominance.

Speaking of dominance, and old news, I’m recording this the night before, but tomorrow is a special day for jews and jew-worshippers. When this special day was first declared by the UN in 2005, Robert Faurisson wrote a short article about it titled The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism:

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.

Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Faurisson’s conclusion:

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

Faurisson was being optimistic. Here we are in that dark future. The jews are still at it. More aggressively pushing for more banning. More directly connecting it to themselves, their Holocaust narrative, and their ethnostate. Let’s take a closer look at three jewsmedia reports on the menace jews have been making of themselves this week.

Prosor calls on European leaders: Take a stand against anti-Semitism, quotes Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor:

“Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Semitism,” Prosor said.

This rhetorical fraud – jews cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language – can be found throughout their pronouncements this week. It’s a constant feature of what jews do and how they do it.

To see just how transparently brazen this statement is you simply have to substitute one word: Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Europeanism.

Is there even one European politician, in power, who would claim he himself is taking a stand against anti-Europeanism, much less lecture the rest of the world that they should do so?

Prosor asserted that “The struggle against anti-Semitism must be a priority for every nation because the hatred that begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. History has shown us time and again that when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk.”

The main struggle of the jews is to ensure that the harm the jews cause others is never attributed to the jews. To do this jews shift the blame elsewhere, in this case, as usual, to “anti-semitism”.

The argument Prosor is making here is that everybody else must make it their priority to stop somebody else from even complaining about what the jews do.

History has shown us time and again that jews are parasites who infiltrate, manipulate, and ruthlessly exploit other nations, that they have cared only for their own interests as they have undermined and ultimately brought to ruin and fled every other nation they have ever lived amongst.

History has shown us time and again that jews pose a special menace to hosts which attempt to look after their own safety and defend themselves against the depredations of the jews. Even those who succeed in reclaiming control over their nation as the national socialists did in Germany find that the jews never forgive and never forget. In Germany’s case, world jewry declared war in 1933, began agitating Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States to war, to teach them all the lesson Prosor alludes to: “when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk”.

The jews blame their hosts for resisting them. That they bribe and lobby and propagandize and even succeed in taking control of the host’s leaders and crucial organs and makes them more culpable and harm they cause more insidious, not less.

“Europe is being tested,” he said. “We don’t need any more monuments commemorating the Jews who were murdered in Europe, we need a strong and enduring commitment to the living Jews in Europe. If the governments of Europe succeed in defending their Jewish communities, then they will succeed in defending liberty and democracy.”

Prosor cites the jewish victim narrative even as he denies it.

Jews actually want, and get, both – worship and defense. They get monuments and holidays commemorating them, and special security. It is sponsored by governments, funded by taxing others.

It is jews telling Europeans what to think and what to do – in this case Prosor literally defines “liberty” and “democracy” and even success as the defense of jews.

And vowed that “The days when Jews were the world’s victims are over. We will never again be helpless and we will never again remain silent. Today we have the State of Israel standing guard.

Victimhood again, this time couched in menace: “We don’t need to incite others to war against you, we have weapons of our own now”.

The article explicitly mentions the attack on the “kosher supermarket” in Paris a few weeks ago, giving the impression that this is what triggered the jews to action this week. It isn’t. The bombing of Gaza this summer was not explicitly mentioned, though that was the actual impetus for the UN meeting. It is hinted at indirectly in this paragraph toward the end:

The meeting was requested by 37 countries who sent a letter to assembly President Sam Kutesa on October 1 calling for a meeting in response to “an alarming outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide.” They said they wanted a meeting because “a clear message from the General Assembly is a critical component of combatting the sudden rise of violence and hatred directed at Jews.”

This simple statement, in both what it says and doesn’t say, reflects the incredible power and influence jews have over dozens of other governments outside the single government they officially control. Jews have enough control over the govts of 37 countries (most crucially the US) to manipulate them in this fashion.

That they could orchestrate such a show of force in response to the murder of four jews in Paris would be amazing enough. But in fact it was actually orchestrated in defense of Israelis who murdered thousands of non-jews in Gaza. The Israeli military bombs Gaza and then jews worldwide join with Israels to organize a UN meeting to literally shift the blame to “anti-semitism worldwide”.

UN meeting challenges world to stand up to anti-Semitism, describes the result:

But 40 mainly Western countries issued a joint statement afterward urging all nations to “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism,” strengthen laws to combat discrimination, and prosecute those responsible for anti-Semitic crimes.

“The determination to eradicate the conditions that gave rise to the Holocaust was a guiding principle among the founders of this organization over six decades ago,” their statement said. “Let us rededicate ourselves to that principle and endeavor to eliminate anti-Semitism in all forms.”

I could find no UN source for this UN declaration. All the pages containing “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism” are variations on this AP story.

Note the unequivocal, uncompromising language used to compel others to serve jews.

In the keynote speech, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said blaming Jews “is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins.”

Levy, who is Jewish, called for new arguments to counter anti-Semites who say “Jews are detestable.”

These anti-Semites call Israel an “illegitimate state,” deny the Holocaust, and believe Jews give far too much attention to Holocaust victims and stifle other people’s martyrs, including the Palestinians, he said.

Dozens of speakers echoed his call to address the root causes of anti-Semitism as well as wider religious intolerance, hatred and extremism.

The jews try to dictate what others are permitted to find detestable. That’s detestable.

Levy offers no arguments, and his call for arguments is disingenuous anyway. The whole point of the UN meeting was for jews to make public their demands, which amount to telling everyone else they must “reject” and “prosecute” and “eliminate” blasphemy against the jews.

Levy is one of the many jews who unambiguously connects jews to Israel and to their holocaust narrative.

France’s minister of state for Europe Harlem Desire urged the world to act “with the utmost firmness, wherever anti-Semitism rears its head in the world.”

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned.

Harlem Desire, which is his real name, is a semitic-looking mulatto.

The premise of Desire’s argument is that “the world”, and especially European govts, should be more worried about what’s best for the jews than what’s best for Europeans; that “the world”, and especially European govts, should see a Europe without jews as unthinkable, and literally not think at all about what Europe will be like without Europeans.

A host can survive without a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host. Thus the jews equate expulsion to extermination. Jews, without the wealth and security wheedled out of Europeans, would cease to exist. Europe, without the parasitic load of the jews, would thrive – as Spain did after expelling its jews in 1492, and as Germany did as well in 1933.

Roth and Desire called for a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material.

This is needed today, Desire said, “to put the responsibility on those passing the message” such as Google and Twitter.

This the closest thing to a “new argument”, though it’s just the old methods applied to new technology, new forms of communication. The tactic suggested here is to leverage the influence and power jews already have over some governments in some places and couple it with the influence they have over certain internet corporations in order to impose the priorities and interests of jews over and above everyone else, everywhere else, all at once.

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism, describes a separate but related push:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

Let’s decode “Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”.

“Ethnic” is a euphemism for race – an ethnic group is a genetically and culturally (in other words racially) distinctive group.

The oldest ethnic groups in Europe are the Europeans, not the jews.

Jewish roots, genetically and culturally, are in the Levant, not Europe. Jews have quite consciously preserved their distinctiveness from Europeans for more than two millenia while living amongst Europeans.

The words “minority” and “exodus” allude to the jews’ victim narrative, and a reminder that it stretches back to Egypt, far more than 70 years ago and outside Europe.

The fact is that the jews, whomever the host among whom they live happens to be at any point in time, see themselves, organize and operate as a collective. This international lobbying, using their influence over some governments to influence other governments to “combat anti-semitism” is a perfect example.

The fact is that the jews have collectively imposed themselves upon virtually every European nation at one time or another. They have infiltrated, manipulated and exploited Europeans, moving and concentrating physically in each and every place Europeans have ever been or have ever gone. Today they manipulate Europeans collectively, via the EU.

“Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”? No. The jews are the oldest and most hostile alien interlopers in Europe. The jews have parasitized Europeans, who have for millenia served as their primary hosts.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

This is essentially an echo of the demands the jews put forth at the UN, but aimed more specifically at the EU. It is also more fleshed out with ready-made answers to those demands – an indication of the long-term, premeditated nature of the effort.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

This is the traditional approach jews have taken, disguising their concern for their interests by wrapping them up and conflating them with others. It’s not clear whether they want to ban burqas, or ban the banning of burqas. It hardly matters because whatever it is it’s subject to change depending on what the jews running the show demand tomorrow.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

“Tolerance” and “freedom of expression” as defined by the jews, in the interests of security of the jews.

Amid acute European angst over multiculturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Yet another reminder, amidst all the disposable universalist platitudes, that it is the holocaust narrative, the jews-as-victims-of-Europeans narrative, that the jews themselves provide as justification for the contempt and hostility they so constantly and freely express toward Europeans.

Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy

song_of_the_kosher_angels

Picking up where we left off last week’s discussion of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

That discussion was specifically focused on jews getting on their jewsmedia soapboxes to pontificate and moralize about the virtues of “free speech”, while at the same time distinguishing and arguing in favor of punishing “hate speech”, with jews literally and figuratively defining what “hate” means, cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language.

“We’ve” got to ban “hate” because that’s what’s best for “us”.

It’s a sleight of words, a moral and linguistic fraud. Like many frauds, it’s not complicated once you see the trick.

What jews want said they label “free speech”. What jews don’t want said they label “hate speech”. It’s that simple.

Jews use their power, their money, their media, their positions of authority in politics, academia and in law, to foist their collective views, values, and interests on everyone else. When doing this they claim a right to “free speech”. But when they hear or see something they don’t like, they argue instead that it is “hate speech” and should be banned.

Some jews are more harsh, some more loose in making their argument either way. But the general consensus on what jews don’t like most of all is telling. The most common element of so-called “hate speech” is race. The hatiest hate of all hateful things is “racism”. And the most hateful kind of “racism” is “anti-semitism”.

As the saying goes, anti-”racism” is a code word for anti-White. There are other code words. Words like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “intolerance”. Calling it “code” is simpler than describing the specific trick that’s being played, the particularism-disguised-as-universalism fraud. But you can see who’s behind it, who’s driving it, in the close, peculiar relationship between the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism”.

This report was published a week before the Hebdo attack. French president vows to fight racism and anti-Semitism:

French President Francois Hollande has used his New Year’s Eve television speech to say that the fight against racism and anti-Semitism will be his national cause for 2015.

The president of France’s New Year’s resolution was not to protect the French, but the jews and muslims, the alien interlopers in France. Protect them from who? From the native French.

This is just one timely reminder of the general rule about “racism” and “anti-semitism”. On the one hand, Whites merely speaking in defense of Whites, even without mentioning any other group, is regarded as “racism”. On the other hand, jews speaking in defense of jews is not regarded as “racism”. They’re just combatting “anti-semitism”.

Even when jews explicitly criticize Whites, as a race, it isn’t called “racism”, it’s called “whiteness studies”.

Jews are “white”, we’re told, because saying they’re not is worse than “racist”, it’s “anti-semitic”.

This power jews have over the meanings of words is almost magical. Substitute White for jew in some form of political expression and “satire” instantly transmutes into “hate”.

But this isn’t magic. It’s money. It’s media. It’s politicking. It’s also the knock-on effect of jew-worship, a consequence of jews not just being simply unopposed, but of actually being aided and abetted by others, the non-jew jew-worshippers who police and punish heretics on the jews’ behalf, expressly in their defense.

I’m using the word worship in a looser sense than usual, but not lightly.

Recognition and encouragement of this jew-worship was evident in the free speech/hate speech heebdo I talked about last time. Blasphemy was a recurring theme in that heebdo. Beside defining “hate”, jews define what is or isn’t blasphemy. The epitome of “hate speech” is blasphemy againt jews.

The mulatto comedian Dieudonné was arrested in France last week. Commenting at the Daily Stormer, Armor wrote:

The pretext is that he said he felt like he was Charlie Coulibaly (link). Coulibaly is the Blackman who was killed the other day after killing a black policewoman as well as four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.

Being black, with the relative immunity to charges of “racism” this confers, was not enough to protect Dieudonné. Whatever the official charge turns out to be, Dieudonné’s crime in the eyes of jew-worshippers is irreverence for the jews.

Armor also linked and translated a snippet of what the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, had to say in response to criticism of the arrest:

“Justice must be implacable towards those preachers of hatred,” he pleaded. Manuel Valls refused the comparisons that have been made here and there, under the pretext of freedom of expression, between Dieudonné’s polemical shows and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.

“There is a fundamental difference between freedom of impertinence -blasphemy is not mentioned in our law, and never will be-, and anti-Semitism, racism, advocacy of terrorism, revisionism, which are criminal offenses that justice will probably have to punish even more severely”, he said.

Another example that English readers were more likely to have run across came from hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, less than 24 hours after the attack. The punchline of Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Commit Blasphemy is in his conclusion:

The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.

The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.

That identical outcome is “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate”. All the heebdo isn’t intended to change that. And it isn’t going to change that. Almost all of it is offered in defense of the status quo, where the ongoing shift in political and legal attitudes is toward this conception of “hate speech”, not away from it.

Many others chattered about blasphemy, agreeing, as Chait put it, that “the right to blaspheme religion” is elemental. But if that’s true, why is it the subject of so much debate? What is all the arguing really about?

flippityfloppity, commenting at my blog, took a stab at making sense of it:

so blasphemy is an attack on religion which is ok and protected by free speech. antisemitism is hate speech which is an attack on persons so its not ok, not protected and should not be tolerated.

My argument is that the arguing is about the meaning of blasphemy. It’s word games. Again. Empirically, irreverence for the jews is the only thing the jewsmedia and the current governments of Western countries actually regard as blasphemy. Blasphemy against anyone or anything else can be seen as either “free speech” or “hate speech”, depending on what consensus the jews come to about whether it’s good or bad for the jews.