Tag Archives: speech

Blog

Jews Screech, Facebook Jumps

24 Comments

Open Letter to Facebook — Stop Antisemitism (PDF), 7 August 2020:

In accordance with the recommendations outlined in the “The New Antisemites” report, which call on social media platforms to eliminate antisemitic content by adopting the IHRA working definition as the basis for content removal policies, we the undersigned coalition of 128 [as of 11 August, 145 as of 26 August] organizations, urge Facebook to implement a hate speech policy on antisemitism that includes the full IHRA working definition at its core. Nearly 40 countries have already endorsed or adopted the IHRA working definition in some official capacity, either through their membership in the IHRA or independently. In the United States, in addition to the adoption by the State Department, the recent Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism instructs the Department of Education to consider the IHRA definition when evaluating Title VI Civil Rights Act complaints of discrimination.

The overwhelming majority of civil society organizations at the forefront of efforts to combat antisemitism endorse and encourage the use and adoption of the IHRA working definition. Today’s antisemitism undoubtedly includes the delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist. This bigotry is expressed in various ways, such as the rejection of Jewish self-determination, Holocaust revisionism and denial, and the application of double standards toward the Jewish state and people.

. . .

Jews today, like many other minority communities, are being targeted and attacked in record numbers. They experience physical violence, harassment, and discrimination offline and online. Jews overwhelmingly report that online antisemitism is the most acute form of Jew-hatred they experience.

Facebook’s Community Standards Recent Updates (italics denote additions), 11 August 2020:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

. . .

Tier 1

Content targeting a person or group of people (including all subsets except those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses) on the basis of their aforementioned protected characteristic(s) or immigration status with:

. . .

Designated dehumanizing comparisons, generalizations, or behavioral statements (in written or visual form)- that include:

. . .

Jewish people and rats

Jewish people running the world or controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government

Facebook announces new policy combating anti-Jewish stereotypes – Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 12 August 2020:

Facebook announced that it would ban posts about Jews controlling the world among several other efforts to combat hate speech.

The announcement comes following a monthlong boycott of advertising on Facebook spearheaded by a coalition of civil rights groups led by the Anti-Defamation League. More than 1,000 companies participated in the boycott, which was meant to protest Facebook’s lack of action against hate speech.

In an announcement Tuesday issued by Guy Rosen, the social media platform’s vice president of integrity, Facebook said it would ban posts about Jews controlling the world, as well as those containing blackface. Rosen also wrote that Facebook has removed 23 “banned organizations” from the platform since October, half of which were white supremacist.

. . .

Responding to the announcement, an ADL spokesperson called the changes “welcome yet overdue.”

“It’s distressing that it took this long for the platform to crack down on these particular forms of hate, when it’s quite obvious they should not have been allowed to proliferate in the first place,” the ADL statement said. “It’s equally as disturbing that Facebook still doesn’t view Holocaust denial as violative of their terms of service.”

Facebook banned stereotypes of Jewish global domination – The Forward, 13 August 2020:

In May, Peter Stern, Facebook’s director of Content Policy Stakeholder Engagement, said in a conversation with a representative of the AJC they have “mapped” some elements of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism onto their own policies, but not the parts that relate to Israel, since the site does not want to penalize people for criticizing Israel.

. . .

Greenblatt, of the ADL, criticized Facebook for not taking a stronger stand on Holocaust denial, and called it “disturbing” that the company classifies such posts as “misinformation,” and not a form of hate speech against a protected group.

. . .

Facebook still permits inaccurate and false statements about the Holocaust, but takes down posts that in any way celebrate or defend the Holocaust, or mock the Holocaust or survivors, Cutler said. When asked if there is content on Facebook that denies the Holocaust but is not otherwise anti-Semitic, Cutler said the site moderates such pieces of content on a case by case basis.

Here we see jews, obsessively organized and acting collectively as jews, setting themselves apart from and above non-jews, shamelessly proclaiming themselves the arbiters of what non-jews can say, instructing the world’s most powerful corporations how to better serve their tribe, bragging that governments of 40-odd countries have already codified special privileges for jews, as spelled out by jews.

Note how they screech as if anyone else’s bigotry or “application of double standards” could ever be more obnoxious than their own, and how they respond to any concession with more demands. Note too how their usual identity fraud, their outrageous “fellow white” shtick, is conspicuously absent here. Instead they present themselves like “other minority communities”, as a “protected group” per civil rights law, as non-White.

Indeed, with jews so openly dictating who can speak and what they can say, and doing so under color of a jew-defined and jew-driven moral imperative to combat “White supremacism”, jews could hardly make it more obvious that they see themselves as the utter opposite of Whites – morally, politically, socially, legally.

Blog

YouTube Bans “Hateful Supremacism”, as Defined by Jews

31 Comments

In late March Facebook announced an explicit ban on “White this” and “White that”, or in practical terms, any content which the Facebook/ADL/SPLC jews interpret as implying that it’s OK for Whites to be White.

Yesterday YouTube followed suit, announcing that its ban on Whites being too White was specifically in defense of jewry and their jewing. Official YouTube Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate:

Removing more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube

YouTube has always had rules of the road, including a longstanding policy against hate speech. In 2017, we introduced a tougher stance towards videos with supremacist content, including limiting recommendations and features like comments and the ability to share the video. This step dramatically reduced views to these videos (on average 80%). Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

Most of YouTube’s verbiage remains intentionally vague and generic-sounding, but at root they are discriminating and trying to segregate “holocaust” believers from “Nazi ideology” believers, promoting the former while excluding the latter.

Enabling jewing while disabling (until they can criminalize) whoever and whatever vexes jews is basically what the past several decades of “hate” rhetoric has always been about. During the Trump era the jew war on Whites has simply been transitioning from more stealthy to more overt form.

Blog

Pardon the Interruption

13 Comments

Some time between the 16th and 17th my previous hosting service, 1and1, decided to take my server offline and lock me out of their admin console, “for your own protection” due to “a possible case of attempted abuse”. It was several more days before I was able to get through to their 9-5 security team to find out what was going on.

They claimed I had violated their terms of service, specifically regarding “hate”, and stated they no longer wanted my business. They wouldn’t grant me any further access to my server, but they did provide codes so I could transfer my domain registration elsewhere. Fortunately I had backup copies of the bulk of the data, but a couple of the most recent comments were lost.

I had long wanted to upgrade my operating system and software, and the plug-pulling gave me an opportunity to do that. I found a new hosting service, www.orangewebsite.com, who I feel better about giving my money to. They’re based in Iceland, take payment anonymously, and sound serious about free speech:

I found content on a website hosted on your servers that I find offensive. How can I ask you to remove it?

We are a free speech hosting provider and, thus, the cost of that is that there may be content hosted on our servers that some people might find offensive. Once we start taking down such web sites, then we are no longer a free speech hosting service provider.

We’ll see how long it lasts. Their terms of service don’t currently mention “hate”, “racism”, or “anti-semitism”. But then every day the jewing grows more overt and obnoxious, all over the world.

Blog

Woe is Charles C. Johnson

11 Comments

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.

Blog

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

23 Comments

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.