Tag Archives: speech

Pardon the Interruption

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.

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.