Digital Services Act (DSA) Draconian Censorship and Control of Big Tech
A Draconian New Law Snuck Through This Month That Institutes Extreme Censorship of the Internet on a Global Basis
by Michael Snyder August 29, 2023 in Curated, News
Drudge Report is dead. America First Patriots are getting aggregated, curated, and original content every day from Discern Report.
The Internet just changed forever, but most people living in the United States don’t even realize what just happened. A draconian new law known as the “Digital Services Act” went into effect in the European Union on Friday, and it establishes an extremely strict regime of Internet censorship that is far more authoritarian than anything we have ever seen before. From this point forward, hordes of European bureaucrats will be the arbiters of what is acceptable to say on the Internet.
If they discover something that you have said on a large online platform that they do not like, they can force that platform to take it down, because someone in Europe might see it. So even though this is a European law, the truth is that it is going to have a tremendous impact on all of us.
Four America First Gold Companies
From this point forward, nothing will be the same. It is being reported that the DSA literally makes large tech companies “legally accountable for the content posted to them”…
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) has officially gone into effect. Starting on August 25th, 2023, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and more must comply with sweeping legislation that holds online platforms legally accountable for the content posted to them.
Even though this new law was passed in the EU, we’ll likely see far-reaching global effects as companies adjust their policies to comply.
Initially, there will be 19 giant online platforms that will be forced to comply with this new law…
Ranging from social media platforms to online marketplaces and search engines, the list so far includes: Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, Amazon, Booking, AliExpress, Zalando, Google Shopping, Wikipedia, Google Maps, Google and Apple’s mobile app stores, Google’s Search, and Microsoft’s Bing.
But starting on February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will start applying to a much broader spectrum of online platforms that have fewer than 45 million monthly users.
We are being told that this new law will establish clear rules that online platforms must follow.
Survival Beef Company CEO: “No Lab-Grown Meat, No mRNA Jabs, and No ‘Beef Crumbles’ Ever”
That will include censoring anything that is deemed “false or misleading” under the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation…
So what kind of speech is the DSA expected to police? Last year’s Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation defines disinformation as “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.” The code has already been put to work during elections and to “respond to crises,” such as COVID and the war in Ukraine.
And it really doesn’t matter if material that European bureaucrats consider to be “false or misleading” is actually “false of misleading” at all.
What matters is that if online platforms do not comply with what they are being told to do, they will pay dearly…
Online platforms that don’t comply with the DSA’s rules could see fines of up to 6 percent of their global turnover. According to the EU Commission, the Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission will have the power to “require immediate actions where necessary to address very serious harms.” A platform continually refusing to comply could result in a temporary suspension in the EU.
Big tech companies will be desperate to avoid such penalties, and so they will obey.
Stock up on long-term storage beef before prices SKYROCKET. 10+ year shelf life, premium cuts, all-American, no mRNA jabs. Promo code “cleancows” at Freedom First Beef.
And so that means that “hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats” will be in control of speech on the Internet now…
Under this Orwellian regime, a team of hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it. The firms themselves, faced with reputational risk and financial penalties, will have little choice other than to comply. This can be done in all manner of ways: simply by human moderators removing content, by shadow-banning problematic creators to reduce their reach, by demonetising certain content, and by tweaking algorithms to favour or disfavour certain topics. And though, legally speaking, the DSA only applies in the EU, once installed inside Big Tech firms, this vast content-regulation apparatus will surely affect users in the rest of the world, too.
We are being told that these EU bureaucrats will also be working with “trusted flaggers” to help identify content that needs to be censored…
The DSA’s “trusted flaggers” are entities with proven expertise in flagging harmful or illegal content to platforms. The new regulation provides that their content flagging shall be prioritised by platforms when moderating content.
You might be tempted to think that you will be able to avoid all of this censorship because you do not live in Europe.
Unfortunately, that is simply not true.
If you post something that someone in Europe might see, your content comes under the jurisdiction of this horrifying new law.
So you need to brace yourself for a level of Internet censorship that none of us have ever seen before. In addition, most of the large tech companies that must comply with this new law are based in the United States.
And it turns out that the Federal Trade Commission actually sent officials to Europe in March to assist with the implementation of this new law on U.S. soil…
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent letters to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Lina Khan and the head of the European Union’s San Francisco office, demanding answers regarding the degree of coordination between the FTC and the EU to enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) on U.S. soil. Both foreign laws were written to weaken American tech companies, particularly in Europe. There are no corollary federal laws to the DSA and DMA, making the FTC’s efforts to conspire with foreign regulators against U.S. businesses unprecedented.
The FTC announced in March that it was sending agency officials to Brussels to assist the EU in implementing these laws, while the EU opened a San Francisco office to pressure U.S tech companies to comply with them.
From this point forward, it is going to become much more difficult to share alternative views on the Internet.
Beef Company CEO: “The Climate Change Argument Against Cows Is Garbage and We Will Not Comply”
Personally, there will be certain things that I will only be able to share in my books or with the paid subscribers of my Substack newsletter.
I am going to need to be more careful about what I share from now on, because if I say something publicly on the Internet that offends the bureaucrats in Europe, I could get into really big trouble.
And that is going to apply to every other independent journalist as well.
For a long time, the Internet allowed ordinary people like you and ordinary people like me to share truth with a world that was desperate for it.
As the banking collapse heats up, there’s no longer time to procrastinate about moving retirement to physical precious metals. Here are the four companies we vetted. They are patriotic, America First companies that do NOT donate to Democrats, work with the CCP, or embrace CBDCs. These companies actually love America and can help you protect your life’s savings.
But now the gatekeepers are exerting a draconian level of control, and the Internet will never, ever be the same again.
Missouri v. Biden might be most important legal case in U.S. history
From what I’ve read, proof our federal government wants to kill free speech is overwhelming.
BILL RICE, JR.
JUN 7, 2023
Joe Biden is the named defendant in this lawsuit. God help us all if he wins.
Until yesterday, I’d not read any documents in the lawsuit brought by the states of Missouri, Louisiana et al vs. President Biden. Because of this, I didn’t fully grasp the stunning claims made by the plaintiffs, nor realize how overwhelming the evidence is that supports this case.
Yesterday, I read the first 54 pages of a 354-page legal document that was filed with a federal district court in Louisiana on March 3, 2023.
I now better understand why some people believe this might be the most important legal case in U.S. history.
In a nutshell, attorneys for the plaintiffs are compiling and presenting a mountain of evidence that shows actors for the U.S. government have conspired to nullify the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This Amendment was first for an important reason.
It states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The core issue at stake is should American citizens be allowed to have genuine “freedom of speech.”
In my view, the evidence already presented in this legal case proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a cadre of officials in government (and organizations working “in partnership” with government agencies) despise, fear and want to end “free speech.” In fact, they’ve already effectively blocked the free speech of millions of Americans.
In a democracy, free speech is vitally important as it makes dissent from prevailing narratives possible and thus protects the “natural rights” of citizens who may hold minority views. That is, without “free speech,” only the views of those who embrace “authorized” opinions would be allowed to participate in any meaningful way in democratic debates.
One can parse this lengthy document a thousand ways, but the bottom-line conclusion is that the U.S. government believes only its views should be allowed to be widely disseminated.
Even more terrifying, virtually all the important institutions in contemporary society defend and seemingly support the efforts of the federal government to censor any speech labeled “mis-“ or “disinformation.”
A few of my main take-aways from my (partial) reading of this must-read legal document:
All Hope is Not Lost
The fact that attorneys general from at least two U.S. states have filed such a lawsuit provides hope that the entire country has not yet become disciples and enforcers of Big Brother.
It is also significant that the push-back to mass censorship comes from the state level of our “republic” and not from the federal government itself. That is, the Attorney General of the United States should have brought this case. Instead, representatives of the U.S. government are vigorously defending mass censorship, and the effort to “abridge the freedom of speech.”
The Legal System Can Work
This document is 354 pages because it’s replete with transcripts from legal depositions and exhibits that the public would have not seen absent the commencement of this legal proceeding.
The document also proves the power of legal “discovery” wherein defendants have to turn over all relevant evidence such as emails, meeting records, etc. (although plaintiffs argue that the defendants have still not turned over every piece of “discovery” requested).
A healthy democracy hinges on “fact-finding” and a “search for the truth.” This lawsuit has made it possible for the people who are following this case (not enough people) to learn more about the activities of the most powerful individuals who work for the most powerful government on the planet.
A quick aside ….
In reading this summary of evidence, I was struck by how easy it was for plaintiffs’ attorneys to build their case.
The attorneys, investigators and staffers bringing this case are clearly intelligent professionals who’ve been very thorough in developing their evidence and trying to prove their case. That is, if they get a fair hearing (which I’m not sure they will), they should win this case with ease.
However, this example made me think of all the lawsuits and “fact-finding” exercises that have NOT occurred with any of the litany of crimes and scandals of our Covid times (and even before Covid).
One strongly suspects that if other teams of competent litigators and investigators had employed the same tools of discovery and depositions, every scandal of our times would also be just-as-easily exposed.
Just like I think about all of the mainstream news articles that are off limits to alleged “watchdog” journalists, I also think about all the lawsuits and prosecutions that are apparently off limits to the people and organizations who could bring such cases.
What’s the core issue in this case?
The first paragraph of the “motion for the injunction” describes what the plaintiffs are trying to prove (and have already proven as far as I am concerned).
“Federal officials, including Defendants, have made a long series of public statements since at least 2018 demanding that social-media platforms increase their censorship of speech and speakers disfavored by these officials, and threatening adverse consequences – such as repeal or reform of Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), antitrust scrutiny or enforcement, increased regulation, and other measures – if the platforms do not increase censorship …. “ (emphasis added).”
Note: For more excerpts from the document, see Reader Comments (under “most recent.”)
Laymen and legal scholars alike agree that the First Amendment does not compel any publisher to print any and all speech. For example, a private company like The New York Times can publish, or not publish, whatever speech it wants for whatever reason it wants.
The issue in this case is whether citizens living in the “town square” can use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. to share their opinions or facts.
Or, more specifically, can the government use its immense power to compel private companies to censor speech the government doesn’t like (speech labeled by the government as dangerous, extremist, false or basically “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the government defines these terms).
Plaintiffs argue that the federal government is using its power to abridge free speech. The federal government is doing this by threatening to effectively shut down social media companies who don’t comply with the government’s wishes.
The federal government could harpoon these companies by “reforming” or “amending” Section 230 of the CDA. This section grants legal immunity to such companies, meaning social media companies can’t be sued or criminally tried because of the speech of citizens who make posts on their platforms.
Paragraph 3 of the document explains the power of this “threat.”
“3. The threat of antitrust scrutiny or enforcement is also a major motivator to social-media platforms. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that the threat of antitrust enforcement is “an ‘existential’ threat” to his platform.”
The evidence - presented on scores of pages - clearly reveals this “threat” was made explicitly, implicitly, publicly and privately over and over and over by myriad employees of the U.S. government, including the President of the United States.
This makes one (almost) feel empathy for these social media companies, which have had a symbolic bazooka pointed at their heads by the U.S. government dating to the day “Joe Biden” allegedly won the presidential election over Donald Trump.
I write that I “almost” feel empathy for these companies because if anyone skims this document, he will quickly see that virtually every employee and key executive of these companies was eager and happy to accede to the demands of their pro-censorship rulers.
Those who read this document will see never-ending examples of government officials brow-beating and intimidating social media companies for NOT censoring MORE.
To me, these companies appear almost masochistic - as in they seemingly enjoyed their incessant scoldings. For example, social media employees often thanked their government minders for pointing out their transgressions, which they seem overly-eager to correct. (Here, the Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind).
The “stick” of repealing Section 230 is not the only motivation social media companies have for complying with Big Brother.
Numerous “carrots” also exist as almost every one of these companies also profits from big contracts with the federal government and/or receives large sums of money (such as vaccine advertising spends) for supporting the authorized narratives (or, more precisely, silencing the non-authorized narratives).
The Virality Project
The document makes many references to the Virality Project, an influential project commissioned by academics at Stanford University.
As I’ve written previously, the most important goal of the world’s real rulers in Covid times was/is the effort to fight “vaccine hesitancy.”
If people were hesitant about getting their Covid vaccines, the mRNA project would be a bust. Big Pharma and all the many entities that receives massive amounts of money from Big Pharma would not be pleased.
One thing that might make half the world skeptical of the “safe and effective” non-vaccines would be if the views of vaccine skeptics actually “went viral.”
This, very possibly, could have happened … absent mass censorship.
In my last article, I discussed several of the key “chess moves” our rulers have made to make sure they win this “game.”
Arguably, the most important move was making sure dissenting views did NOT go viral, a result which didn’t happen by chance … but by a coordinated effort to censor hundreds of millions of potential skeptics and critics.
Since the government doesn’t own Facebook (where two billion people share speech), the government had to “persuade” Facebook (Meta) to do their censoring for them.
This was a conspiracy, a massive one …
In reading this document, I was also stunned when I thought about all the employees and organizations that were involved in the effort to defeat the threat of “vaccine hesitancy” (and protect all the other many untrue Covid narratives).
I stopped reading after 54 pages, but this was enough to see that the actors in this conspiracy (a cover-up of the truth) included the President of the United States, all his key White House employees, the CDC, the Census Bureau, The Surgeon General and his staff, officials in the NIH (such as Anthony Fauci), many of the key members of Congress, all the new “fact checkers” and probably the White House chef.
Time and again, plaintiff’s attorneys present examples where government officials cite articles written by “journalists” at The New York Times or Washington Post that were used as a weapon to demand even more censorship among social media companies.
Surreally, this means our “free press” has been one of government’s key allies in suppressing free speech.
Government contractors, non-profits and think tanks were also brought in to help with the vital censorship chess moves.
Another hallmark of a conspiracy would be any evidence proving a coordinated initiative. The plaintiff’s attorneys have done an excellent job proving this happened. For example, the authors of the legal brief repeatedly show how the words “accountable” and “transparency,” were used ad nauseam by all the censorship conspirators.
When government actors told social media companies they would be “held accountable,” this was a not-too-subtle threat that they better do as told … Which, sadly and not surprisingly, they did.
The conspirators also incessantly demand “transparency” from social media companies.
The government didn’t just ask social media companies to do a little more censorship for the good of the country, they demanded access to all the algorithms, data bases, search queries, content-moderation policies, etc. that would prove companies were censoring the content the government said must be censored.
Amazingly, companies like Meta complied …. so, apparently, officials at the CDC and The Census Bureau (which for some reason took a lead role in enforcing censorship) and key White House staffers were looking at the same tools Meta used to see what Covid topics were trending on their platform.
The government would then tell the companies to ban such speech on their platforms.
Not only did government actors hold a gun to the social media companies’ heads, they wanted to see (and even use) the very tools that allow these companies to know what their users were posting.
As we’ve learned from the “Twitter files,” government officials also repeatedly zeroed in on key “disinformation super-spreaders” and made sure they were banned and punished.
Victims/targets of these censorship efforts include high-profile Covid skeptic like Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch and Robert Kennedy, Jr., but they might as well have included Bill Rice, Jr, whose Facebook account has also been suspended (for no known or stated reason) multiple times.
Per the copious evidence in this legal brief, every time Meta banned someone or said some topic was now taboo, government officials were rarely placated, and demanded even more censorship. And, again, government officials kept demanding “transparency” to see that thy’s will was being done.
The irony of course is that the U.S. government is the least transparent entity on the face of the earth.
To be clear and to state what should be perfectly obvious by now, the multi-faceted censorship and “disinformation” programs (which pre-date Covid) were created and enforced to make sure no real government “transparency” is/was possible.
For our government officials, transparency is like sunlight or a silver crucifix to a vampire.
What will be the result of this lawsuit?
I actually don’t know what the plaintiffs are demanding except for the government to cease and desist with its efforts to compel censorship.
Speaking for myself, I’ve already seen enough evidence where this U.S. citizen won’t be mollified unless we have criminal prosecutions, the impeachment of President Biden and the censure of all the members of Congress who bullied these social media executives.
Also, the companies that went along with this need to be boycotted by every citizen that still cares about the First Amendment.
I’d also note that while Twitter has (largely) turned over a new leaf under the ownership of Elon Musk, the rest of the social media companies are censoring left and right just like they’ve been doing since “Joe Biden” was sworn into office. (This tells me these companies are betting on “Biden” prevailing in this lawsuit).
It’s not just Covid issues subject to mass censorship ….
For those who think the censorship regime only deals with Covid topics, I say you better think again … as this document also proves.
Plenty of sections of this document provide evidence showing that “disinformation” about Climate Change, election fraud and woke issues like “gender identification” will also continue to be subject to the whims of the government’s arbiters of truth.
For my part, I’m now convinced that what shouldn’t happen … will probably happen. This means, “Joe Biden” will probably win re-election and this case will probably be thrown out or the Supreme Court led by (captured?) John Roberts will ultimately side with the defendants.
If this happens, perhaps more Americans will belatedly understand the new legal precedent that has been set.
In the future, any speech that’s deemed “misinformation” by unelected bureaucrats (at say the CDC or EPA) can indeed be censored and banned.
It will be perfectly fine for presidents, Congressmen and surgeon generals to demand that social media companies censor unauthorized or “dangerous” speech. Furthermore, the government will be granted that “transparency” that tells them Meta or Google are following their orders.
Strangely, Substack wasn’t mentioned …
In reading this document, I was struck by the fact Substack (as far as we know) has yet to be targeted by the Censorship Czars.
My guess is that if this case is decided in favor of the defendants, this will no longer be the case. The “dangerous misinformation” I’ve been posting (and my readers in the Reader Comments) will suddenly be fair game for censorship as well.
Substack is replete with writers challenging the false Covid narratives, but this speech platform is also full of skeptics of Climate Change, writers who might not support the Ukraine War or central bank digital currencies … authors who think election fraud is real and correspondents who don’t like the “woke” transgender and pronoun malarky.
For the past 240 years, Americans thought the First Amendment gave them the “freedom” to share their views on controversial topics. If Biden and the U.S. government win this case, I suspect we’ll soon learn otherwise.
With Dissent Now Criminalized, Free Speech Faces a Big Chill
The Department of Justice in Washington on Jan. 14, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Americans’ right to think and speak freely has for years been under heavy assault.
The propagators of political correctness slowly but surely chipped away at open discourse, pressuring dissenters from prevailing ruling class orthodoxy to speak in euphemism and self-censor lest they be branded uncouth, if not bigoted.
Apparently not content with the results of this “soft power” campaign, illiberals in recent years resorted to more coercive methods to compel ideological conformity, or at minimum, submission.
Speech police entered the scene, deputized under something of a society-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) administrative state fixated on imposing “woke-ism,” and a mass public-private censorship regime that suppressed unauthorized opinions and their holders at scale.
Now, censorship and cancellation are giving way to criminalization.
The War on Wrongthink has escalated to the point that authorities are literally prosecuting Wrongthink—bludgeoning the First Amendment.
We would appear to be in for a big chill in the United States, and with incalculably terrible consequences.
Consider recent Rubicon-crossing events and the logical conclusions to which they lead us.
While President Donald Trump was being indicted in Manhattan, over in Brooklyn, “social media influencer” Douglass Mackey was being convicted over his posting of obviously satirical memes—facing a long stint in prison for literal thought crimes.
Mackey, who went by the name “Ricky Vaughn” on Twitter, a reference to Charlie Sheen’s character in the “Major League” series, jokingly tweeted out to followers days before the 2016 election that they could text their vote for Hillary Clinton to a fictitious number, with the hashtag #ImWithHer.
At least 4,900 people texted that number on or around Election Day. We don’t know how many of them were eligible voters, whether they were legitimately trying to vote, or whether they would have ever seen the offending tweet had the media not given it extensive coverage.
Regardless, the government cast the tweet, and a similar one that followed it, as parts of a dangerous disinformation campaign—as a fraud—though it didn’t charge Mackey accordingly. Instead, it convicted him of “Conspiracy Against Rights stemming from his scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”
He faces up to 10 years in prison under a law that punishes people who “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” others—that is, who engage in actual aggression against people—in ways that violate or threaten to violate their rights, not for sending facetious memes.
To think the tweets are criminal is anything but a laughing matter.
As former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy put it, the case was a “three-fer: the prosecutorial creation of a crime Congress has not prescribed, the trivialization of civil-rights law, and the intrusion of government as a monitor of political speech.”
Mackey, often characterized as a “white nationalist,” has reportedly said some appalling things. But even if he is the most detestable person on Earth, with the most indefensible of views, it’s no excuse for torturing the law to criminalize speech, imperiling the rights of everyone. Practically, of course, such punitive efforts always start with the least sympathetic figures and quickly move to anyone disfavored by those in power.
So today, you must think twice about even posting jokes on social media, at least should they touch on elections—this despite the fact that political speech is core to the First Amendment.
What about the state of the right to peaceably assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances—that is, to protest?
The government’s response to Jan. 6, whereby scores of individuals have been held for months or longer in pretrial detention in reportedly abhorrent conditions, slapped with felony charges never before leveled in an analogous situation, and generally pursued like domestic terrorists, has put an end to such expressions of dissent, at least if you’re on the right.
The muted response to former President Donald Trump’s call for supporters to protest in the wake of the announcement that he would be indicted in New York spoke volumes. The reply from many MAGA pundits and activists on social media was essentially this: “The case against Trump is a travesty, but why would I want to risk ending up in the gulag like the Capitol protesters?”
What’s more, many expressed concerns that federal authorities would be seeking to infiltrate protests and provoke participants into acting badly as a justification to engage in a further crackdown on conservatives.
The takeaway: Conservatives expect to be punished if they publicly oppose the authorities and would rather avoid that risk by keeping their mouths shut.
The same likely goes for those who would challenge their local school boards. As the House Weaponization Subcommittee has clearly demonstrated, the FBI targeted concerned parents, baselessly, as domestic terrorists. So be careful about questioning what your kids are being taught in school.
Pro-lifers, who face FBI raids and the wrath of the Biden Justice Department should they protest at abortion clinics, no matter how peacefully, no doubt feel the same chill.
What of the state of another core aspect of the First Amendment—the ability to freely exercise one’s religion?
Well, now we have learned that at least in the Richmond, Virginia, area, the FBI was targeting “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology.” The bureau’s field office, relying on at least one source, pursued local religious organizations as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.”
So be careful about where and how you worship too.
In short, our ruling class has eviscerated the First Amendment in pursuit of those who would dissent from that class’s orthodoxy. Consequently, Americans are going to speak less and less about an ever-growing list of highly subjective, contentious, and critical issues—including the most fundamental ones of church and state.
If you wanted to stifle any and all progress, choking off the marketplace of ideas would be precisely the place where you would start.
What could possibly go wrong?
As for the marketplace in leaders who might seek to remedy this situation, well, consider the sham Trump indictment, which lacks an underlying crime.
New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution marks the beginning of the culminating effort in the perpetual coup against Trump. It aims to lock him up, since Trump will not leave the political realm, demerits of the “case” against the former president be damned.
This perpetual coup, plus the legal, political, and personal attacks that myriad people in and around Trump have faced, no doubt serve as deterrents of their own for those who might otherwise consider entering the political fray to combat the tyranny at hand.
Will decent, intelligent, patriotic people be willing to risk it all in pursuit of what is right?
The fate of the republic hinges on such courage.
Ten Reasons Why Jewish Supremacists HATE Free Speech for Goyim(And Conscientious Jews Who Dare to Speak the Truth)
There was a time when Jews were associated with the defense of unfettered free speech, and in retrospect, many were fooled that those Jews stood on principle. As it turned out, Jews defended Free Speech from the onset of the Cold War to around the mid-80s(when they realized they had a near-total lock on higher institutions) because so many Jews were communists and radicals whose values and agendas were at odds with mainstream society. Also, Jews were seeking to legalize pornographic films to (1) rake in huge profits from goyim (2) commoditize white women into marketable meat and (3) undermine the tone and tenor of manners and norms that strengthened the moral fiber of goy communities.
Jews pushed pornographic films just like the Sackler Dynasty peddled opioids and other dubious drugs. Back then, as Jews lacked absolute control of the institutions — and because considerable authority & influence still remained with the Catholic Church, religious organizations, patriotic/conservative groups, family-centered communities, and the values of the older generations(still alive then) — , they felt they had no choice but to push for Total Freedom of Speech. Under the guise of Free Speech as a Constitutional principle, Jews could push their radical and/or tribal agendas and seek to legalize pornography(and also break down the barriers between pornography and mainstream culture).
Jews even had some of their own infiltrate or organize Neo-Nazi groups and stir up lots of noise. Then, the ACLU, in order to burnish its credentials as a champion of freedom, would provide token legal defense for such far-right groups. It created the impression that Jews are so idealistic that they will even go so far as to defend their arch-enemies, the Nazis. In the video below, we see the last time the ACLU stood for unfettered free speech for all. It is now totally with the PC witch-hunters.
The truth has been out of the bag for some time, especially with the rise of Political Correctness and then its even more cancerous variant ‘wokeness’. Jewish passion for Free Speech essentially turned out to be a ruse. There were surely principled Jews on the matter but were shoved aside in time by powered-Jews with the money and muscle.
The main reason why Jews once feigned concern for Free Speech was to push their radical, tribal, and pornographic agendas. But once they gained dominant power, they had NO INTENTION of defending free speech for all.
Incidentally, a key reason as to why the period from the late 60s to the mid 80s was the Golden Era of Free Speech owed to everything being in a state of flux or limbo. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals had total lock on morality, values, institutions, and message. The 60s and even the 70s were a time of both Abbie Hoffman and John Wayne. Traditional forces were waning but far from finished, and Jews were on the rise but not totally dominant.
And the Boomer generation, which staked its reputation on rebellion against the Man, flattered itself as the agent for greater freedom(or ‘liberation’). Yet, its self-image as the progressive & radical generation increasingly led it toward Political Correctness. In ALL IN THE FAMILY, both Archie and Meathead are for and against Free Speech in their own way. Archie is more open to crude speech about different racial, national, and religious groups, but he will defend suppression of anti-American radical speech. Meathead is, at least in principle, for Free Speech, but his holier-than-thou attitude presages the rise of Political Correctness. If his ilk had to choose between right of free speech and righteous outrage, they’ll opt for the latter.
Anyway, here we are in the 21st century, and Jews have a total lock on just about all institutions and industries that matter. They control elite academia(that sets the template for rest of schooling, from state colleges to kindergarten). They control big media(which are essentially the propaganda wing of the Deep State that is also controlled by Jews). They control top law firms and courts that decide who will be prosecuted and who will be let off. (Ever notice how the Power treats Antifa and Proud Boys differently? If Antifa attacks and the Proud Boys fight back, the latter is prosecuted. It’s like how the Israeli Justice System favors Zionist invaders in West Bank over displaced and brutalized Palestinians. Jews see whites as White Palestinians.) Jews control Wall Street and play caesar on who gets financing and who doesn’t. Jews control all the big social platforms either by direct ownership or through their proxy organizations such as SPLC and ADL that monitor as to who should be booted off the platforms. And there is an annual Nuremberg-like Rally in the US called the AIPAC Conference where goy-whore-politicians gather to pledge everlasting loyalty to Israel as the 10,000 year Reich of the Jews.
Now, one might think that Jews would be more easy-going with their immense power. If indeed Jews were for Free Speech when they had considerably less power in the 50s and 60s, wouldn’t they now be for more free speech as they’re safe and secure as the dominant elites with so much money and power?
Evidently not. If anything, becoming the New Ruling Elites of the US(and by extension the World) has paradoxically made Jews even more paranoid and hysterical. Jews are now spoiled, entitled, gluttonous, and intoxicated with power. They no longer worry about discrimination or pogroms, let alone survival. They no longer worry about country clubs and whom they can marry. They are now addicted to supremacist power and unconditional adulation by goyim. They demand to be worshiped as demigods. It must be filet mignon and champagne at every meal. Anything less is an insult to their ego and pride. Today, ‘antisemitism’ means denying Jews their supremacist privilege as an eternal right. Then, it’s hardly surprising that Jews today seem more nervous, anxious, and deranged than ever. They must have everything.
That said, however, Jews aren’t entirely irrational to feel they way they do. Anglo-American elites(aka WASPs) who were once the ruling elites rested on their laurels, felt secure in their power, and got to behave magnanimously. So, what became of them? They grew anemic and weak, were ruthlessly deposed, decapitated, and castrated by resentful Jewish upstarts, much like how the trusting Trojans were destroyed by the Greeks who emerged from the Wooden Horse. The rule of history is that the ruling class must never take its power for granted, especially in a diverse nation with many contending tribes. Anglo-America became totally soul-enslaved, thought-enslaved, and money-enslaved by the Jews.
Granted, only Jews could have pulled off such a feat because they had the combination of high IQ, strong personality, intense tribalism, resentment & vengefulness(toward Christian Society), and the clever ploy of ‘Holocaust Guilt’ to use as moral shield against criticism of Jewish Power.
Jews make a big fuss about how the US went from ‘white supremacism’ to a land of ‘diversity and equality’, but, in the upper echelons of power, the US historically had only two elites: the WASPs and the Bugs(Busy-Urban-Globalist-Semites). At the top, the power went from Anglo-Germanic elites(and WASP-ized Catholic Irish) to the Jewish elites, and most of Diversity has merely been a political weapon(when not window-dressing) used by Jews against White Power. Jews are UNWILLING to share power with Diversity. Diversity is merely their cudgel or attack dog. Just look how Jews and their goy-cuck-dogs responded to Ilhan Omar and non-white critics of Israel who support the BDS Movement.
Because Jews are so powerful, they fear becoming the focus of goy ire and resentment because, after all, nothing is more natural than for the masses to blame the ruling class for most of the macro-problems. (When WASPs were at the top, Jews made common cause with various groups, including the white ethnics and Catholics, to blame and excoriate the Anglo-American elites for EVERYTHING.)
Jewish elites especially feel nervous and paranoid because Jews don’t have the numbers. Jews are merely 2% of the US population. At the very least, Anglo-Germanic-Celtic-American elites had vast representation and support among white gentiles. (And even non-Anglo-Germanic-Celtic white Americans became effectively Anglo-Americanized in due time. Polish-Americans and others joined with White Christian/Gentile America.)
In contrast, Jewish elites feel like the British overlords in Asia, Africa, and the Near East. They have the ruling power but not the numbers to back them up. When nationalist passions began to stir in British colonies, the British ruling class was effectively doomed, the most famous case being India’s independence from the Empire in 1948. Soon thereafter, the natives in other British colonies also clamored for independence and liberation, and the British were expelled from most of their colonies(like Jews had historically been expelled from so many regions, though, granted, the British weren’t as hated by the locals as the Jews were through the ages. Indeed, once British imperialism ended, the locals were happy to have the British return as tourists and businessmen. And many longed to move to Great Britain.)
The rise of Jewish power has been spectacular, but the fall could be likewise, which is precisely what Jews fear most. While Jews have avoided the WASP mistake of resting on one’s laurels, they’ve been too heavy with the whip, another cause for the fall of empires. The whipped may obey but also come to hate, especially as they’re condemned for ‘hatred’ against the whipper.
Jews hold the whip but like a lion-tamer surrounded by big predators whose true nature have been suppressed. If many people come to realize that Jewish Supremacist elites rule America and, furthermore, tend to be exploitative, parasitic, venal, and mendacious than decent, kind, generous, and magnanimous, the tide could turn. White Americans who’ve come to regard Jews as wise and tragic Holy Holocaust people can come to see them as a bunch of a**holes. This is why Jews seek to increase Goy Diversity so as to play various groups against one another.
The great irony is that, despite the Jewish use of Diversity against whites, whites are still the most pro-Jewish group in the US while many members of Diversity aren’t so keen on Jews or even hate them. Also, because many nonwhites are recent arrivals, they’ve been less acculturated to the American neo-religion of Jew-Worship.
Furthermore, nonwhites are encouraged by Jewish elites to hate white people as ‘racist oppressors’, but nonwhites can’t always distinguish Jews from whites. In many cases, they notice that Jews are the richest and most powerful whites, not least because so many whites & Christians sing endless hosannas to Israel.
Also, even as Jews dump on Donald Trump, he always seems most eager to win their approval. Jews tell Diversity to hate the GOP, but the GOP says it loves Jews and Israel more than the Democrats do. If GOP is the party of ‘racist whites’, and if those evil whites love Israel so much(more than even America), where do Jews fit into all this?
Anyway, Jews now have near-total power, and that is why they fear Free Speech. Free Speech means the freedom of the powerless to have their say, and it has been greatly amplified by the power of the internet, especially the rise of social media and video platforms.
So, even though Jews still control the commanding heights, their agenda can be upended by ‘nobodies’ and ‘losers’ with a video-camera and microphone. Take someone like Pewdiepie who started out as a nothing, a nobody. Prior to the internet age, he would have been some eccentric kid on the block. But he began to develop a following, and his videos are now seen by tens of millions of people.
Mark Dice, Paul Joseph Watson, Sargon of Akkad, Styxhexenhammer666, Ramzpaul, Black Pigeon Speaks, Jared Taylor, Roosh, Stefan Molyneux, J.F. Gariepy, Ryan Dawson, Vincent James, Nick Fuentes, Steve Turley, and etc. are individuals without institutional power, but their messages sometimes reach a larger audience than well-funded enterprises and organizations do. So, someone with a compelling message and a webcam can be more effective as a conveyer of ideas and messages than the well-paid talking heads of MSM who, if only to keep their paychecks, toe the Party Line. Because individuals are not doing it for money(or for far less than MSM talking heads are), they are freer to say what’s on their minds. They cannot be fired.
And this is why Jewish Power has decided to DEPLATFORM such individuals by using the most Kafkaesque means. When Franz Kafka wrote THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE, he surely didn’t mean them to be used as manuals of power(or maybe his Jewish subconscious did), but that’s what they became in the hands of Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and etc. These oligarchies always begin by claiming to ban ‘extremist hate speech’ such as praise for Hitler and denial of Shoah, but then the rules get murkier and murkier to the point where even Faith Goldy is de-personed because she thinks mass-immigration-invasion will destroy the Canada that she holds dear. In many cases, the oligarchies either give unclear reason as to WHY someone was denied service or offer the most ludicrous highfalutin explanation, like when Sargon was kicked off Patreon.
Some say the current censorship is ‘anti-conservative’, and even though it’s true that those on the ‘right’ suffer more, it also depends on the interests of ethno-centrism. BDS is usually associated with the Left, but it’s been hammered by Jewish power, while Israel, ruled by a ‘far-right’ regime, is favored by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and etc. It doesn’t matter what kinds of crimes Israel commits against Palestinians or Arab/Muslim neighbors. The fact is the so-called ‘leftist’ big-shots at Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and etc. closely collude with ‘right-wing’ Israel. Why?
Because it’s Jews working with Jews. Unlike stupid whites who put ideology before identity, Jews are smart enough to know that identity is more important than ideology in the game of power. Rachel Maddow is said to be a ‘progressive’, but she is a warmongering bitch who serves the Deep State that does the bidding of ultra-right Zionists. Meanwhile, she has denounced left-wing regimes, such as that in Venezuela. Among Judeo-centrists, ‘left’ vs ‘right’ dichotomy is merely a diversion. What matters most to Jews is ‘us’ vs ‘them’.
If Jews use Diversity against whites to advantage Jewish power, then whites must grow a pair and use Diversity against Jews in kind. Fight fire with fire. Sadly, however, even as the Jews command the Diversity Hound to bite whitey, the whitey defends Jews from the Diversity Hound(that is ordered by Jews to bite whitey). The current White Strategy is the most retarded in human history. Imagine someone beating you with a stick and you trying to defend him from that very stick he’s beating you with. It’s no wonder Jews feel such contempt for white goy cucks.
In essence, Jews now fear Free Speech because it speaks truth to Jewish Power, which happens to be in supremacist, hegemonic, and even genocidal mode: Wars for Zion(in the Middle East and Ukraine) and White Nakba(or reduction of whites into reviled & dehumanized minorities in nations of their origins or founding).
Because few people will support the suppression of Free Speech as a means of criticism of the Powers-that-be, Jews have associated Free Speech with ‘hate’, ‘extremism’, ‘Holocaust Denial’, and ‘white supremacism’. Of course, there are those who misuse Free Speech to spew nonsensical bigotry, demented ideas, and crazy notions(like some of the more outlandish theories about 9/11 and the Moon landing). And some like Alex Jones made their reputations through sensationalism.
But, denunciation of hatred, contempt, and extremism is rich coming from Jews who control the music industry and fill the airwaves & TV screens with ugly rap, demeaning lyrics, and skanky idolatry. It’s rich coming from Jews who control Hollywood and made so many movies about subhuman ‘rednecks’ and psychotic Muslims(nearly all of whom being terrorists). It’s rich coming from Jews who control MSM and have promoted endless hate propaganda against Russians, Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Venezuelans, Chinese, and etc.
According to some Neocon Zionists, the US should brace for World War III, IV, V, and etc. because it’s the destiny of the ‘indispensable’ and ‘exceptional’ America to remain the lone superpower forever(especially in service to its Jewish Overlords). A Jewess like Madeleine Albright could say it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children and still be honored by the Establishment. (But if the US were to place sanctions on Israel for its illegal Occupation of the West Bank and 100 Jewish kids died as a result, there would be outrage about Another Holocaust.)
Jewish Power uses extortion rackets like SPLC and ADL(in collusion with the Jewish-run Media and platforms) to create the impression that Evil People are using Free Speech to spread ‘hate’, ‘extremism’, and etc. By emphasizing the antics of a handful of self-professed Neo-Nazis and KKK(often feds or agent provocateurs), the Jewish-run media create the impression that the US is on the verge of a ‘fascist’ takeover led by ‘white supremacist’ Donald Trump(while overlooking the fact that Trump’s sole supremacism has been about Zionism Uber Alles and ‘Muh Holocaust’).
The very Jews who spread the rancid paranoid hysteria over Russia Collusion and, before that, the lies about WMD(to ignite the Iraq War) are lecturing to us about hatred. And notice that the term ‘White Supremacism’ doesn’t apply only to Neo-Nazis or some such ilk. Jews insist that, due to the history of White Supremacism, any sign of white identity, interests, or sovereignty is ‘white supremacist’. Never mind that European Imperialism was often financed by Jewish bankers such as the Rothchilds. If white imperialism was supremacist, then Jewish role in it was also supremacist. Besides, Jews played a huge role in the slave trade in the New World. And Jews were the main sellers of opium to the Chinese. And Jews funded the arms industry that led to various wars killing millions. And of course, Jews occupied key roles in communism that destroyed millions of more lives.
Now, it’s true that many European Jews got burned in World War II, but then, people who play with fire get seriously hurt. Why did so many innocent Germans, Russians, and Japanese also perish in the war? Because their elites all played with fire. Though Adolf Hitler was one of the main driver of events, would the National Socialists have come to power if Jews hadn’t played significant roles in communism(and its killing of millions before WWII) and Weimar degeneracy & depression that alienated and angered so many Germans?
So, Jews weren’t merely innocent victims of World War II. Many innocent Jewish civilians perished, but the Germans were driven to follow a mad man because their nation was, to a large extent, wrecked by a mad people, the Jews. Jewish behavior in Russia of the 90s offers a clue as to how Jews operate in times of crisis. Instead of trying to fix the problem and put things to right, their main priority is to exploit the crisis to grab as much loot as possible for themselves.
While it’s true that many innocent Germans and Japanese(women and children especially) perished in World War II, it’s a fact that their leadership led them down dangerous paths. It’s a sad fact of history that when the elites go bad, the people suffer, indeed often more than the elites do. While some German and Japanese elites were hanged after war crime trials, the far bigger victims were German and Japanese civilians who were firebombed and burned alive.
And in the Middle East Wars, the rotten US elites haven’t suffered one bit while tens of thousands of American soldiers(mostly white men) have been either killed or crippled for life(with many choosing to take their own lives). Similarly, many innocent and decent Jews perished in World War II because too many Jewish elites were the scum of the earth.
Now, are the people entirely innocent? For sure, the German and Japanese peoples supported their mad regimes. And too often, the Jewish masses stood by their elites. We see this everyday in the US and EU. Most Jews side with scum like George Soros. They cheer on the Wars for Israel and call for White Replacement, or White Nakba. They support ADL and SPLC that spew anti-white hatred.
In that sense, even ‘innocent’ Jews aren’t entirely innocent, just like all those Germans who either supported Hitler or failed to resist were partly culpable for what happened. And for that reason, the fate of Jews in World War II has to be seen within the larger context of grim history where, too often, the people perished along with the elites(or perished while the elites got off relatively unscathed by collaborating with the victors). Elites face the music ONLY IF they lose the privilege, something that can be retained even in defeat.
Josef Stalin also played a key role in the events that led to World War II. He allied with Hitler in the destruction of Poland and was willing to provide war material to Germany as long as the war was on the Western front. But as he was ultimately victorious, he never had to face justice, and it was the Soviet peoples who suffered mightily as the result of his playing with fire with political pyromaniac Hitler.
Whenever Jews kvetch about ‘white supremacism’, whites need to mention the countless examples of Jews having participated in it, financing it, profiteering off it, and aiding & abetting it in myriad ways to squeeze out advantages for themselves. Take the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians. Massive Immigration-invasion by Europeans(and Jews) led to the destruction of native Indian communities & cultures across America. Jews totally took part in it. Jewish merchants sold guns to white cowboys to kill Indians with. And in the American South, Jews handled the money of the slave trade and slave plantations. And Jews disproportionately owned more slaves than the whites did. Jews played an even bigger role in the Brazilian slavery, the biggest slave enterprise by far in the New World. There was Jewish banking money behind British, French, and German imperialism.
So, modern Jewish history is inseparable from ‘white supremacist’ history. Also, the main vehicle of ‘white supremacism’ was Western Imperialism(partially but substantially funded by Jews), and the biggest threat to ‘white supremacist’ imperialism was the rising nationalism of nonwhites who resisted. Much of modern history can be understood in terms of supremacism-via-imperialism and sovereignty-via-nationalism.
Now, have Jews been more for imperialism or nationalism? Jews have usually sided with the imperialists because their financial ambitions have been worldwide. In order to penetrate and profiteer from various markets, Jews needed to weaken the national sovereignties of peoples around the world and support imperialism as the means of hegemony. So, Jewish history has been very much linked with ‘white supremacy’.
Furthermore, Jewish immigration patterns have always followed in the footsteps of ‘white supremacists’. So, if whites conquered and gained mastery over non-white peoples, Jews weren’t far behind to profit off the opportunity created by ‘white supremacists’. Look at the Jewish monopoly of diamond mines and markets in South Africa. Indeed, where would Jewish Power be without the ‘white supremacist’ horse to ride on? If not for white imperialism and its conquest of the New World, Africa, Asia, and Middle East, Jews could not have made their vast fortunes. The Sassoon family that made a killing by selling opium to the Chinese rode on the horse of British ‘white supremacist’ imperialism. And how was the Zionist Project realized? Jewish bankers bribed British Imperialists to declare Palestine as a future Jewish state. And then, Jews pulled the strings in the UK, Germany, USSR, and the US to get their way with Palestinians who were eventually expelled from their homeland in the tragic Nakba pogroms that were clearly Jewish-supremacist-and-imperialist. So, whenever Jews bitch about ‘white supremacism’, they need to be told to shut the f*** up because Jews have been the biggest leeches of ‘white supremacism’.
But Jewish Supremacists, lacking a sense of honor or principles, try to have the cake and eat it too. Jews followed the white conquests & discoveries(at the expense of nonwhites) and took advantage of opportunities to enrich themselves(often far more than what whites got) but also excoriated white people for their ‘historical sins’ of mistreating nonwhites. Imagine that. Jews funded and followed the white conquests and filled up their bellies and sacks, BUT they act like they are moral saints with some God-given right to pass judgment on others. The nerves. The chutzpah.
Suppose you go hunting for a moose. And the Jew trails you and lends a hand at times. And when you bring down the moose, the Jew joins you in gorging on its meat. But then, the Jew demands most of the kill and on what grounds? He begins to berate you as a heartless hunter and ‘human supremacist’ killer of the poor noble moose. Therefore, you deserve NOTHING more of the moose, all of which is to be claimed by the Jew. That is how dirty and vile Jewish Supremacists play the game of history. Jews grab-and-take with bottomless greed but then pontificate from the highest perch. They act like Harvey Weinstein but sermonize like they’re Moses or something. They play prophets-for-profits.
If you want money, take it up the arse from Uncle Samowicz
What Jews fear most is not ‘white supremacism’ because, deep down inside, they know very well that most whites aren’t into supremacism or imperialism. Most whites believe the Age of Empire is long over, and their only wish is a modicum of peace and prosperity in their own nations. When the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and other empires fell, most Europeans went back home. And after the Cold War, the understanding was that Russians, Americans, and the rest of the world would mind their own business, and stability would prevail around the world. But then, guess which people most hated the future vision of sovereign nations(except for Israel of course). Jews hated it because most nations are majority gentile. If every gentile nation were independent and sovereign, it’d be difficult for Jews to penetrate and take over.
Therefore, Jews pushed the neo-imperialism of globalism that would kill two birds with one stone. Its agenda was to render the non-white world(and Russia) open to military invasion, financial takeover, and/or cultural imperialism of the US. In turn, all the West would be open to Third World mass-invasions.
And, Jews would use homo-collaborators around the world as their agents. With control of the US, Jews would use American Power to pressure the rest of the world to put out to Uncle Samowicz.
And, lest White Americans grow discontent with playing toady-dogs to Jewish Power and stand up to say NO MORE to Jewish supremacism, Jews figured on increasing Goy Diversity so that diverse goyim would be at each other’s throats than uniting to take on Jewish supremacist power. Meanwhile, Jews could gradually recruit nonwhites to fill white shoes.
But for the time being, Jews need white gentile collaboration with Jewish supremacist power because Jews cannot do the grunt work to keep the empire going. Just like the British Imperialists in India needed local elite collaborators to run much of the system, Jews in the West rely mainly on white goy managers, supervisors, engineers, commanders, commissars, enforcers, and etc. to carry much of the weight.
And the most effective way for Jews to ensure White Obeisance to Jewish Supremacism is by brainwashing whites into believing that white identity, white pride, white heritage, white consciousness, white interests, and etc. are all synonymous with ‘white supremacism’. No wonder then even “It’s Okay to be White” = Evil White Supremacy.
In truth, however, Jews are really defending their own supremacism by keeping whites in submissive mode. When Jews holler ‘white supremacism’, it’s really akin to a Southern Slave-owner denouncing a black slave who wants to be free as an ‘uppity crazy nigger’. How dare a ‘nigger’ want to be free when it’s his role in life to keep his head bowed low and serve his master, without whom he is nothing? Likewise, Jews feel, “How dare white gentiles seek emancipation, independence, autonomy, and separation from us Jews? Don’t those subhuman goy lowlifes know that they exist to SERVE us, OBEY us, KILL for us, DIE for us, SING for us, GROVEL to us, and put out to us?” The fact that Facebook Jews decided to ban ‘white nationalism’ and ‘white separatism’ as synonymous with ‘white supremacism’ makes it plain as day what is really happening. The Jewish moral argument is total BS. White Nationalists, White Separatists, White Identitarians, and etc. are not associated with white supremacism of the Neo-Nazi or KKK school. Rather, they just want to live in a world of their own and leave other peoples alone.
So, what is the problem then? The problem is such people will not support the Jewish supremacist-imperialist Wars for Israel. They won’t support the ‘new cold war’ or any direct hot war with Russia. They will not necessarily favor Zionists over Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians. And being conscious of their white identity, they will be sufficiently proud and independent to refuse to bow down before Jews like pathetic dogs and play fetch. And as they want a world of their own, they will say NO to mass-immigration-invasion. But if the Diversity agenda is stopped cold, it’ll be more difficult for Jews to play divide-and-rule among goyim to maintain their own supremacist power over a fragmented populace.
Subscribe to New Columns
So, the Jewish War on Free Speech is not about combating White Supremacism. That’s just a cover, a ruse. It’s really about safeguarding the currently dominant Jewish Supremacism by shutting down the True Speech of those who dare to speak truth to Power, which is now overwhelmingly Jewish and Globalist. Jews use their vast networks to create the illusion that most of Free Speech among ‘white nationalists’ is about praising Hitler and celebrating the Holocaust, but this BS is Hollywood-Reality.
In truth, what Jews are freaking out about is that the so-called ‘white nationalism’ is really about White National Liberation from Jewish supremacist globo-homo imperialism. It’s about the possibility of a mass white exodus from Jewish globalist hegemony that has spread homo-tranny degeneracy, Afro-thuggery, interracist propaganda, pornification of culture,, child-corrupting degeneracy, Wars for Israel & deaths of countless Arabs/Muslims, Hate Propaganda against Russia & Iran, and financial robbery via Wall Street. Just like commanders in war are nothing if the soldiers opt for mass desertion, Jewish supremacist power is nothing if goyim, especially whites, say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and refuse to serve as the pawns of venal Jews who look upon goyim as so much cannon fodder.
Indeed, isn’t it weird how Jews do so much to defame, degrade, and denounce whites but then demand that whites stick with Jews and do their bidding? If Jews hate white people so much, why did Jewish immigration always chase after whites? Why didn’t Jews leave Europe long ago? And why didn’t Jews emigrate to Africa, Asia, or any part of the world without whites?
Even today, who is forcing Jews to live in white nations? If Jews love immigration and nonwhites, they can have BOTH by mass-migrating from white lands to non-white ones.
But these very Jews who endlessly insult and berate whites as the worst scum of the earth are always calling on whites to support Jews and bail them out. Imagine someone who spits in your face and whips you night & day but then demands that you work for him and defend him. If he hates you so much, why does he so obsessively cling to you? Why doesn’t he go his own way so that you can go your own way?
Of course, he uses threat and violence against you to keep you as his servant and dog. Just like a rider or stage-coach driver must constantly remind the horse that it exists to serve humans, Jews must constantly use verbal whips and legal harnesses to keep whites in line.
Whites are soul-slaves to Jews like blacks were body-slaves in the South. It was precisely because southern plantations depended on slave labor that blacks had to be kept in line to obey, pick cotton, and carry bales on their backs. If blacks weren’t made to feel inferior to whites, they might say, “Why we be doing dis shit for dat honkey-ass mofo who done call us ‘nigger’?” Whites had to psychologically exploit black inferiority along with threats of physical punishment to keep blacks in line. The white narrative said, “Because of the history of black ugabuga jungle savagery, blacks must understand that they need to undergo the purgatory of slavery to be shaped into hard-working, law-abiding, and constructive individuals who may one day be worthy of civilization.” Whites exploited the element of Black Shame to control blacks.
Today, Jews are the massuhs of globalism, and they use ‘White Guilt’ to control whites. The Jewish Narrative says, “Because whites committed so many historical ‘sins’ with genocide and slavery and racism and etc., they must reject their white identity and work for the good of all humanity, namely by serving the agenda of us Jewish Master Racists.” Jews tell whites to drop white identity for all-humanity but then to serve Jews uber alles. Bait and Switch. Jews make whites surrender ‘white supremacism’ for equality, only to steer the deracinated whites into serving Jewish supremacism.
Notice how devious and clever these Jewish Supremacists are. Jews always talk of ‘white supremacism’ as something separate from Jewish history. Jews do this by invoking the Shoah as a case of Jewish victim-hood at the hands of white ‘racist anti-Semites’. Jews also remind the world of Jewish persecution at the hands of the White Christian West. Jews don’t mention that they played a huge role in the white slave trade in the Middle Ages. Jews don’t mention that they collaborated with Moorish and Turkish invaders into Europe. Jews don’t mention that they worked for European noblemen to exploit the peasantry. Jews don’t mention the fact that they lent huge sums to European monarchs and governments to wage wars and conquer entire parts of the world. Jewish money played a very significant role in European Imperialism. Jewish historiography is totally selective and dishonest and completely lacking in honor. Lacking a martial culture and having developed under a merchant culture, Jews are hagglers and hustlers than men who would put their lives and reputations on the line.
Anyway, what are the 10 Reasons why Jews HATE Free Speech? Let us count the ways.
1. Jews hate Free Speech because We might call for NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL. Notice how Jews hate Tulsi Gabbard who denounced the US role in Syria. Free Speech allows us to decry how Jews have been using the US military as the hammer of Jewish globalist hegemony. Jews make up less than 0.3% of the US military but make up more than 50% of the decision makers. And even most non-Jewish politicians take their cues from Jewish donors. So, all these Wars in the Middle East have been Wars for Israel that Jews want but we don’t want. Free Speech means we can freely notice Jewish Power and call out on its abuses. We can say NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL and no more human sacrifice of goyim as cannon fodder to serve the tribalist supremacism of Jews.
2. Jews hate Free Speech because We might denounce Israel’s use of IDF death squads to mow down Palestinian women and children who want to return to their homeland, from which their ancestors were expelled in the Nakba Pogroms. The US is supposed to have a Free Media that conveys the truth, but we don’t hear much truth from the (((media))) on the matter of Palestinians. So, IDF death squads get to commit more acts of cold-blooded murder and get away with it.
3. Jews hate Free Speech because We might speak the truth about the Jewish ethno-monopoly of the media. Most of the Mass Media is owned and/or controlled by Jews. Fox News is goy-owned, but many of its top executives are Jewish, and it’s been said it is even more pro-Zionist than Jewish-owned outlets. The idea of Free Media is just that: An idea than reality. How can we have a truly Free Media when most of MSM are controlled by a handful of oligarchs, almost all of them Jewish who hire and fire people depending on how obeisant they are to Israel, Jewish Power, globo-homo propaganda, Negrolatry, and other agendas favored by Jewish supremacist elites.
4. Jews hate Free Speech because We might speak the truth about black crime. Why do Jews cover up black crime and violence? It’s because Jews use ‘white guilt’ as a form of mind-control over whites. According to the Jewish-run media, blacks are either awesomely cool or tragically noble(or both), and whites must atone for their grave sins against such a wonderful & superb race. ‘White guilt’ about blacks is effective ONLY IF whites continue to see blacks as super-cool and/or saintly. In fact, as Colin Flaherty tirelessly documented, blacks are the most violent, thuggish, demented, aggressive, arrogant, and destructive people in the US. They commit the most crime, and most non-black races have most to fear from black criminals, thugs, or bullies. Black cool is a media illusion, and black nobility is a fraud. Sure, blacks were victimized in the past, and there is a very real tragic dimension to their history in America. But it’s also true that evolution made blacks tougher, more aggressive, and more pathological. As such, they are the main predators and lunatics in American streets and schools. Jews seek to suppress free speech and true speech about blacks because they want to keep the torch of ‘white guilt’ going.
5. Jews hate Free Speech because We might call for the commemoration of Nakba Pogroms of 1948 that ethno-expelled 700,000 Palestinians from their homeland. 2018 was the 70th anniversary of Nakba, but notice that the Jewish-dominated US media totally ignored it. And when IDF death squads mowed down Palestinians who marched to the border for re-entry into their lost homeland, not a single American politician spoke up for the dead women and children. This is why Jews hate Free Speech. With true Free Speech, we can call upon all the good people to remember and commemorate Nakba.
6. Jews hate Free Speech because We might challenge bogus historical narratives and say that Leo Frank was guilty of the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, a victim 1000x more tragic than Emmett Till the thug. Jewish Power has duped us with Fake History that has portrayed Leo Frank as an innocent Jew set upon by an ‘Anti-Semitic’ lynch mob when it was the furthest thing from the truth. If anything was ‘Anti-Semitic'(or antisemitism-confirming), it was the behavior of the Northern Jewish Community that pulled every dirty trick in the book to clear Leo Frank of a crime he most likely committed. Jews bitch about ‘Anti-Semitic tropes’ nowadays, but if anything perpetuates ‘Anti-Semitic stereotypes’, it is Jewish behavior that is so often without honor & principles and will resort to any means, no matter how foul and filthy, to get its way.
7. Jews hate Free Speech because We might speak about how Jews took advantage of post-communist Russia in the 1990s to economically loot the nation for the boundless aggrandizement of Jewish greed. Indeed, what Jews did to Russia of the 1990s hints as to what Jews did to Germany in the Weimar Period. When Jews see a crisis, they see an opportunity. As Jews hold goyim in contempt, they don’t use the crisis for the good of all people but to fill their pockets and secure yet more advantages for themselves. They pull yet another round of the Shylock Doctrine.
Because Jews own the Western Media, most people are still in the dark as to Jewish perfidy in Russia of the 90s and why Russians supported the semi-autocratic nationalist rule by Vladimir Putin who, by hook and by crook, wrested some of the power from the Jewish oligarchs who nearly came to own all of Russia and run it into the ground. Amy Chua discussed the problem in her book WORLD ON FIRE, but she’s been tamed since then into a hapless yellow dog who rolls over to Jewish Power.
8. Jews hate Free Speech because We might condemn Jewish organized crime and Israel as the biggest white slavers of the 21st century. Jewish gangsters have long been involved in prostitution and drugs, but Jews took this to new heights after the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. As Jews regarded these goy women as ‘shikses’(Yiddish for ‘filthy gentile whore scum animals’), the women were nothing but pieces of meat on the sex market. As there were so many poor and desperate women in Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, Jews turned many of them into prostitutes. But even worse, many of these women were enticed to Israel for work whereupon they were forced into sexual slavery and beatings. Of course, Hollywood movies like TAKEN would have us believe that Muslims and Eastern European gentiles are behind the abduction and slavery of white women, but the fact is Jews dominated the business. With Free Speech, we can speak this truth, and it’s why Jews hate Free Speech as the weapon of truth. Truth will undermine Jewish perfidy and rottenness.
9. Jews hate Free Speech because We might discuss the Jewish role in communism. While many Jewish communists were sincere and courageous in their commitment to change and progress, the radical socialist ideology as a cure turned out to be worse than the disease. Also, too many Jewish Bolsheviks, flush with power and privilege, just couldn’t control their lust for ruthless terror. Jewish communists especially targeted Russian Orthodox Christians and Ukrainian peasantry that had a tradition of defiance and independence. Jewish Bolsheviks played a key role in the smashing of 50,000 Churches in Russia and Ukraine. Also, they played a significant role in what is called the Holodomor in Ukraine where it’s been estimated that 3 to 4 million people perished due to man-made famines. While Jews were not the only people responsible for the excesses of communist horror, they played a leading role. But as Jewish Supremacists control the Narrative via media and academia, we’ve been led to believe that Jews were the most tragic victims of Stalinism and Soviet tyranny, which is total baloney. While many Jews did face persecution under Stalinism and what came later, they were devoured by the very monster that they helped to create.
10. Jews hate Free Speech because We might discuss the Jewish role in the opioid crisis that, from 1997 to 2017, killed 400,000 people, the vast majority of them of the white working class. Jews in NY eventually came to denounce the Sacklers, but it was like a deja vu of the faux Jewish outrage over Bernie Madoff. NY Jews were trying to signal that THEY had NOTHING to do with the loathsome Sacklers who, like the Jewish Sassoon Dynasty that monopolized the opium trade in China, knowingly peddled horribly addictive drugs to unsuspecting white Americans. NY Jews most likely knew all along what was going on.
After all, NY is Wall Street, the financial capital of the world through which Jewish oligarchs have been raping and plundering the world. Much of the wealth in NY is ill-gotten. Consider how Wall Street made off like bandits during the housing bubble. When their dirty schemes crashed and they were faced with bankruptcy, they used their puppets in governments to bail them out, and then these Jews had another round of super-profiteering while the rest of the nation was stuck in near-zero growth. Just like Madeline Albright said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children for the sake of Israel, Sacklers obviously thought it was worth it to kill 400,000 goyim(and many more as they were in the business before 1999) to rake in more billions for the Jews. Jews covered up for Bernie Madoff when he was a cash cow for them and then dumped him only when he was no longer useful. And of course, the Jewish-run media spun the narrative that Madoff stole mostly from Jews when, in fact, he mostly stole from goyim to enrich Jews. His Jewish clientele lost out only in the end.
There are many more reasons why Jews hate Free Speech, and we may cover them in the future. But the important thing is to remind ourselves that when Jews say they only want to remove ‘hate’ from Free Speech, DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT.
If anything, Jews aren’t fearful of Neo-Nazi or KKK crazy speech because such gives the impression that there are indeed lots of extremist people out there just itching to start World War III and the Holocaust. Deep down inside, Jews know that Neo-Nazis and KKK hardly exist, and that is why Jews fund groups like SPLC to operate like Hollywood in conjuring scary stories about Nazi or KKK under every bed or around every corner.
And of course, Jews push all these Hate Hoaxes that are meant to defame whites as vandals of Jewish graves and black churches when, if anything, the majority of the much publicized ‘hate crimes’ were actually carried out by blacks and Jews.
The real reason why Jews seek to suppress Free Speech is no different from why the Cuban or North Korean government does. People speaking freely is a challenge to the supreme power of the ruling elites. The leaders of Cuba and North Korea want to seem infallible, and Jewish Power is no different. Jews endlessly invoke the term ‘Anti-Semitic’ to defame and discredit ANY criticism of Jewish Power. Jews respond to criticism like Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984. Just like Winston Smith must love Big Brother, we must love Big Jew. If we suspect any evidence of dominant Jewish power, it must be ‘Anti-Semitic’ on our part… that is unless one agrees with Joe Biden that just about everything that Jews do, such as pushing ‘gay marriage’ and white replacement, is ALL FOR THE GOOD.
So, there’s your only choice. You must pretend Jews aren’t particularly rich and powerful, OR if you do notice Jewish wealth and power, you must blather on and on about how power and wealth in the hands of Jews can ONLY DO GOOD and NEVER DO BAD. And of course, if Jews make a big mess of something, just find a ‘scapegoy’. Iraq War go badly? Never mind the Zionists who pulled the strings and orchestrated the event. Just blame goyim Bush the dummy and Dick Cheney the hack.
Jews, Multiculturalism, and the War on Free Speech: A TOO Case File
November 20, 2014/28 Comments/in Featured Articles, Jewish Opposition to Free Speech, Jewish Support for Multiculturalism/by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
One of the most important functions that TOO has played in recent years has been to catalogue Jewish efforts to promote multiculturalism and muzzle with extremely repressive legal measures any speech critical of multiculturalism and the Jewish role in relentlessly pushing it. At the beginning of this year, Brenton Sanderson offered stunning further insight into the Jewish war on White Australia, remarking that “in addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.”
Sanderson indicated the primary methods by which organized Jewry developed and employed their influence on both fronts, for example, through the formation of “think-tanks” and the dissemination of “reports,” which were then carried into government. The influence of unelected Jews in this process is not only breath-taking in scope, but also exposes the fiction that we live in democratic societies. For example, Sanderson noted that
under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements. One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission. In response to this and the Committee’s other recommendations, which were essentially Lippmann’s recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975–1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s. Thus, in order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, Jewish activists were determined from the beginning to bar and punish any speech that was critical of non-White immigration and multiculturalism. The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech.
At the outset of my series of essays on the Jewish effort to raise Spinoza to almost cosmic importance in the intellectual history of the West, I indicated the importance of acknowledging patterns, trends and commonalities in how Jews, as a group, approach a given task. In the case of Spinoza, I linked Jewish efforts to exaggerate his legacy with broader Jewish efforts to perpetuate the notion of ‘Jewish genius.’ I took extra care to point to the precise processes, stages and methods involved.
Similarly, I believe that it is extremely important for us, as intellectuals and writers working within White advocacy, to maintain a focus on the processes of Jewish activism more generally, and in particular to remark upon the way in which these processes are replicated over historical time and in different geographic areas. In my own personal experience, during discussions with friends, relatives, and colleagues about issues of race and Jewish influence, I enjoy most success when I focus not on the statement of certain facts about the extent of Jewish influence, but rather on the processes by which this influence has been attained. A simple fact is that many well-meaning White people have been conditioned by a corrupted educational and media environment to regard as ‘conspiracy theory’ any statement un-conducive to the status and well-being of Jewry. The taint of ‘conspiracy theory,’ in my experience, is only overcome by explaining, sometimes exhaustively, the complex but actually very ‘normal’ methods by which influence is attained and utilized by Jews in the pursuit of Jewish interests. Demonstrating that these methods have been employed repeatedly, uniformly and in different areas, reinforces the point that while there is certainly a tremendous amount of conspiracy involved, there is very little need for ‘theory’ on our part. The facts speak for themselves and there is no need to plug ‘gaps’ with spurious guesswork or, as is commonly supposed, with ‘scapegoats.’ With careful, time-consuming research, and by teasing out the various strands which comprise Jewish activism, we can arrive at a narrative capable of stunning even the most blinkered of liberal Whites.
In this vein, and toward this end, in this essay I want to build on work by Brenton Sanderson on Australia and by Kevin MacDonald on the general pattern by shifting the focus of analysis to Britain. I will demonstrate that the processes and features of Jewish activism since the 1950s on behalf of multiculturalism and the curtailing of free speech were replicated there in a manner perfectly similar to the Australian experience. We will see the same level of influence exerted by unelected Jewish academics and lawyers. We will see the same Jewish formation of subversive ‘think-tanks.’ We will see the same production of ‘reports’ which were then taken, like an explosive device, into the heart of government, where they ‘detonated’ with devastating consequences for Whites. We will hear the same phrases, recognize the same dogma, and witness the same betrayals. Behind it all we will see the same hand.
Contrary to what is commonly assumed, there are no clearly defined ‘hate speech’ laws in Britain. This is, in part, a legacy of the fact that the majority of British laws concerning race and the restriction of free speech have been introduced and imposed by subversive and decidedly un-democratic means. There were no votes, and there were no officials identifiably culpable to the electorate. As has occurred throughout the West, this has been a top-down revolution. We live in an age where the laws that matter are crafted in the shadows, and slipped into the statute books under any guise but truth. The primary means by which speech is curtailed in Britain is through the innocuously titled Public Order Act (1986), part of which forbids “racial hatred against individuals of groups including colour, race, ethnic origin and nationality. This can include threatening behaviour and written material that is designed to cause harassment and distress.” How exactly a government can ban something as intangible and abstract as “hatred” is left un-stated, but then we also live in an age when nations wage wars on ‘terror.” In 2006 the Public Order Act was amended to include religious hatred. Ostensibly this move was taken to deal with the phantom of ‘Islamophobia,’ but, as I will presently demonstrate, it owed more to decades-long efforts by Jews to protect both ‘sides’ of Jewish identity.
Jews had been active in the pursuit of such laws in Britain since at least the 1940s. In the aftermath of World War II, Britain still played host to a number of groups sympathetic to Fascism and racial nationalism. These groups, together with the growing prominence of vocal politicians like Enoch Powell, alarmed the Jewish population. Of course, this was the same Jewish population which had repaid British war-time assistance by supporting, in every conceivable way, the Irgun terrorist campaign against the British in Palestine. One Jewish historian has remarked that Jews in Britain lavishly funded “the purchase of arms for Jewish underground armies fighting against British troops.” Jewish terrorism against the British had culminated in 1947 with the kidnapping of two British army Intelligence Corps NCOs, Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice. Martin and Paice were beaten and bloodied by their Jewish captors, before being hanged in a eucalyptus grove near Netanya. Their bodies were booby-trapped with mines, causing them to be torn to pieces when efforts were made to retrieve them. The brutal and sadistic slayings comprising the ‘Sergeant’s Affair’ had followed the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel (British headquarters in Palestine) a year earlier. The new atrocity sparked a wave of revulsion throughout Britain. More specifically, the actions caused the British people to re-think Jewish loyalty. Following the hanging of Martin and Paice, a series of anti-Jewish riots broke out across Britain, further alarming Jews who still clung to empty professions of British patriotism. Jewish stores across the country were destroyed, or painted with slogans such as “Hitler was right.”
It was now that Jews made their first efforts to restrict free speech in Britain. The Labour Party, awash with Jewish communists, provided the main vehicle for these efforts during the 1940s and early 1950s. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the Sergeant’s Affair, however, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”
Further attempts to achieve such legislation were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed antidiscrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.” Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine. Both Sorensen and Brockway were extremely liberal evangelical Christians, who showed all the signs of the ethno-masochism explored in last year’s special TOQ issue on White pathology.
Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament. Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.
Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.
It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews. One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.” Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.” One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”
But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.” From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office, and as stated in his Wikipedia entry, Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.” So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.
One of the main ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Jewish Frank Soskice. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implantation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.” He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”
But Lester isn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins. Furthermore, Scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966. Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigates the 1965 law as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.” Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”
In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.” The principles were that:
The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.
Lester, Rose, the NCCI, PEP, the Runnymede Trust and other means of Jewish influence continued to be brought to bear on successive governments, introducing small but cumulatively significant changes to British laws on racial matters, extending the multicultural state, and slowly tightening the noose on free speech. In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Scholar Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.” The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986). The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (now named Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.” It is Brittan’s clever little addition which continues to cause problems for vocal racial nationalists in Britain today.
Looking back over these efforts we notice the same patterns. The un-democratic nature of the changes wrought in our nations by Jews, both elected and unelected, is starkly apparent. This is not conspiracy theory. Every name, fact, organization, law, and date I have cited is verifiable and I in fact urge readers to research even deeper into the networks I have alluded to above. The facts will speak for themselves.
To finish, I’d like to point out that Lester continues to push for a multicultural Britain. His hatred for all that we love is palpable. He writes that
Public references to the ‘nation,’ ‘British heritage,’ and ‘tradition’ often seem like little more than a code for xenophobia. … The challenge for the next century will be to rethink the concept of ‘Britishness,’ to find values that each of these communities can share without losing their cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. It is our privilege and our duty to redouble our efforts now, in preparation for the next century. [My emphasis].
In response to Lester’s efforts, and those of his co-ethics in other White nations, I’d like to paraphrase the poet Dylan Thomas when I say that we will not go gently into the “good night” that is being prepared for us, but that we will rage, rage against the dying of the light.
 G. Alderman, The Jewish Community in British Politics, (125).
 P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, (108).
 E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, (42).
 Ibid, (41).
 C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, (172).
 D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, (617).
 C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, (234).
 M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society (95).
 Donnelly, (115).
 Honeyford, (93).
 Ibid, (94).
 I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, (85).
 W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History (566, 810).
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (24).
 Ibid, (22).
 C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society (38).
 P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970 (322).
 Ibid, (323).
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (22).
 Ibid, (22).
 R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, (71).
 T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974 (104).
 T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain – A Developing Agenda (23,31).
Tactics of Organized Jewry in Suppressing Free Speech
By Prof. Tony Martin
First of all, thank you very much, Greg, for the introduction. I’d like to thank also the IHR and Mark Weber particularly for inviting me here. I’m very happy to be here, to be part of this event. I like long-winded topics, at least topic titles, so I’ll read the topic which I have selected for today. It’s as follows: “Jewish Tactics as Exemplified in the Controversy Over Jewish Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade.” So I won’t be speaking that much on the controversy itself. What I’m trying to do is to use my subjective experience, that is, the experience I’ve had, for close to a decade now, in dealing with this controversy.
And what I’m going to try to do now -- to use my concrete, subjective experience on the firing line, so to speak. And I’m going to try to extract from my experience certain basic sort of tactics that I think the Jewish lobby has used over the years pertaining to my particular situation. But in trying to extract these tactics from my own situation, I suspect that I may very well resonate with the experience of some other people here, because my suspicion is that there tends to be a generalized practice which transcends your particular situation. So, even though in my case I was dealing with a specific situation -- the transatlantic slave trade -- my suspicion is that the kinds of tactics which were used against me may be not very dissimilar to those experienced by many other folks who have been involved in other kinds of disputes with this particular lobby.
The first thing I should do by way of introduction is just to basically summarize precisely what my controversy was. I know it’s familiar to many people here, but I’m sure not to everybody in this audience. As was mentioned a minute ago in the introduction, I teach at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. For many years I’ve taught a survey course in African-American history. This is a one semester course, that moves very rapidly over the whole gamut of African-American history. In 1993 I introduced to this course a book which is on sale here, a book which then was fairly new, a book which I myself had only just recently become introduced to. This book, which is published by the historical research department of the Nation of Islam, is entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. And what that book did, relying primarily on sources written by Jews, and Jewish sources of a variety of types, is to try to sort of synthesize the existing information on Jewish involvement in the slave trade, the bringing of Africans as slaves from Africa to the so-called new world. There wasn’t that much in the book that was new -- all the information, practically, was secondary information, which had been already published, although hidden away to a large extent in very esoteric Jewish journals, which the average Jew, I discovered later, had no idea about.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t new information. It was new to many people, including myself, and I found it very interesting that even though I had taught African-American history for many years, I had been only dimly aware of the role of Jews in that slave trade. What I discovered was that the Jewish role in that slave trade had been very cleverly camouflaged for many, many years. Where Jews were involved, usually they tended not to be identified as Jews, whereas where Christians were involved, or where Muslims were involved. there was ready identification of such persons by their ethnicity, by their religious affiliation, and so on. In the case of Jews, they would be called other things -- Portuguese, Spanish, Brazilian, whatever. But, you know, that crucial identification tended to be obscured. So, as a good professor – I think I’m a good professor. I’m always on the lookout for new information, to enrich my classes. So I was very fascinated by this new information, and decided to add a few readings from this book in my class. And that’s when, as the saying goes, all hell broke loose. [Laughter]
Apparently, I didn’t realize it, but I actually stumbled into a controversy which was already brewing because the book had apparently caused some consternation in Jewish circles. And it’s only afterwards, when I went back and did my research, that I discovered that one or two editorials had already appeared, by way of the Jewish power structure, in a sense warning people like myself to stay away from the book. There already apparently had been a full-page op ed piece in The New York Times, one that, I was told, was the largest, longest op ed that had ever been published in that paper. It was actually typeset in the form of a Star of David. It was written by someone called Henry Lewis Gates of Harvard University, one of the black spokesmen for the Jewish lobby. Even the paper from my basic home town, the Boston Globe, had carried an editorial, which I was unaware of at the time, not long before I began to use the book. And in a sense, the purpose of these editorials and op eds was to warn folks to stay away from that book, or else. But me, in my foolhardiness, ignored the warnings, being largely unaware of the warnings in the first place. And so I stumbled into this problem.
In fact Jews had been involved not only in the African slave trade, but also, and for a very long period of time, in a variety of other slave trades as well. Apparently, they had actually dominated slavery and the slave trade in medieval times. A couple of days ago, while on the plane on the way here, I was re-reading a Ph. D. dissertation from 1977 [“The Ebb and Flow of Conflict: A History of Black-Jewish Relations through 1900”] by a man called Harold D. Brackman, who is a functionary of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In his dissertation, which details Black-Jewish relations from ancient times up to 1900, he actually acknowledges the fact that Jews were the principal slave traders in the world for several hundred years -- although, and in typical fashion, he puts a very interesting spin on it. He acknowledges, as I guess he has to, that Jews were the major slave traders in the world, trading slaves everywhere from Russia to western Europe, to India, to China -- but he says that they dominated the world trade only for a few hundred years -- only. [laughter] He said that they were the main slave traders from the eighth century to the twelfth century -- but that was no big thing. It was only a few hundred years.
I discovered also that the Jews were very instrumental in the ideological underpinning for the African slave trade -- the notorious Hamitic myth -- which more than anything else has provided a sort of ideological underpinning or rationale for the slave trade. This comes out of the Talmud. In fact, Harold Brackman himself acknowledges that this was the first explication of the story in the Biblical book of Genesis about Ham, the so-called progenitor of the African race, having been cursed by Noah, and so on. But apparently, according to Brackman, the Talmud was the first place that put a racist spin on this story. The Biblical story was racially neutral, but the Talmud apparently put a very awful racist spin on this story, which later on became the basis, the ideological underpinning, for the African slave trade. So all of this I was to discover as I became embroiled in the controversy.
One of the things that interested me, too, was that the Jewish element was apparently also a major element in what came to be known in the 19 th century as the white slave trade. The white slave trade was a major multinational, international trading in women for immoral sexual purposes, as prostitutes, and so on. And I found, too, that Jewish entrepreneurs in Europe apparently were also major figures in that so-called slave trade.
So I became aware of all of this. Just to summarize briefly what I discovered in the book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, and in the subsequent readings, with regard to the African slave trade, is that once it got going in the 15th century, the Jews again were a very important part of it. The book was not suggesting, just I have never suggested, that the Jews were the only people involved, or even the major people involved. My basic point has always been that whereas everybody else that I’m aware of who was a part of the slave trade has acknowledged being part of it. In fact, many of the people who were a part of the genesis of the slave trade later also became part of the abolitionist movement to end the trade. But as far as I know, the Jewish element is the only one that has resisted acknowledging its participation in this trade. In fact, it has gone beyond merely resisting knowledge of this information coming out. It has become very upset when this information has come to the fore.
And that has been my basic problem. Why? What’s so special about this group that places itself beyond the pale, so to speak -- no pun intended -- beyond the pale of criticism. And whereas any other group can be criticized, this group -- it seems to me -- is beyond criticism. Especially for me as a black person, I become very upset if someone tries to walk into my classroom to tell me that I, as a black person teaching black history, have to sort of regard their involvement in my history as somehow out of bounds.
So, after becoming involved in this history, via the Hamitic myth, Jews were some of the important financiers of this slave trade in the very early periods. One of the major multi-national corporations that financed the Atlantic slave trade very early on was the Dutch West India Company. As we know, the Jews had been chased out of Spain, and chased out of Portugal. The Netherlands was the one area which welcomed them to some degree. And this was right around the same time, the 15th century, that the slave trade was gearing up -- so they were positioned, geographically and in other ways, to become an important element in the financing of the Dutch West India Company, a major multinational corporation that was involved in the slave trade.
In the early 17th century Jews were, in fact, a major element in the slave trade in places like Brazil and Surinam in South America, in places like Curacao in the West Indies, and in Jamaica, Barbados and other places. I discovered that they were also very well positioned in this country -- that many of the traders in colonial times who brought slaves across the Atlantic to this country were in fact Jewish ship-owners and slave traders. Some of the best known names in colonial North America who were involved in that traffic were people like Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, who was one of the best-known names of all.
I discovered that Jews owned many of the ancillary corporations that sort of fed into the slave trade. For example, rum distilling was a major business that was ancillary to the slave trade because rum was used as an item of trade, to exchange for slaves in West Africa. And most of the rum distilleries in places like Boston and elsewhere in New England were, I believe, owned by Jews, and so on.
I discovered that according to the 1830 census, even though Jews were a small proportion of the population in North America, nevertheless they were inordinately represented among the slave owners. Yes, they were a small portion of the population overall, but on a percentage basis that were significant. Jewish historians who have analyzed the 1830 census have discovered that whereas something like 30-odd percent of the white population may have owned one or more slaves in the South, for Jewish households it was over 70 percent. So according to an analysis of the 1830 census by Jewish historians, Jews were more than twice as likely, on a percentage basis, to own slaves.
I also discovered that Jews, despite their involvement in the slave trade, were very few and far between in the abolitionist movement. They were much, much less likely than other groups to be involved in this movement. So that in a nutshell, then, is the set of facts that caused me to become involved in this interesting controversy. And what I want to do, then, is to dwell not on the facts themselves, but on what I perceive to be the main tactics that were used, because I found myself, like I said, on the front line of this situation, and I became very fascinated, looking at their tactics. And the more I began to read around this question, the more I saw patterns emerging.
The first and major tactic that I discovered in their attack on me was their reliance on lies -- just straight-up lies. There’s no other way to describe it, just telling lies. Many of the categories that I will enumerate overlap, and many of them could also come under this general rubric of telling lies. But I think that if one had to isolate a single tactic, it was a tactic of telling lies. I think they’ve elevated telling lies to a very high artistic form. [Laughter]. For example, very early in my controversy, the major Jewish organizations became involved. And this is very fascinating. Here am I, a professor in a very small college, teaching a class of maybe 30 students, but they attached such great importance to this, that within a very short space of time the major Jewish organizations became involved, and it became a national event. For example, one Sunday morning on the ABC network television program “This Week With David Brinkley,” there was a whole segment dealing with this question -- about my telling my students that Jews were involved in the slave trade.
Up to that point I was still a little astounded, considering the prominence given to what, to me, was a totally inconsequential thing. Shortly after all of this started, four of the major Jewish organizations issued a joint press release attacking me: the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston. Afterwards they said that this was somewhat unprecedented for these major Jewish organizations to combine their efforts to attack one little obscure professor at a small school. They also admitted that it was unusual to issue this press release in the middle of one of their high holy days -- of which there are quite a few, I understand -- to sort of disturb the sanctity of this high holiday by issuing something along these lines.
Now, I actually saw one of the original press releases, which I have likened to a medieval scroll. It reminded me of a movie I saw as a boy, with Robin Hood, in which the Sheriff of Nottingham went into Sherwood Forest [laughter], and he would unroll a long proclamation and tack it on a tree, saying “Robin Hood, beware. We’re looking for you.” That kind of a thing. [laughter]. This was literally a scroll. You couldn’t read it without having to unroll it. I’ve never seen anything like it. It had the logos of these four organizations. And this opened my eyes to the proclivity of these folks to tell lies.
This proclamation told the world that I was refusing to let my students discuss this information. First of all, it presented me as providing wrong information -- blatantly false information, as another Jewish person described it to my classroom. And it said that in the classroom I was apparently ramming this stuff down my students’ throats, and forbidding any discussion -- a claim that was absolutely, hideously untrue. It said that I had a history of all kinds of problems with my school, and that my colleagues had been complaining about me for many years. Up to now I have had no inkling of what these complaints could possibly be. I know of no such incidents, certainly not before this time.
I was able to take this press release and read it out to my class. It was a very good learning experience for the students, because here were the students who I was accused of misleading and whatnot, and I was able to show them the kind of information that gets into the major media. One of the interesting lies that came out around this time was by the campus rabbi. She came into my office -- yes this was a “she,” actually -- complaining about my teaching this information. So I told her: Well look, if you think this information is false, why don’t you come to my class? I will invite you to my classroom. I will allow you to stand up in front of my class and explain what’s wrong with this information, and then we can have a debate in front of the class. And she agreed. But of course she quickly changed her mind. And not only did she change her mind, but then she put it out that I had refused to discuss the material with her. [laughter].
So point number one is the proclivity to tell lies. Point number two was a very interesting proclivity towards attempting to damage one’s professional credibility. There was a tendency to libel and slander whoever they were upset with. In this case it was me. There was one Jewish gentleman, about 50 years old, who began making anonymous calls, random calls, to the campus. He would call the dorms, he would call people’s offices, just randomly. And he would tell them he was a Jewish student at Harvard University. He would tell them that he had discovered that I did not really have a PhD, and that I was not qualified to be teaching at Wellesley College. This was one of the more bizarre examples of the attempt to discredit me professionally.
There was a gentleman who I subsequently brought a libel case against, and lost. I brought three cases, but lost them all. This gentleman suggested that I was an affirmative action PhD, and that the only reason I got a PhD was because of affirmative action. He said the only reason I got tenure at Wellesley College -- I was one of the youngest professors ever tenured there -- was because they were afraid of me. I was portrayed as this great, black, loudmouthed person, so just to keep me quiet they decided to give me tenure. [laughter].
One of the most interesting of these efforts to discredit me was by a gentleman called Leon Wieseltier, who describes himself as a literary editor of the New Republic magazine. Now in 1994, I think it was, at the height of all this hysteria, The Washington Post Book World invited me to review four new books for an issue, which I did. They gave my review a lot of space. It was the longest book review in that issue.
And in the very next week’s issue, there were, predictably, two or three outraged letters from Jewish individuals asking The Washington Post Book World if had been aware of who this person was -- the great anti-Semite Tony Martin. Don’t you know who this is? [laughter] How can you let him write in this prestigious periodical? And this guy Wieseltier went a step further. The title of my book is The Jewish Onslaught, and the subtitle is “Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront.” Now, I spell despatches “d-e-s.” Most Americans spell it “d-i-s.” I grew up in a British tradition, in a British colony, and to this day I spell honor “h-o-n-o-u-r.” Most of you do not. The “e” in “despatches” is a British spelling. And this idiot [laughter] obviously didn’t realize that there are alternative spellings of the word. Again, so anxious to try to discredit someone they disagree with, this guy actually told The Washington Post Book World in his letter that I was so ignorant and stupid that I couldn’t even spell the word “despatches.” [laughter]. Look at how stupid I was, who had been allowed to publish in their journal. Luckily for me, the editor of The Washington Post Book World was one of those rare persons who was apparently not too cowed by the Jewish onslaught. And she wrote a very nice rejoinder telling Wieseltier that she had checked two dictionaries, and in both of them she saw “despatches” -- spelled with an “e” -- as one of the optional spellings of the word. [Applause]
Then there was Mary Lefkowitz, one of my colleagues at Wellesley College. In a little literary magazine I’d never seen before. she actually alleged that I had pushed, had physically assaulted, a white student. Now, I teach at a women’s college. So, here she is playing into, I guess, all these perceptions of a big, black rapist or whatever. But she actually alleged that I physically pushed down a white student. This would be a white woman, and the woman fell down. Then, she said, I bent over her and raged. That was the word she used: I bent over her and raged. One had a vision of a raging animal. [laughter]. So of course I brought a libel suit against her.
And one of the things I discovered was that these folks are very, very well positioned in the court system. In fact, after having lost, well, I guess, two libel suits, I was beginning to think they must have had something to do with fashioning the libel laws in this country. [laughter]. Because in this case, you know, Lefkowitz actually acknowledged that what she said was wrong, and she acknowledged that she had not taken due care in ascertaining the facts. But even those acknowledgements were not enough for me to win the case. I had to prove that she had acted with reckless abandon, and all kinds of things. But it was a very interesting learning experience for me. The way libel laws work in this country, once they identify you as a “public person,” anyone basically has carte blanche. A person can say anything he wants. It can be true. It can be false. He doesn’t have to do research. He can say anything he wants. It’s almost literally that bad.
So, those are some of the efforts that were made to discredit me. Of course, I don’t think they succeeded. But again, this was a very persistent effort to sort of tarnish my image. And very much aligned with this, of course, was the generalized question of character assassination. This was part of that effort to damage one’s credibility.
There was also the tactic of what I describe as dirty tricks. Of course, this too is a subset within the general rubric of lies, I suppose. At Wellesley College there is a Hillel group. Hillel is the Jewish student organization that exists on campuses around the country. I remember reading in Paul Findley’s book, They Dare To Speak Out, that the Hillel people are formally trained, apparently by the ADL and other organizations, in tactics: how to disrupt meetings, how to push false propaganda on campuses, and so on. And even though I don’t know it for a fact, certainly those Hillel students who were part of the campaign did appear to be professionally trained.
In fact, the whole campaign against me was initiated by students from the Hillel group. They sat in on my class on the first day of the semester, just for one day. And somehow from that one day’s class they somehow figured out that I was teaching this book as fact. Apparently they figured that if I was teaching the book as “hate literature,” quote unquote, that would be okay. But the fact that I was teaching the book just as any other book, as one having some basic academic credibility -- they considered that, of course, to be a grossly anti-Semitic thing. And they were the ones who raised the hue and cry.
There’s a group on campus called “The Friends of Wellesley Hillel.” This is a group of faculty and alumni who work very closely with the Hillel students. In the midst of this campaign they actually put together a packet of mostly libelous information, and mailed it to the mother of one of the students who was very, very vocal on my behalf. The students rallied around me. It’s quite incredible the extent to which these folks would operate. This is a group of grown people, such as deans of the college, professors, who take the time to sit on committees to put together a packet of basically lies and misinformation, and send it out. They actually targeted this one student because she was a leader of the students who were supporting me, and they sent this information to her mother.
Somebody came and tacked up a flyer around my office one day -- I wasn’t in the office at the time – alleging sexual misconduct between myself and this same student who was vocal on my behalf. Fortunately for me, it didn’t work. And at one point they started a rumor that if I wrote recommendations for those students, they would not get jobs and would not get entry into graduate school, or anything. These are some of what I call dirty tricks.
There was also the tactic of what I call “going for the economic jugular” -- to remove my ability to survive economically. An example of that was a joint press release that called for my expulsion from the college. It called for my tenure to be revoked. So again, that’s one of the hallmarks of their tactics, it seems to me. And I am sure that this is of wider application than in just my own case.
There was also the tactic of what I call Great Presumptuousness. I heard somebody last night mention the word “chutzpah.” I call it presumptuousness -- the idea that a rabbi, a student chaplain, could come into my office to demand an explanation for why am I teaching this information. That to me is sheer presumptuousness. Even though I was polite, the essence of my response was, basically, “Who the hell are you to come here to tell me what I must teach [laughter] in a black studies class. I’m an expert on black studies. Who the hell are you?” I didn’t say it in those terms, but that was the import [applause] of what I was saying.
Before this Jewish onslaught began with me, just by sheer coincidence a few months earlier, I had been doing some research in a Jewish archive in New York City, and at that time a case similar to mine had just erupted concerning Professor Leonard Jeffries at City College in New York City. He had made a speech in Albany in which he had pointed out that Jews had a very large hand in fashioning Hollywood. In fact, there’s a book by a Jewish author, Neil Gabler, called An Empire of Their Own. And the subtitle, interestingly enough, is “How the Jews Invented Hollywood.” [Laughter]. What could be more explicit than that? The author is boasting about the way Jews basically shaped American popular culture.
So Len Jeffries, in his speech in Albany, had said Well, okay, so you all [Jews] invented American popular culture. You therefore have to take a large portion of the blame for the negative stereotypes concerning black folk that have been nurtured by Hollywood over the years. But of course they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to invent Hollywood, but they don’t want to take responsibility for the negative elements coming out of Hollywood. So Jeffries was branded as anti-Semitic, as usual, for having said that. So at that time, when I was visiting the Jewish archive, my own case had not yet emerged. But they tried to put me through this litmus test. It was almost as though they would not let me use the archives unless I disavowed any kind of association with Jeffries. The woman in charge asked me: “Do you know Len Jeffries?” I said Yes, I know him. He’s a good friend of mine, a colleague of mine. And she was very upset.
Again there’s this presumptuousness, this feeling that they have a right to put you through all these litmus tests -- a right to demand of you why you are doing something that, to anybody else, is totally correct, and totally inoffensive.
Another tactic which I think I can distill out of my experience is a tendency to sidestep the real issues. I discovered that throughout this whole period of almost ten years now, they would almost never engage me on the facts of the matter. They would say: Okay, you say that Jews were involved in the slave trade. You’re a big anti-Semite. So I’ll say: Okay, let’s discuss it. Were Jews indeed half of the slave owners in Brazil in the 17th century? I’ll say, look at your own Encyclopaedia Judaica. It says that Jews were half the slave owners in Brazil. But they would never engage in that kind of factual debate. Never. They would always go off on a tangent, trying to besmirch your character, trying to take away your economic wherewithal, and so on. But they studiously avoid ever engaging in a discussion of the actual facts of the matter.
I had a graphic illustration of this just a few weeks ago when this question flared again, very briefly, on my campus. Somebody mentioned that ten years ago I had taught these [allegedly] blatant falsehoods, and whatnot. So I responded in the newspaper. And a couple of Jewish students wrote back, responding to me. And again, although I laid out several examples of Jewish historians acknowledging the Jewish involvement in the slave trade, there was no reference to this at all by the Jewish students. Instead, they began talking about stories from Europe in the Middle Ages, or some other era, about Jews killing white kids to take their blood and put it in matzos, and stories of their Jewish holocaust. In short, all kinds of stuff that had nothing to do with anything. In fact, I responded asking them what any of this has to do with the point that I was making. They did not read my article. They did not acknowledge the evidence I had given concerning Jewish involvement in the slave trade. What do stories of Jews killing somebody for their blood to put in matzos have to do the slave trade? But this was always their tendency. They would studiously avoid the facts and avoid the issue at hand, but instead bring in what we call Red Herrings -- off the wall stuff. And this was a very persistent tactic, which I’ve been able to discern.
Another tactic -- which may be just saying the same thing in a different way -- is the tendency to introduce “straw men.” For example, I’m discussing Jewish involvement in the slave trade, but somebody responds by writing an article saying that I alleged – which is not true – that Jews were genetically predisposed towards enslaving others. This has nothing to do with anything that I was talking about. But again, they would totally disregard the facts of the case and introduce something totally different. They would introduce a “straw man,” get it on the record, and then they would attack the “straw man” they’ve created. And because they have such great influence in the media, this “straw man,” this false information, all of a sudden becomes part of the record. Even in court they’ll reference the same lies that they put in the newspaper, as though this is some disinterested source, some third party. And then this brings me to my next point -- their ability to plant misinformation in the record, and then use that misinformation as though it’s some kind of well-documented, primary source.
Point number ten. This is what I call the use of quislings or surrogates, or what we in the black community call Uncle Toms. They have developed this art to a very high level -- at least in my case, or in the black community. I’ve mentioned Henry Louis “Skip” Gates. There are many other notorious figures like that in the black community, who are all too willing to do their bidding. I must say that these folks are very, very well recompensed. These folks have been given incredible prominence. They go around the world speaking, sometimes for fifteen thousand dollars at a time. Those are the kind of honorariums these folks get. They’ve been given endowed chairs in their universities. Many of them can hardly put two sentences together. But because they’ve been willing to play this game, they’ve been elevated to prominence. When you pick up The New York Times, you’ll see them on the cover of the Sunday magazine section with regard to issues that pertain to black folk. And it doesn’t matter what it is specifically. It can be the history of Africa. It can be contemporary politics in the Caribbean. It doesn’t matter. They are quoted as the authorities, and so on. You’ll also see them on PBS television, on multi-million dollar programs and documentaries, and so on. And this has been a very effective tactic on their part; to pick out people from within, in this case, my own group -- that is, people who are willing to, in a sense, sell themselves for the admittedly very ample rewards they’re given as a result.
Another tactic is their ability to leverage off of the influence which they undoubtedly have in high places. At Wellesley College, for example, a new president was coming on just as my case was moving to its climax, so to speak. And this new college president came in not knowing anything about what had been happening. And somehow these folks got her to write a letter, which I suspect they must have drafted themselves because she had no real knowledge of the background of what was happening. This was a letter condemning me for teaching that Jews were involved in the slave trade. This letter, according to newspaper reports, was sent out to maybe 40 to 60 thousand people. So you had the incoming president of Wellesley College sending out 40 to 60 thousand letters. This must be unprecedented in the annals of American higher education, I think. This is something for the Guinness Book of World Records [Laughter]. A university president sending out as many as 60, that’s six-zero, thousand letters, condemning one of her own professors for teaching something that is historically true. I’ve never, ever heard of such a case. Maybe I should indeed write to the Guinness Book of World Records and see if they can immortalize me by mentioning this.
Then there was the American Historical Association. Three Jewish historians actually went to the American Historical Association and got it to decree – that’s the only term I can use – to decree, by executive fiat, that the Jews were not involved in the slave trade. [Laughter] I’ve never ever heard of any such thing. This is totally antithetical to the way that academia operates. Who’s ever heard of such a thing: historical fact being determined by presidential decree from the American Historical Association. “We decree…” [mocking]. It’s like a Papal Bull in the Middle Ages… “We decree: The Jews were not involved in the slave trade.” [Laughter] It is absolutely amazing, but they actually succeeded in having this done.
Then there’s one of the most amazing cases of all. I was invited to speak in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts, by Worcester State College, round about 1994 or 95. And the Jewish groups were actually able to get the mayor of Worcester – one of the largest cities in the state – to call together a special press conference, in which he had leaders of all the major religions. He had a Roman Catholic head. He had a Baptist head -- heads of various Protestant denominations -- and rabbis, ADL types, and so on. The mayor assembled an entire coalition of religious and apparently civil rights organizations. For what? To denounce me prior to my appearance at Worcester State College. They had already tried to put pressure on the college, and on the people who’d invited me. To their great credit, those people stayed strong. They refused to bow, and I spoke. You would think that the mayor had more important things to do. [Laughter]. But here these groups were powerful enough to get the mayor of a major city to pull together a special conclave on a Jewish press release to denounce me.
Of course, the result was that my speech, when indeed it did take place, drew the largest audience in the history of the school. [Laughter and applause] Actually, I didn’t originally include this in my talk, but I really should mention their tendency on occasion to shoot themselves in the foot. [laughter] If they had left me alone, I think the only people who would have known of the Jewish involvement in the slave trade would have been my 30 students and myself. [Laughter, applause]. But now, of course, the whole world knows about it. And, as a result, the question of African slavery will never ever again be raised without the question of the Jewish role being part of the discussion. It’s now in the forefront of people’s consciousness. And that’s due to them. I mean, I never could have promoted this idea the way that they did. [Laughter].
Another tactic, of course, is their use of the major media. They become very agitated when one speaks of their control of the media. That’s one of the worst anti-Semitic things it’s possible for anybody to say. And yet, as in the case of the Jewish involvement in Hollywood, they themselves boast about their prominence in the media. In fact, in my book, The Jewish Onslaught, I quote Charles Silberman, a Jewish author, who wrote a book in the 1980s called A Certain People. And in it he boasts that of the seven top editors of The New York Times, all seven were Jews. He wrote about the major TV networks, and although I forget the precise figure, he mentions that the majority of the senior television network producers were Jews, and that it’s these producers who really determine what gets on the news, what stays out, what spin is put on information, and so on. So the people who are crucial to spinning the news, he wrote, are primarily Jews. He named names. And I quoted him in my book. But I was anti-Semitic for quoting him [laughter], which was not unusual.
When that huge scroll, that press-release scroll, was issued by the four major Jewish organizations, the Boston Globe, the city’s leading newspaper, published four major articles, including editorials and op eds, within about six days, attacking me on that question. That included an op ed in the Sunday paper and a major editorial on the editorial page. Again, these were filled with lies and distortions. I responded with a letter, which they refused to publish. So they had four major items attacking me in less than a week, but they refused to publish my rejoinder. And so, because these folks have such a sway over the major media, it gives them a very great advantage.
I remember being interviewed for the Fox front page program. They interviewed me for over an hour, but I guess that my responses to their questions were so tight that they could not find any sound bite to extract to make me look bad. So they gave me a couple sound bites, maybe half a second each, but instead of letting me talk, they had a narrator of some kind who spent about five minutes telling folks what I had said, but not letting me say anything, practically. And that, too, is one of their tactics.
The use of organizations is another tactic. Of course, I don’t have to tell this audience about the Anti-Defamation League. I think I also have pride of place on the ADL website. Although I haven’t checked recently, for several years I had Honorable Mention every year in their listing of anti-Semitic occurrences, and so on. In their listing of anti-Semitic occurrences of the previous year, there would be an item like, “Tony Martin gave a lecture at XYZ college.” That would in itself be cited as an anti-Semitic event -- the fact that I gave a lecture someplace. The ADL actually issued a book about me. And although I’ve had it for years, I haven’t got around to reading it. They took the title of my book and turned it around. This ADL report is titled Academic Bigotry: Professor Tony Martin's Anti-Jewish Onslaught.
Another tactic is what I call their unseemly histrionics. When I spoke at Worcester State College, there was a Jewish lady (I think her name was Schneider) who was on the College’s board of trustees. Amidst great fanfare, she resigned from the board because of the school’s invitation to me. But that’s what I call nothing but stupid histrionics. It got a lot of press, of course. It created a lot of media interest. But again, this was a case of shooting herself in the foot. As I remember they had initially scheduled me to speak in an auditorium that held about a hundred people. But after all the hysteria, which they themselves had generated, they had to change the venue to the largest auditorium they had, which held about 300 people. And even that wasn’t big enough. So eventually, when I turned up on a cold, wintry morning in February, they had that 300-capacity auditorium totally full. Then they had to run closed-circuit televisions outside for another 300 people to hear what I had to say. And of course, my speech got to be front-page news the next morning in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and so on.
Another thing they try to do is to pin what I call a nickname on you. They try to find some little slip of the tongue, or some little thing they can take out of context. And if they find it, then every time your name is mentioned in the media, they stick that on you. For example, Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam once made a slip. He was talking about a fact, as I mentioned earlier, that 75 percent of Jewish households in 1830 owned slaves. But he kind of got it wrong, as one often does in the midst of a speech -- a slip of the tongue. And it came out, when he said it, that Jews owned 75 percent of the slaves. It was obviously a slip of the tongue. But they mentioned it repeatedly ever since, often using that sound bite to make it look like he was a great distorter of the truth.
In my case, fortunately for me, the most they could pin on me was the term “controversial.” So every time they mention me, I get to be the “controversial” professor. [Laughter]. They’re also very good at the good cop/bad cop game. While someone is trying to destroy you on one side, someone will come on the other side, all smiley and whatnot. But beware of the good cop. Very often it’s better to deal with the bad cop because the good one will often get you in jail much more quickly and smoothly than the bad one.
And sometimes they try to play you for a fool. At the same time they’re trying to destroy you, they’re trying to give you advice. [laughter] Last year, for example, when I decided to accept David Irving’s invitation to speak in Cincinnati, there was guy whose name I don’t recall who sent me an e-mail telling me what a racist David Irving was. He sent me this copy of some poem that Irving had written, saying he didn’t want his daughter to marry a Rastafarian or something -- which is neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned. If he wants he wants his daughter to marry a Rastafarian or anybody else, or not marry them, So what? That has nothing to do with anything as far as I’m concerned. But again, here are people who are trying to destroy me, people who have spent the last ten years trying to portray me as all kinds of things, trying to take my livelihood away. and these same people can have the chutzpah, I guess, to warn me against somebody else. The whole idea is just totally amazing to me. Of course, I didn’t pay any great attention to what these guys are trying to say.
Another one of their tactics is hate mail. Their propensity for hate mail, I discovered, is absolutely amazing. Up to now, I still get a lot of hate emails. And a few days ago I got a hate postcard. On the one hand they try to portray themselves in public as these great liberals and nice folks and whatnot, but at the very same time they’re getting out this other kind of stuff.
Which also reminds me of the tendency towards violence. There was one Jewish guy, he said he was a Russian Jew, called Alexander Nechaevsky, who actually came onto my campus saying that he had come to get me. Luckily I wasn’t there to be gotten that day. I was somewhere out of town. But he came to the office, saying he had come to get me, and whatnot. They had to call the campus police, and he was given an order -- a trespass order, I think they called it -- not to appear on the campus again.
So these, then, are some of the kinds of tactics that I’ve been able to distill from my interaction with these folks over the last nine or ten years. Again, I’ve been very fascinated by the fact that I’ve become more broadly aware of similar situations involving others so that, it seems to me, many of these tactics may be of much more generalized application.
I don’t necessarily know the best way to respond. But I can just maybe outline, very quickly, the ways that I have tried to respond. I have tried to respond, first of all, by trying to stand on principle. From the very beginning, as far as I’m concerned, I’m talking the truth. I’ve said that the Jews were indeed involved in the slave trade. And as long as I am convinced in my own mind that I’m talking the truth, then that’s it. I’ve tried to disregard all of the other foolishness, and I’ve tried to stand on the truth. I’ve been on TV many times, debating people from the American Jewish Committee, and so on. And again, in such face to face debate, all of these tactics come into play. They try to attack your credibility, your character. But what I’ve always tried to do in those exchanges is to ignore, as far as I can, all of the ad hominem attacks, and concentrate on the facts. So they’ll say “Tony Martin is an anti-Semite.” I’ll just ignore it. I’ll say, 75 percent of Jewish households owned slaves, according to the 1830 census. I’ll stick to the facts, and I’ll use those kinds of media appearances as an opportunity to inform whoever happens to be listening.
I’ve also tried , where I could, to myself leverage off of their media power. There have been times when they have unwittingly given me an opportunity to appear before the mass media, and I’ve used those opportunities to the hilt -- again, to push facts. I know in advance that I have only 30 seconds, so I try to ram as many facts into those 30 seconds as I can, and just forget all the anti-Semitic stuff. I can deal with that later.
I’ve also tried to develop, to the best of my limited resources, some kind of independent response. I find that independence is a very, very great benefit. I started my own little publishing company. It’s a little company, but it was very, very effective. My book, The Jewish Onslaught got out and sold like hotcakes. It’s really made a difference, just to have some kind of an independent medium. It wasn’t a major corporation or anything, but it was independent. I controlled it, and I was able to fight back to some degree.
I also think it’s important to have some kind of a support structure. I was very fortunate. They attacked me at a time when I already had established a pretty good sort of a support structure in academia. I was relatively well known. It wasn’t as easy for them to destroy my credibility as it might have been for people who were perhaps less accomplished. But I found that having a support structure and being able to avail oneself of it was very important.
And finally, in my case I tried wherever possible to take the matter to them. I didn’t sit back and wait, once the battle was joined. I found it, in fact. In the early days especially I think that they weren’t used to having people fight back the way that I did. I think it sort of threw them off balance. They came at me with all their usual bag of tricks, expecting me to fold immediately. But I once I was able to fight back, and once it began to appear to them that they had a long protracted struggle on their hands, and not an easy victory, it took them a while to actually try to regroup and figure out what to do.
So, I just offer these as perhaps things for folks to think about in their response. Thank you very much.
This is an edited transcript of Prof. Martin’s address given in June 2002 in Irvine, California, at the 14th Conference of the Institute for Historical Review.
About the Author
Tony Martin, a historian, was best known as a specialist of African American history. For years he served as a professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College (Massachusetts).
He was born in 1942 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. He earned a B.Sc. honors degree in economics at the University of Hull (England), and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history at Michigan State University. He authored, compiled or edited 14 books. He was perhaps best known for his work on the life and legacy of the Black Nationalist leader Marcus Garvey. Martin’s many articles and reviews appeared in a variety of academic journals and popular periodicals, as well as in reference works and anthologies. He was also a popular lecturer, and addressed general and scholarly audiences across the US, in Canada, and in other countries. Martin retired in June 2007 as professor emeritus after 34 years with Wellesley College’s Africana Studies Department. He died in January 2013 at the age of 70 in Trinidad.
ï¿½ 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: email@example.com