Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship


By Andrew Joyce @The Occidental Observer

Back in March TOO came under sustained cyber-attack from the enemies of our people. This vital resource for truth was brought to a stand-still by a large number of bogus service requests, with Kevin MacDonald noting that one IP address in Israel “attempted to access the site 13,125 times within the span of three days.” Our mission of enlightenment and liberation is deeply loathed by those intent on bringing our race to its knees. The Occidental Observer is a truly unique site, and we can be sure that the commentary and research it continues to present is giving our enemies sleepless nights. I’m certain that TOO, and other sites sharing our goals and worldview, have a special place in the hateful hearts of the alien elite. They won’t stop until they have found a way to silence us. But cyber-attack is just one prong in this assault on truth and our right to self-determination. Another major frontline in the assault on our mission is the international legislative effort to permanently shut us down.

A few days ago the fifth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, mainly its many-tentacled Foreign Ministry, the Global Forum makes a priority of fighting ‘cyber hate.’ A few days ago it issued statements recommending steps for international governments and major websites to radically restrict material critical of Jews and Israel. The Forum has also very cleverly presented the issue of restricting internet freedom as a moral imperative — our enemies are obviously playing to our weakness. A statement issued by the Forum on Thursday night read:

Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct.

The Forum should be seen as an exercise in the spread and influence of international Jewish power and activism. The number of representatives alone from various organizations totalled just over one thousand. That number also includes a number of non-Jewish representatives and delegates from governments under Jewish influence. The latest convention of the Forum, the largest of its kind in the world, included the Justice Ministers of Germany and Romania, the Education Minister of Bulgaria, the Mayor of Paris, and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism from Canada. More predictably, leaders from many of our most prominent opposition groups were in attendance, including the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The ‘recommendations’ of the Forum include a demand to adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism.” This, of course, would be a definition of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ that would serve Jewish interests most effectively. This definition would be sufficiently wide-ranging that it would preclude, under threat of severe punishment, any criticism of Jews or Israel. This effort cannot be seen as isolated but as part of a conscious broader, global strategy. In January I wrote in The Noose Tightens on Europe that:

The Guardian reports that European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are preparing to call for pan-European legislation outlawing ‘anti-Semitism.’A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the Orwellian European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent the last three years drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and in line with a renewed and intense Jewish drive for complete invulnerability, they are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

Efforts to enact legislation or enforce government policies that eliminate criticism of Jews and Israel are just another means to procure the immunity and special privileged status of Jews in our societies. To that end, the ‘cyber-hate’ activism is no different from more explicit efforts to criminalize anti-Semitism.



Print Friendly
Download PDF


100% White boy born and bred in the USA. Dedicated to awakening Whites to all the crap being done to our decent, fair-minded race and exposing the devious brainwashing rats behind it all. Wake the ef up, White people!
This entry was posted in Free Speech and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship

  1. Israhell on Earth says:

    Sorry, i wanted to post this video, it’s hilarious:

    A to Zion – The Definitive Israeli Lexicon – Gilad Atzmon & Enzo Apicella

    And this one cracked me up, too:

  2. Paul says:

    A few days ago the fifth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, mainly its many-tentacled Foreign Ministry, the Global Forum makes a priority of fighting ‘cyber hate.’ A few days ago it issued statements recommending steps for international governments and major websites to radically restrict material critical of Jews and Israel.

    F*ck you, you evil Jewish supremacist control freaks! How dare you try to stifle and criminalize free speech and expression? If you and that aggressive, oppressive, evil Zionist state were truly “God’s chosen people” and behaved as such, no one would have any reasons to be critical of and expose any of your crimes, schemes and evil deed both past and present!

    F*cking scum!!

  3. Harvey says:

    Hello, INCOG Man;

    I liked this article. Informative, although as always with the subject: disconcerting and obnoxious. To resort to your expertise, I have been thinking about an article I read over at Virtual Jerusalem, “Napoleon and the Jews”. It lists four figures of the time that advised Napoleon against giving Citizenship to les Juifs: Mole, Beugnot, Segur, and Regnier. These four and the Tzar. In 1808 Napoleon cucked every authentic European and Westerner by initiating the granting of state-national Citizenship. In the interim 200 years together, our history and development were toxified at their subversion, and remains not in any legible way acceptable.

    During the periods previous to this citizenship coup, I know of no explanation as to why they were tolerated in — even as non-citizens — otherwise secure nations. The question of why Jews are afforded Citizenship in Western Nations might be strategically subject to the first possible error in our ancestors judgement; namely, why were Jews let to squat in any of these nations in the first place? Were the Shtetl and Ghetto a primary historical incidence of misdirected egalitarianism within our leaderships of the time, that was; as per usual, eventually devalued and defamed as persecution? Or traded for trinkets and callow adulation?

    I have faith in historian Ursula Haverbeck’s reassurance that the civilized world is at the end of the Jewish century; yet as their state fades, and a Pan-European-Western lockout becomes possible — it is abundantly obvious that not only participation, citizenship and commerce impasses ought to be assiduously returned to as tradition demands; but that presence itself alone, is identically unacceptable.

    An extraordinary diplomatic principle relative to any other out-group on earth; yet this is also the scale of their toxicity to ours. In proportion to which internet space, and Speech Rights will have to reclaim from, and refuse the eternal enemy. Unusual for our trust centered cultures; but at long last explicit to their group behavior, and the historical guarantee of its unacceptable consequences including presence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *