Free Speech Under Attack

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via,

Offending People Left and Right

Bill Bonner, whose Diaries we republish here, is well-known for being an equal opportunity offender  – meaning that political affiliation, gender, age, or any other defining characteristics won’t save worthy targets from getting offended. As far as we are concerned, we generally try not to be unnecessarily rude to people, but occasionally giving offense is not exactly beneath us either.



The motto of the equal opportunity offender….


Some people really deserve it after all…which is why we often refer to modern-day central bankers as lunatics, politicians as psychopaths, governments as gangs  of highway robbers waving a flag, and so forth. On one occasion we even provided a translation of Mr. Böhmermann’s “abusive criticism” of Mr. Erdogan, which fell afoul of a 19th century lèse majesté law on Germany’s statute books.

That poem really was rude and insulting, no doubt about it. However, locking up journalists and opposition politicians under the pretext that they “threaten national security”, or bombing and suppressing ethnic minorities (for narrow and selfish political goals to boot) seems a lot worse to us.

The person responsible actually deserves to be insulted day and night, and given how thin-skinned Mr. Erdogan is, insulting him is great fun to boot. Admittedly, only as long as one is not within grabbing distance of his enforcers.



Gollum and his twin brother Erdogan – fair game


Similar to Bill, we also believe in equal opportunity offending. Since we are often at odds with the mainstream narrative on a wide variety of subjects, it seems unavoidable. For all their diversity, most of the targets are united by one overarching defining characteristic: they are either exercising power over other people, or dispensing advice to those exercising such power. In our opinion, this makes them fair game.

As has been pointed out in these pages, so-called “political correctness” is essentially an attempt to muzzle free speech and introduce thought control (see  “Cultural Marxism and the Birth of Modern Thought Crime” by Claudio Grass for an in-depth discussion of the topic). It also has the uncanny power to transform normally intelligent people into gibbering idiots and pansies (“Reality is a Formidable Enemy” provides  a few striking examples).

Unfortunately, equal opportunity offenders are an increasingly endangered species. The world’s densest concentration of powerful and unaccountable statist control freaks in Brussels has just decided that “hate speech” is in need of more policing. Given the salami tactics favored by the eurocracy, this is quite alarming.


“Voluntary” Agreement and Official Goals

The EU Commission and three large US technology companies (Facebook, Google and Microsoft) have just signed an agreement on policing and eradicating so-called “hate speech” – under, you probably guessed it, the pretext of “fighting terrorism”.

Terrorism has become a catch-all very similar to “climate change”. Just as there is apparently no ill in this world that cannot somehow be traced to the latter (global warming is responsible for such diverse evils as heroin addiction, the rise of ISIS, a lack of red-haired people, bear attacks in Japan, collapsing gingerbread houses in Sweden and even global cooling) – there are seemingly no civil liberties that cannot be done away with at the stroke of a pen in order to “fight terrorism”.



Don’t worry, we’ll only muzzle the bad guys!


You won’t be surprised to learn that there has been no public consultation, parliamentary debate or vote on this agreement. It has simply sprung into being overnight. After all, who could possibly be against it? No-one is in favor of hate or terrorism, and since the “code of conduct” agreement is “voluntary” and doesn’t constitute legislation, the EU bureaucrats decided no debate was necessary.

To this one must keep in mind that US technology companies are subject to regular shakedowns by the EU’s “competition commission”, as if competing European companies actually existed. They don’t exist of course, because innovation and capital accumulation have become nigh impossible tasks in the sclerotic socialistic EU.

Normally, big businesses use “anti-trust” laws as a means to bludgeon the competition. In this case though, the shakedowns are initiated by bureaucrats themselves, in the name of protecting non-existing companies. This makes the whole exercise especially bizarre, but no less costly to its victims.

The upshot is though that US technology companies are eager to please EU bureaucrats, so as to avoid getting shaken down again for big money too soon.

The official goal of these restrictions on “hate speech” is to remove messages and postings by jihadists supporting ISIS. These are held to entice impressionable youngsters living in various “no future” ghettos across Europe – the people so eagerly invited in by the very same politicians imposing these restrictions now – to join the IS in Syria or commit violence in its name.

Granted, confused young Muslims surely need and deserve better role models than propagandists of IS and the violent medieval retro-philosophy they preach. The problem is however that what constitutes “hate speech” is very much in the eye of the beholder.


A Problem of Definitions

For once we are on the same page with the usually firmly etatiste pro-establishment magazine “The Economist”, which has surprised us positively  with a critical assessment of the EU’s latest move to restrict free speech. As the Economist notes:

[T]he idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offense is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary.

If one doesn’t agree with someone’s speech, one should simply counter it with more convincing speech. Suppressing views one disagrees with by law (or by means of a “voluntary” agreement as is the case here) may only end up convincing those holding these views that they have to resort to more forceful means if they want to make themselves heard. In other words, more, rather than less violence may be the result.

The “code of conduct” is supposed to be applied to speech identified as “racist and xenophobic” – as if racism and xenophobia could be eradicated by prohibiting people from voicing it!

Immigration is moreover a hot button political issue in Europe right now, so it is easy to see how the charge of “racism and xenophobia” could be misused to simply suppress political dissent. In fact, the vultures are already beginning to circle.

Here is an article by the left-leaning Guardian on the issue, which contrary to the Economist, seems perfectly unconcerned with the free speech angle. In fact, it seems far more concerned with “areas of online abuse” that “remain uncovered by the limited scope of the agreement”!

If you scroll down to the bottom of the article, you will see the following insert on the left-hand side (which links to another article on the topic):


Not tolerated

Does this mean we can no longer call militant feminists names? Can we still call Hillary a blood-thirsty war-mongering lying harpy?


As we noted above, the vultures are already circling. The Guardian erroneously asserts that the agreement is “very narrowly worded”:

“The definition of hate speech covered by the code of conduct is narrow: it is defined in the document as “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”.


That ban is counterbalanced by the right to freedom of expression, which, the code highlights, covers “not only… ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.

(emphasis added)

This may indeed seem innocuous at first glance, but it really isn’t. We may agree that the “incitement to violence” part is largely not really contentious. But what exactly constitutes “hate speech”, apart from the general idea that it supposedly “incites hatred”?


Who Decides What Constitutes Hate Speech?

The vagueness of this definition may well invite all sorts of interventions by self-anointed censors. As Paul Coleman writes at Spiked

[T]he European Court of Human Rights once produced a fact sheet on hate speech in which it conceded that the ‘identification of expressions that could be qualified as “hate speech” is sometimes difficult because this kind of speech does not necessarily manifest itself through the expression of hatred or of emotions. It can also be concealed in statements which at a first glance may seem to be rational or normal.’


In another document, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights took hate speech to include a ‘broader spectrum of verbal acts’, including ‘disrespectful public discourse’. And in an EU-funded manual on online hate speech by IGLYO (the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth and Student Organisation), we are reminded that ‘the vast majority of hate speech is being perpetrated by regular people, not by extremists or radicals’.


To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, hate speech means just what those in power choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

(emphasis added)

Free speech has been qualified by V?ra Jourová, the EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality (another utterly superfluous job) as “free and ‘democratic’ expression”, according to the Guardian. “Free” alone is apparently not enough

“This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected.”

(emphasis added)



V?ra Jourová, EU commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality – arbiter of what constitutes hate speech?


As Mr. Coleman reports, while the commissioner has sprinkled the term “terrorism” liberally across the press release announcing the agreement, her personal views on what should be regarded as “hate speech” (and therefore prohibited and “taken off the web as soon as it is reported”) seem to be a lot less “narrow”:

As V?ra Jourová, the EU commissioner responsible for the code, said during its unveiling: ‘The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred.’


But given the non-definition of hate speech, it is clear the code will go far beyond countering terrorism. In fact, Jourová has confirmed as much in other venues. In October 2015, she addressed the annual conference of ILGA-Europe and said ‘a narrative undermining LGBTI rights is quietly spreading, often disguised as so-called religious principles. This is unacceptable… It is clear that we must fight all hate speech, online and offline, whatever group of society it targets. We will work with internet providers to ensure hate speech is taken off the web as soon as it is reported.’


So, with very little effort, the EU commissioner is happy to shift from countering terrorism to countering ‘so-called religious principles’ – and she bundles up all this ‘unacceptable’ speech under the banner of hate speech.

(emphasis added)

Perhaps someone can explain to us how exactly this jibes with “the right to freedom of expression, which, the code highlights, covers “not only… ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.


Serious Consequences

It is also worth considering the legal consequences suffered by European citizens falling afoul of already existing legal restrictions on free speech across European countries. Mr. Coleman provides us with several concrete examples:

In 2008, film star Brigitte Bardot was convicted  by French authorities for placing a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy online, in which she complained about the Islamic practice of ritual animal slaughter. It was her fifth  conviction for hate speech


In 2011, Scottish football fan Stephen Birrell was sentenced to an extraordinary eight months in prison for insulting Celtic fans, Catholics and the Pope on a Facebook page. During sentencing, the sheriff, Bill Totten, told Birrell that his views would not be tolerated by ‘the right-thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland’.


And between 2014 and 2016, 78-year-old Northern Irish pastor James McConnell endured an 18-month police investigation and criminal prosecution after criticizing Islam in a sermon that was posted online . Apparently he was acquitted because his comments were ‘offensive’ but not ‘grossly offensive’ – a legal standard that nobody can be expected to understand or follow.


With the new code of conduct in place, we can expect more cases like these before the courts, and a lot more censorship. The powerful have spoken and the rest of us will be forced into silence.”

(emphasis added)



Brigitte Bardot – has five convictions for “hate speech” to her name by now


People in Europe may generally have less to fear from running afoul of the State’s censors than people in many other even places in the world, but this strikes us as bad enough.

Note as an aside to this that people questioning the officially sanctioned history of the Third Reich can be thrown into jail for years in Germany and Austria, especially if they are repeat offenders. We are anything but fans of Hitler and fascism. We despise the Nazi ideology and are horrified by the crimes committed in its name. We do however believe that even the most odious views should be open to debate. The truth should not be in need of legal protection.

Americans should be very happy that the constitutional right to freedom of speech has so far been held in far higher regard by the US legislative and judiciary than anyone’s alleged “right” not to be offended. This is one of the things with respect to which the US remains a shining light and an example to the world worth following. Don’t let them ever take that right away.



Speech is either free or it isn’t. One cannot have it both ways, as the EU apparatchiks apparently think. As soon as restrictions on free speech are introduced, abuse is sure to follow.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Haus-Targaryen's picture

Fascism returning to Europe, this time packaged as fairness, justice & equality.  Same shit here, different century.  Looking forward to something breaking and the blow-back starting.  

I get the feeling many of these low information SJWs are going to get fed through the wood-chipper.

Kaeako's picture

If people in Europe have been thrown to jail for questioning the official WW2 narrative since WW2, did this so called "free speech" ever exist in Europe? It's a road they've been walking on for at least a thousand years.

Supernova Born's picture

Wimp cultures will be overrun.

That isn't even speculation, it is happening en masse right now in Europe and the US.

Over. Fucking. Run.


Kaeako's picture

In soft regions are born soft men. Inescapable consequence of wealth and prosperity afaik.

Billy the Poet's picture

Freedom of speech is anti-Semitic.


No one has even noticed that Merrick Garland would be the fourth Jewish member out of nine on the Supreme Court. They're already over-represented by 1000% and it's not even an issue.

Eahudimac's picture

Over 90% of Jews are not Semitic. The are of European decent. Genetics don't lie. So next time a white Jew tells you that you are anti Semitic, tell them you are anti-lying sack of shit. The Palestinians are the real Semites. Tell them to go back to fucking goats in khazharia.

Billy the Poet's picture

You're not allowed to say that.

Handful of Dust's picture

Online sexism will no tbe tolerated, but groping, attacking and raping European girls is ok.


~ Merkle, Hollandais & Co.



fleur de lis's picture

Coinage and usage of the word "racism" will have to be established before it is permanently archived.

The origin seems to have been something of an attempt to grasp massive population changes. Leon Trotsky is associated with it because he and and his communist ilk instinctively recognized the value of weaponizing it as a means of control.
Apex predators understand their prey and work around them. Communist subversives are the same, which explains their use and abuse of language in general and "racism" in particular as a basic social control weapon.

fleur de lis's picture

And Yevette Cooper is another NWO concubine. Who is she to set any kind of social standard when she and her husband -- both .gov doncha know -- flipped houses at the expense of the British taxpayers.

Both of them welfare queens on crack telling everybody else how to behave.

They all have to be stripped of the ability to do anything of any personal financial benefit while in office.
That alone would weed out the parasites.
That they are already subsidized in the swankiest neighborhoods is bad enough.
That they ignore the will of the people and impose alien policies with draconian penalties for non-compliance is even worse.
But that they stay in office and continue admonishing the populace about anything after being caught out is the worst ever.

froze25's picture

Let the war of "words" begin with Sharpie Markers used in Bathroom stalls.

css1971's picture

Genetics don't lie

They don't.


The northen European, Germanic and Celtic religious concept of the Tree of Life (aka Yggdrasil or The World Tree) is widely misunderstood. People think of some sort of physical or mythic tree out in space or heaven or something... doh.


The Tree of Life is as follows.


You have 2 parents and 4 grandparents, 8 great grand parents.... They are the roots of the tree. Your children and grand children, however many you have are the branches and leaves of the tree. You and your partner, all the people living today, are the trunk of the tree.


Genetically. You are made up 1/8th of each of your great grand parents. Your children are 1/2 you and your partner and you contribute 1/4 of the genes to your grand children. If you go back any more than 3-4 generations, unless you explicitly practice inbreeding as a culture, and even if you do, you will share an insignificant amount of genetic material with the people you associate yourself with historically.


This is especially true in a time where movement of people is so easy. It's only where you have isolated groups of people that genes travel down through the trees relatively unchanged and unmixed overall.


2000 years is 100 generations approximately, 100 divisions. European and American Jews share almost nothing genetically and today, little culturally (beyond the name) with the Jewish people of the new testament bible and even less with the jews of the old testament - 3,500 years or ~200 generations. Divide something in half 200 times and the result approximates to zero.


Being a european/american Jew then  is really nothing more than being a member of a cultural club.


Also, the native jews of palestine, are genetically indistinguishable from palestinian muslims (who are also semites btw). The difference is purely cultural.


Bear in mind that a human being is made up of about 21,000 genes. Dividing it by 2 each generation means after ~15 generations (~300 years) the number of genes shared with an ancestor is likely to be around 0.

A Pimp's love is different's picture

"Being a european/american Jew then  is really nothing more than being a member of a cultural club"


...and if you're NOT IN IT, then you'll kindly be asked to STFU

Grave's picture

your statement is way oversimplified, it doesnt account for genetic drift, dna mutations, recessive genes, etc, etc

A Pimp's love is different's picture

what about 'immaculate conceptions' ~ lol


I mean, ffs, I'm being half sardonic & half serious here...


If people want the 2nd coming of Jesus so bad, why not just take DNA from a blood sample from the Shroud of Turin and engineer a clone...


You could make a whole island theme park out of it & call it Jurassic Jesus... Spielberg would be happy to direct that one I'm sure to make sure it was historically accurate.

MANvsMACHINE's picture

If they sell oversized chicken legs and churros, I'm in!

css1971's picture

The immaculate conception was a mistranslation. They mistranslated the Hebrew word for "young woman" as "virgin".


Joseph very definitely fucked Mary after he married her. I mean... ffs...


There was no immaculate conception or virgin birth. 


Lorca's Novena's picture

"Jurrasic Jesus"


You Sir have won the whole interwebs today.

css1971's picture

No, it's not. The halfing of contributed genetics between generations is overwhelmingly more important than those factors.

Orders of magnitude larger.

Grave's picture

quote: "means after ~15 generations (~300 years) the number of genes shared with an ancestor is likely to be around 0"
lets see - according to research and evidence based on archeological find (skeletons), not only did my ancestors live in this area for at least 5500 years (carbon dated), but 80% of current population is directly related to our ancestor (dna comparison)
- so thats quite far from a 0, even after hundreds of generations

css1971's picture

"It's only where you have isolated groups of people that genes travel down through the trees relatively unchanged and unmixed overall."

You personally will most likely share little to nothing with any single direct ancestor from 300+ years ago. It's pure fluke if you do. The idea of family lines for example is complete nonsense genetically. You're obviously made up of the combination of litlle bits of genes from the 32 thousand ancestors who make you up... Going back 15 generations...


You'll have to check your personal ancestors. Did they practice inbreeding? Deliberately or incidentally? Anyone who lives in a difficult to travel to (isolated) area is more likely to be more inbred; mountainous regions, islands etc. Anyone who lives near easy transportation, less so; ports, cities, important roads etc.


Who fucked who, for 3-4 generations back is by far the most important aspect of what makes you who you are. Everything else is bullshit.

Grave's picture

until very recently most people lived in close communities.
you should at least read up on recessive/dominant alleles

css1971's picture

Just last year, hundreds of thousands of people walked from Syria to Germany. Hell, The Exodus is the story of exactly such a movement of people.


We've had the wheel for 6000 years. We've had boats and ships for 10,000 years. If there isn't a physical barrier in the way, people mix, and if there is, they find a way round it.


In 1066 the Normans invaded what's now England, they mixed with the Saxons and Angles who lived there. Today 1000 years later there are no identifiable Normans or Angles or Saxons. The genetic division mechansim is enormously powerful mechanism for mixing genes.


You get half your genes from each of your parents. What dominant/recessive traits describe is how likely you are to express (turn on) a given trait, given the genes you have inherited from each parent. You obviously can't get all the genes from each parent.


On exactly this subject, I'll also point out that children express more genes inherited from their fathers than from their mothers. i.e. more genes from their fathers are turned on than from their mothers, even though they inherit 50:50. I'll let you work out why for yourself.



TeamDepends's picture

Sweet! Nobody told us we could have a question mark in our name. From now on we are TeamDep?ends. Scotland, you've turned into a nation of blouse-wearing poodle-walkers. William Wallace is spinnin' in his grave!

OverTheHedge's picture

"a nation of blouse-wearing poodle-walkers"


Unfortunately, most Scots won't understand what you mean, and certainly won't get a feeling of the level of vitriol that you intended. Try this for examples of what might be more appropriate:


The interesting thing is, have I just committers an offence under this new "agreement"? Will  zerohedge join in? Has InTheMix been arrested yet? All vital questions that need answering....


This is just a case of people with pointless jobs, needing to vindicate their existence. Doh, I did it again. No more Facebook for me :-(


Paul Kersey's picture

In the US, the religion of the majority of people is Protestant.  I believe that all the members of the Supreme Court are either Catholic or Jewish.  In other words, as a percentage of Supreme Court justices, Protestants are overwhelmingly under represented. 

Laddie's picture

Thought Crime laws proliferate throughout the White world.
Some examples:
Jews want anyone who says anything about what they do on the internet to be imprisoned, if not executed.
Times of Israel:

Two Brazilian skinheads were sentenced to eight years of detention for promoting Nazism on Facebook. The local Jewish federation’s internet monitoring efforts reportedly were key to the case against Donato di Mauro, 25, and Marcus Vinicius, 26. Both men, known to belong to skinhead groups, were convicted of “Nazi propaganda,” “racism” and “conspiracy.”

The Facebook posts were a conspiracy!

“This is a longtime action on which we have been working for some three years,” said Salvador Ohana, president of the Jewish federation of the state of Minas Gerais. “We follow closely on the internet, we patrol the publications. We have tracked their Nazi content and the police joined us. Our lawyers served as accusers.” The sentence allows a semi-open detention, which means the two men would work during the day and sleep in jail overnight. The Jewish federation had proposed jailing the skinheads full-time. The sentence may be appealed.

And you will be sent to prison in Europe and Canada and even Russia for looking too closely at the Holohoax:
I wonder how long information such as this will be legal in the USSA? You see "hate speech" = TRUTH.

One of the authors a brilliant young German, Germar Rudolf was stripped of his PhD by the Max Planck Institute for writing the first book. He was also dragged from the arms of his wife and boys in AMERICA by M-16 toting Federal agents and then whisked back to Germany for a show trial and 5 years in prison, FOR WRITING A BOOK!!!!


Israel Demands Worldwide Internet Censorship

The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has unveiled plans to censor the Internet’s worldwide social media platforms with the building of an “international coalition” to counter criticism of Israel.
“This is a perfectly logical and just project,” Erdan’s spokesperson said. “If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.”

EU Fundamental Rights Colloquium October 2015, Brussels, Frans Timmermans, TRIBE MEMBER and Vice President of the European Commission, speech:

Anyway, let's start today with a couple of very recent examples of media bias. Perhaps you heard about the case that made a few headlines last week in Fort Worth, Texas, and was very briefly reported by other media around the country. That's the case of the 25-year-old Black woman who, driving under the influence of drugs, hit a White pedestrian, 37-year-old Gregory Biggs, with her car on a Fort Worth street. The impact broke Biggs's legs and threw his body up onto the hood of the Black woman's car. His head and shoulders went through the windshield on the passenger side. He was cut by the windshield and because of his broken legs was unable to extricate himself, but otherwise he suffered no life-threatening injuries.

After hitting Biggs, the Black woman drove home with him stuck in her windshield and begging for help. She parked her car in her garage and closed the garage door so that neighbors could not hear Biggs's cries for help. Then she went into her house, had sex with her boyfriend and took some more drugs. From time to time during the next three days, as Biggs slowly bled to death and went into shock, the Black woman went into her garage to watch him wriggling, half on the hood of her car and half stuck through the broken windshield, and listen to him begging for help. When Biggs finally died, the Black woman and a boyfriend pulled his body out of the windshield, put him in the trunk of the boyfriend's car, and dumped his body in a vacant lot.

If you want to read more of the grisly details, you should be able to find them at the Web site of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To me, the most important detail is that no news medium mentioned the race of either the killer or the victim. That information wasn't even explicitly in the Star-Telegram, but fortunately photographs of the killer and her victim were. Now, you know what the party line is: race wasn't mentioned because it's irrelevant. One person killed another person in an especially gruesome and callous manner, and race had nothing to do with it. That's the party line.

Now ask yourself this question: Suppose a White man had hit a Black woman with his car and then had driven home with her wriggling in his windshield and had watched her slowly die over the next three days while listening to her cries for help, taking time off occasionally to have sex with his girlfriend. After the Black woman was dead, the White man got a White friend to help him dump her corpse in a vacant lot. Do you believe that the media, in reporting the story after the White man's eventual arrest, would think that the race of the killer and that of the victim were irrelevant? Hey, you know the answer. Every major media outlet in the country would be screaming about White racism and the callous indifference of Whites to the suffering of Blacks. You know it!

Espionage and Anthrax William Pierce PhD (Physics) ex-physics professor at Oregon State University Broadcast Date: March 16, 2002

RibbitFreedom's picture

Like Bushemi in Fargo. I can get wit dat.

css1971's picture

You noticed it too? I think socialist though. Not that there's a lot of difference in reality between a socialist state and a fascist one. Both are equally authoritarian. Perhaps it's the propaganda. Socialists talk more about equality while beating you into line. Fascists just beat you into line.

Not just Europe. The US is turning into a Fascist state right before my eyes.

SmackDaddy's picture

Yeah we're in a Joo-controlled "fascist" state.  Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds.  Facsist = anti- Bolshevik.  That's it, period.  Stop tossing that word around trying to be some kind of rebelious intellectual.  It's juvenile and anachronistic.

Myself, I was libertarian once.  Then I grew the fuck up and opened my eyes to how this world actually works....

doctor10's picture

The arrogant staff of Western Social Democracies all assume they have the "right' to governanace-never-mind the fact that they have nothing but 20th century legacy models based in 19th century presumptions about whom should lead and how.


The very deficits these societies require to maintain legacy hierarchy is a measure of their destructive inhibitions on human freedom and creativity.


Failing to heed similar issues-(frozen ideology from frozen minds)  in France at the end of the 18th century led to needless bloodshed and drama

wildbad's picture

here (DE) its important to speak out freely and loudly.  when confronted, dig in and argue..there are no valid arguments for supression of speech..even pro- Nazi speech.


when the german SJWs scream and the politchics arrest you, appeal it to the european level.  both levels national and euro have as the first plank in their constitutions the guarantee of free speech.

Supernova Born's picture

No one group has more to lose from the collapse of the West as do western women.


Eahudimac's picture

Vera Jourova? What the fuck!?!? I wouldn't fuck that bitch with Hillarys dick.

Is that hate speech? If so, suck it motherfuckers!!! Hahahaha!

Eahudimac's picture

On a more serious note, I come to Europe quite a bit, especially the UK. I get the sense that native white Europeans are scared shitless to speak their minds. I think like most Americans, Europeans are welcoming to legal immigrants, but when their criminal governments start importing third world degenerates and putting them on the taxpayer dole, you have a right to be pissed. That right is being taken away. People are labeled racist and it scares them. I say fuck them . Let them call you racist. Wear it as a badge of honor. Don't tolerate this shit anymore. When a third world thug rapes a woman and the police and courts stand by, take matters into your own hands. Fuck these scum who suppress freedom of speech and suppression of logic.

Billy the Poet's picture

"Let's open the flood gates."  -- Jacob K. Javits


Jacob Koppel "Jack" Javits (May 18, 1904 – March 7, 1986) was an American politician who served as a United States Senator from New York from 1957 to 1981. He was a liberal Republican who served in Congress for 30 years.




The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill.

Restorative_Ally's picture

Violence is the answer. We know this because the tell us from a young age that "violence is never the answer."

Billy the Poet's picture

Just refuse to participate and never shut up.


BTW, the correct Javits quote is "Let's Open Our Gates." 

Laddie's picture

@Billy the Poet

Professor Kevin MacDonald’s ‘The Culture of Critique’ Reviewed This review, written in 1999, explains what the Tribe has done to the White nations.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.

"The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian."
--Miriam Faine, editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat

On Invasions, Traitors, and Gathering Storms by Andrew Joyce, PhD

We have within our walls a foreign people that has, on so many occasions, played its hand as the facilitator of incursions into Europe, as the histories of Cordoba, Seville, and the Arab conquest of Spain in general so strongly illustrate. As the storm rages and the waves crash in, our efforts to stem the tide have been hampered by a group intent on putting holes in the levees; who are working unceasingly to find new channels for the water to pour in. Their tactics may be diverse, but their mentality is monolithic. They are tireless and ruthless in their efforts to ensure that the Old Continent continues to leak like a sieve. They cherish dreams of its final vanishing beneath the waves.

Interview with Professor Kevin MacDonald October 23, 2015 Discusses the immigrant surge in Germany and loss of 2nd Amendment through immigration displacement of the founding stock of America, the Whites.
This is discussed by Dr MacDonald:

The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable. Just look at the demographics. The Washington Post, October 19, 2015
by Adam Winkler professor at UCLA School of Law

GeezerGeek's picture

I wonder how Miriam Faine would feel if there was a Muslim Australian Governor General. I fail to see how anyone could say that multiculturalism and diversity constitute an insurance policy against anti-Semitism.

Or perhaps the idea is to have various groups fighting each other, leaving no energy to be anti-Semitic.

SmackDaddy's picture

"liberal republican" lol.  let's go with "joo-ish infiltrator"

A Pimp's love is different's picture

"Vera Jourova? What the fuck!?!?"


Cut all the horseshit about Vera Jourova giving a fuck about Muslim, LGBT, or sexism... They are only the 'toss-ins' in a campaign that has been ongoing vs. what they call 'anti-semitism' as a way to divert the focus away from the only thing that really matters to them...




It never ends people, (& there just so happen to be about 6 million reasons, now that people are waking up to the fact that they've been lied to all their lives, that certain people want to shut the truth down for all time).

Restorative_Ally's picture

What is speech but a conveyance of thought? To charge and convict someone of hate speech is to convict them of thought crime. There is no greater infringement of rights than to intrude upon, or dictate the basic functions of the mind, which is the essential and soul portion of the individual. Therefore, punishment for being who you are and thinking how you think is essentially the ultimate violation of the person. It is, in essence, more a violation than rape. 

iClaudius's picture

"Can we still call Hillary a blood-thirsty war-mongering lying harpy?"

Oh, come on; harpy is a bit strong.

VWAndy's picture

 Does talking about justice qualify as hate speach? Truth sure as hell does these days. Thats what censorship is always really about. They cant really get away with calling or starting a War on truth. Its the same as calling fraud an innovation. Changing the name of a thing does not change what it is. More tower of babble BS.

 So in summation censorship is a war on truth. Always is. Eat shit tricksters.

DuneCreature's picture

Preach it brother, VWA.

Can I get an Amen?

~ DC  v2.0