In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.
When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.
There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.
I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?
Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist
If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.
As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).
Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.
Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?
Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:
Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:
Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).
Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.
And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.
There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”
Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”
Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts.
ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain
Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:
non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.
In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95. The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” 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.Donnelly, 115. 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.”Honeyford, 93. 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.”Ibid.
(Honeyford, 93.) One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”Ibid, 94.
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.”I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85. 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 his own Wikipedia entry states that 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.”W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810. 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 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 Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. 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 implementation 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.”T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24. 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.”Ibid, 22.
(T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.)
But Lester wasn’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.C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38. Further, 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.P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322. Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated 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.”Ibid, 323.
(P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.) Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”Ibid.
(P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.)
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.”T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22. 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.”Ibid.
(T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.)
The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.
2012–2015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance
Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantor’s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European “tolerance law” for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to “criminalize ‘group libel,’ such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe.” On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and throwing his “support behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent.” Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to Times of Israel, was “undeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a “pipe dream,” the tolerance law will ultimately take root.”
Dinstein’s document, innocuously titled “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” [full text here] but also known by the name “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” was designed to legally implement Kantor’s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.” It proposes to make “education in tolerance” mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. … It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school.” The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.
The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.” It asserts a legally binding commitment that: “The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.” Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:
- The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
- The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
- The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.
In short, the proposals aim to make “commitment to tolerance” a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of “special administrative units” dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess “intolerant” views.” The statute develops a framework of “concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.” The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that “Whilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.”
Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that “It must be understood that the “group libel” may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).” Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantor’s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: “Historically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.”
Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made “anti-Semitic” criticisms of Israel today, or “denied the Holocaust.” And these penalties are harsh. The document argues there is “no need to be tolerant to the intolerant.” Group libel, “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology,” xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as “aggravated crimes.” Juveniles “guilty of intolerance” will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via “a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.”
Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor’s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation. Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a \$1 million “Kantor Prize for Secure Tolerance,” an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of “20–50 thousand Euro each” for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.
2016–2018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on “Cyber Hate”
Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to “Secure Tolerance” by building a more intensive relationships with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet “intolerance.” In January 2016, Kantor’s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced “a partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,” that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship. At a meeting of the EJC’s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would “enable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programs,” while providing Kantor’s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that “Working together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.” An enthused Kantor replied, “I am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.” Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in “advocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commission.”
By 2018, Kantor’s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about “secure tolerance” had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the “intolerant” to “the censure of society. … If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it.” But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.
In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; 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 Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central “think tank” for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism” the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.
The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites,” and its plan to “eliminate anti-Semitism” is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are
In much the same way that Kantor’s “secure tolerance” policy proposes that “restrictions are necessary for freedom,” many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995–2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance” Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a “defender of democracy,” acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the “think tank” strategy, this is “democracy,” but not as you know it.
Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,” appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57. Along with an earlier piece from 2016,. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123. the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and does inspire crime,” it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.
We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: “On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).” Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident “illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.”
Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:
[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.
The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech” didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that “hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”
Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that “White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups.” The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.
In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede “quite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.” Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.” It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.
In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of “hate groups,” as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.” Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.
Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos.” They offer “eye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.” Readers of such websites “talk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.” Members “use cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.” Website proprietors can also “make appeals for funding.” Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.
Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate” buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: “Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.”J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189) The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication.
It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians. Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.’ Cohen-Almagor writes:
Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.
2018–2020: Big Tech/ Big Capital/ Big Jew/ Big Brother
A key step towards making dissident thought unlawful, and ensuring “Secure Tolerance,” is the effort to represent it, in its totality, as culturally illicit. As early as 2015, Brian Marcus, head of the ADL’s Internet Division, had been contacting Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with threats that allowing “hate” material on their service “would be bad for their business.”R. Cohen-Almagor, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) 219. Backed with reports, policy proposals, and “recommendations” from their own alphabet soup of think tanks and solo Jewish intellectuals like Cohen-Almagor, the ADL and the European Jewish Congress began more widespread intensive lobbying of tech companies in late 2018. The acceleration of lobbying against Big Tech should be seen in the broader context of heightened activism for the implementation of “Secure Tolerance” more generally.
Although the ADL and YouTube had co-operated since at least 2008, intensification of this relationship in early 2019 culminated in YouTube changing its content policy. Jonathan Greenblatt announced the ADL had “been working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism.”
The international Jewish strategy to bring the ethos of “secure tolerance” into tech culture again involved the high-level involvement of American Jewish groups in Europe’s “democratic” institutions. For example, in May 2015 the American Jewish Committee’s Transatlantic Institute (note again this constant reliance on a motley of Jewish ‘think tanks’), launched a fervent lobbying campaign at the EU with the aim to “detoxify social media. … Internet Service Providers are free to—and should—exclude raw hate speech.” Just to make sure the message was sent loud and clear, the AJC even hosted its main 2015 “Strategy Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism” in Brussels, during which the “AJC unveiled an action plan for European governments to address the intensifying crisis of anti-Semitism.” This, then, is our “democracy” — unelected, uninvited American Jewish groups presenting “action plans” (lists of demands) to a bloated, corrupt, and unaccountable bureaucracy.
• • •
Britain’s Jewish “Community Security Trust” (CST) has, since 2016, been working, again in an unelected and unaccountable capacity, with the European Commission on a “social media illegal hate speech monitoring” project. The CST was able to use the semblance of official authority given to it by this alliance to pressure social media companies by sending them regular performance reports on how well they were doing in removing CST-blacklisted speech from Twitter, Facebook and Google. In yet another stellar example of democracy in action, the unelected and unaccountable CST had earlier claimed the credit for developing “the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online.” The code was imposed on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com, following the CST’s accusation that they were “not adhering to anti-hate speech laws across Europe.”
The EU Code of Conduct, however, was only ever intended as the first step towards “secure tolerance,” and Moshe Kantor remarked in one 2017 interview that, in his opinion, Big Tech was failing even to meet the basic Jewish expectations of the Code (removal of the majority of designated material within 24 hours). In a 2017 article for Britain’s Independent, Kantor insisted “we must now look to European political leaders to take stronger action, using legislation if necessary, to prove they’re serious about combating this problem once and for all.” [emphasis added] The broader push was always for heightened legal measures that would involve law enforcement, as Kantor had himself spelled out in his 2011 Manifesto. Incessant Jewish lobbying has resulted in Germany being the first nation to take the next step to “secure tolerance.” Recently, Germany adopted Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s proposal that “racism” be treated in the same way as terrorism and child pornography. In February 2020, the German government approved a bill to “force social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to report criminal posts to the police.” The Financial Times reports:
Under the planned new law, which is the toughest of its kind in the world, social media platforms will not only have to delete certain kinds of hate speech but also flag the content to the Office of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Posts that companies will be required to report include those indicating preparations for a terrorist attack and the formation of criminal and terrorist groups, as well as those featuring instances of racial incitement and the distribution of child pornography. The networks would also have to give the BKA the last IP address and port number most recently assigned to the user profile. [emphasis added]
Early resistance from Facebook to the legislation, focused specifically on the issue of “Holocaust denial,” prompted the ADL to go into attack mode. Reverting to tactics once used against Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, the ADL dropped its “Boycott is not a solution” rhetoric that had been employed against the BDS movement, and initiated a “Stop Hate for Profit” advertising boycott in early June by circulating images showing advertisers anti-Jewish (really, often simply anti-George Soros) Facebook posts alongside which their ads were running. The move shaved almost \$58 billion from Facebook’s stock value, with over 1,000 major companies leveraged into action. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s series of demands to drop the boycott include the granting of high-level access to “civil rights” (ADL) officials who will perform “regular, independent audits” of “hate” on the platform (which would allow them to engage in intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate removal of “thousands” of White advocacy groups, and the use of Facebook software to “target” “neo-Nazis and White supremacists.” Simultaneously, the ADL and Moshe Kantor have been pushing a Holocaust-narrative marketing campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and elsewhere, with Kantor commenting “The best way to spread any message today is through social media.” Censorship and propaganda thus go hand-in-hand in the effort to gain a monopoly of the public mind.
As the world’s largest and most influential Jewish organizations tighten their hold on Big Tech’s conglomerates, smaller rivals have emerged to fill the dissident demand for platforms. One of the most promising of these is BitChute, a UK-registered technology company with British directors. Slick and easy to navigate, the site is an obvious alternative to those exiled from YouTube, and its growing popularity has frustrated Jews whose goal isn’t simply to remove dissident speech from the larger platforms, but to remove it from the internet, and the public sphere, forever. Two weeks ago, the CST produced a maudlin propaganda video denouncing BitChute and presenting all dissident thought as “incitement to murder.” In the course of the video, CST staff announce they’ve been gathering intelligence at the site and will submit a “report” to their “partners in government, anti-terrorism police, and in think tanks.” [emphasis added] The CST has also been concentrating its efforts on Gab, 4chan, and Telegram, and CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner claims that “contact with the police” has already led to the removal of some content.
The CST recently secured another UK government grant of £14 million (\$17.66 million), which it has been receiving annually since 2015. In fact, the group is so financially secure that it is now hiring “social media research analysts” so that it can better put pressure on the government to introduce legislation preventing free speech on the internet. Given that young British people are dying of cancer because the NHS claims to be unable to afford the necessary drugs, it must be a great comfort to their families that at least some Jews, somewhere, are collecting large salaries to browse memes on Twitter and send regular reports to the police about the hate they’ve found on Gab.
While BitChute has very low advertising revenue, and is thus relatively immune to boycott tactics, Jewish groups have nevertheless attempted to attack other parts of the site’s infrastructure. In particular, the site’s reliance on Disqus for video comments has been highlighted as a potential means of weakening the site, with Garner declaring “Disqus is part of this problem.” One presumes that a warning has been sent.
Online payment processors are another element of internet infrastructure that has been relentlessly attacked by organized Jews. Eric Striker’s National Justice recently revealed images from a private PayPal seminar in which audience members were told that “hate content” was referred to the ADL, among other “external partners.” Striker writes:
According to another training slide,1800 accounts belonging to individuals, non-profits and businesses in the last year have been eliminated for political reasons using guidelines provided by their “partners.” 65% were for what they categorize as white nationalist activity, while the next most censored group is people and organizations who advocate for immigration restrictions. A person cannot support Donald Trump’s winning issue from his 2016 campaign and still keep their Paypal, in other words. There is even a category for “prejudiced academic work.”
PayPal CEO Dan Schulman is himself Jewish, and it’s hard not to conclude that this was a very willing partnership. In fact, Jewish activism in Big Tech collides with another phenomenon — what Aaron Chatterji and Michael Toffel refer to in the Harvard Business Review as “The New CEO Activists.” Chatterji and Toffel cite Schulman’s decision not to locate PayPal infrastructure in Charlotte, North Carolina, as CEO activist economic punishment for the state’s legislation banning the gender-confused from using the bathrooms of the opposite sex. The Associated Press estimated that an ensuing boycott of North Carolina by heavily-Jewish Big Capital cost the state more than \$3.76 billion. Salesforce’s Marc Benioff and Goldmans Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein were similarly listed as “CEO activists” in the cause of advancing homosexuals and their culture.
Financial support to Jewish groups and associated “think tanks” and legal institutions is another crucial aspect of CEO activism. Logan Green, Jewish CEO of car-sharing company Lyft, pledged \$1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union when the ACLU was preparing to fight Donald Trump’s early attempt at an immigration ban. The ADL has received huge donations from most of the big names in Big Capital and Big Tech. For all the current theater about Facebook’s insistence on some modicum of free speech, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg last year made a personal donation of \$2.5 million to the ADL. This can be added to \$1 million from Apple, \$1 million from Fox, and \$1 million from Jewish Craigslist founder Craig Newmark for the specific purpose of fighting “online hate speech.”
That the ADL has been able to mobilize a massive and crushing boycott of Facebook is as much a “show of strength,” an act of intimidation against broader industry, government, and people, as it is a specific act against Facebook’s sluggishness in imposing the full list of measures demanded by Big Jew. So-called CEO activism is so very useful to the ADL because so many of the CEO’s are themselves Jewish and highly supportive of the cause. As Fenek Solere pointed out in a recent article for Britain’s Patriotic Alternative, it is almost impossible to separate Big Tech and Big Capital from Big Jew:
Public broadcasting networks both in the UK and USA are—and have been for many years—effectively owned and dominated by people like Sumner Redstone, Phillipe Dauman, Bernard Delfont, Lew and Leslie Grade and Alan Yentob. … But it is not only in the spheres of global communication, financial services and party political funding where people like Julian A. Brodsky, of Comcast, Michael Dell of Dell, Sandy Lerner, co-founder Cisco systems, Robert A. Altman of ZeniMax Media, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook, Aaron Swartz of Reddit, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Weimar at LinkedIn, Max Levchin of PayPal, Charles Schusterman of Samson Investment, Richard and Henry Bloch of the Tax Preparation Company, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, The Zionist Organization of America, The Republican Jewish Coalition, and the Christians United for Israel, hold sway. Some other areas in which they are disproportionately over-represented are: retail, governmental bureaucracies, hotel and leisure, theatre and the arts, academia, technology and software, international intelligence services, charities and NGOs, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, professional consultancy and the legal and judicial profession. Representative examples being: Devin Wenig of eBay, … Mark Weinberger CEO/Chairman of Ernst & Young, Samuel Ruben, Duracell Inc, Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communication Inc, Rachel Haurwitz, co-founder of Gene Editing and Caribou Biosciences, Leonard Schleifer, founder of biotechnology Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Beny Alagem, founder of Packard Bell, Amir Ashkenazi, co-founder of Adap. TV and Shopping.com, Jay Cohen of Online Gambling, Talman Marco of Viber, Sean Pad of Tinder, Henry Crown, founder of the Material Service Corporation in Aeronautics, the Mossad run ICTS Europe specialising in international Security, Gumar Agujar and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, Arthur Belfer of Belco Petroleum, precursor to the infamous Enron organisation, Louis Blaustien of American Oil, Leon Hess of the Hess Corporation, owners of the NFL’s New York Jets, C, Morris Mirkin of Budget Rent-a-Car, Sheldon Yellen of Belfor Construction, Leonard Abramson of Health Maintenance Organization, Bennett Greenspan of Gene testing, Joel Landau of Allure, Martine Rothblatt of United Therapeutics, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, Ben Rosen of Compaq Computers, Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon Communications, Ed Savitz owner of Amusement Arcades, and Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels.
The above listing is a mere indication of how prolific these power-brokers are and the degree of control they exert over our lives every single day. … All of them are committed Zionists and all of them are members and supporters of fanatically pro-Israel, Jewish partisan organizations.
And, as I wrote at the conclusion of my 2019 essay “The Necessity of anti-Semitism”:
Today, largely worthless “branded” consumer products are overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is funded by Jewish financiers. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder, and Marc Jacobs are just some of the Jews whose very names have become synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-owned companies like Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple, Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel, and Toys “R” Us have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous production of garbage for mass consumption on credit. The consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion and the West commences its death rattle. You might ask, when you see rainbow-package Doritos, what tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that’s only because you’re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a Starbucks, and go try on a new pair of \$200 jeans at Macy’s. Critique, Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the necessity of anti-Semitism.
In light of all that has been discussed, we could add that “Secure Tolerance,” Big Tech, Big Capital, Big Brother, and Big Jew have converged. The final result will be the achievement of Jewish censorship across the West, a “permanent and irreversible” cycle of laws and repression, and the theft of our children’s future. Like Milton’s Satan, these groups will declaim in favor of equality and democracy, only to later wield the tyrant’s scepter in Hell.
How to finish such a pessimistic essay? It’s true that the information presented here is disturbing, infuriating, confusing, and heartbreaking. Can any practical lessons be derived from it?
One clear pattern observed in this essay is the overwhelming reliance on “think tanks” and similar bureaucratic vehicles for the intrusion of harmful Jewish influence into our “democracy.” Jews, even with their very significant financial power, rely on the magnification of their rhetoric, interests, and grievances through such bodies in order to accomplish their goals. This is where they can and should be challenged. Who is granting access and power to these groups? Can existing legislation be used to prevent the intrusion of these bodies into the democratic process and, if not, can new legislation be proposed to do so? The closest the dissident right ever came to a think tank was the National Policy Institute (NPI), which despite its name, and while fulfilling an important movement function, didn’t really produce any policies. At the present time, our movement clearly needs talented legal minds and institutions to unpack existing legislation, and develop new legislative proposals that, even if not explicitly racial, can seriously hinder the movement of harmful Jewish groups through the political body of the West. There is a serious lack of infrastructure of even the most basic kind, and we simply aren’t going to make any progress until this problem is addressed.
The second lesson from this survey of developments is that social media is likely to become an increasingly compromised and dangerous place for activists. In Europe, new laws are probably a few years away, but the broader plan will almost certainly eventually envelop Canada, Australia, and, despite apparent belief that the Constitution is invulnerable, even the United States. Already American legal scholars have developed arguments for curtailing the First Amendment in the case of “hate speech” (see, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), and it is widely believed that a liberal Supreme Court majority would adopt such reasoning. The clock is probably already ticking on internet anonymity, and the example of Germany indicates that direct police involvement in “speech crime” is on the horizon. Off-line activist methodologies should be increasingly explored. Failing that, radically alternative modes of using internet networking should be considered. For example, even if someone uses a completely outrageous Twitter handle, complete with comic book avatar, most people still have their entire lives online (job, home town, friends, likes, hobbies, vacations). Don’t forget who ultimately has all of this information, and the organizations that will increasingly be able to access it.
It’s becoming very apparent that social media is itself a form of social control. We now have the ability to identify someone in a crowd simply by cross-referencing a photo of their face with available internet information. In seconds they can be identified, their employer can be contacted, and their loved ones can be harassed. In a strange way, despite the atomized condition of postmodernity, we have social control levels approaching those of the middle ages. We have new forms of social shaming, and new forms of the public pillory. Dissident activists who face overwhelming costs if they are doxxed would be well-advised to reduce their internet presence to the bare minimum, in effect, deliberately fading themselves into obscurity, thus making their life harder for the Zionist-Globalist panopticon to search for and penetrate. Remember who you were before you became an employee number, a Facebook profile, or a Twitter handle, and protect that person like you’d protect your child or other loved ones.
For the time being, however, ongoing online activism should be continued with enthusiasm and without despair. This costs our opponents dearly in terms of effort, money, and worry. Each new platform presents difficulties for them to navigate, and delays other plans they may have. Be proud that you’re still active, and be proud that while so many others in life are merely counting passes, you spotted that gorilla. I’ll leave the final word to Sir Oswald Mosley:
We have believed in our fellow Europeans. And we have believed in the destiny of Europe. My friends, it’s all there, it’s all waiting. Of course it can be done. It depends upon ourselves. You say, “But again, we’re scattered individuals. … Everything’s against us. Governments. Money. Press. Television. All the new forces are used against us. All the great forces, all the material powers of the world, you say are against you. And so they are —you’re quite right to feel that. And I don’t underrate them.
But I don’t despair, and you shouldn’t despair. Because you, like I, have read something of history. You know something of the record of the achievement of Europeans. And dark as this hour is, it’s no darker, it’s not as dark, as some of the hours you’ve known in European history. When everything was cowardice, treachery, and betrayal, and when the Saracen hordes from far outside Europe swept right across that continent, small bands of men came together in resolution, in absolute determination, giving themselves completely, and saying: Europe shall live! And they stood firm, and faced the menace to Europe, its values, its civilisations, the glory of its achievements. And more and more rallied to their standards, and those hordes were thrown back, again and again and again.
My friends it’s an immense responsibility. You’re living in a historic hour — do remember that always. Live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny. Come together, get going, get working. Inspire other people like yourselves.
 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.
 R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.
 . Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.
 J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)
 R. Cohen-Almagor, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) 219.