Censorware vs. the First AmendmentAndrew Hamilton
German translation here
I recently had the experience of accessing the Internet at a public library and being blocked from reading Counter-Currents—and my own work—because it constituted “Intolerance and Hate.” This applied to all the computers in all of the libraries of a regional system, not just one. I emphasize “public” because government in the United States is forbidden from engaging in such censorship by the First Amendment. This is not a gray area.
Another reason I emphasize “public” is because Jews, the Left, and government claim that wholesale censorship of Right-wing and white speech is permissible whenever the censors are “private”—i.e., members of the small clique that monopolizes the means of cultural production (the mass media), or constitute the handful of tax-exempt, often religious (though never Christian)/ethnic (though never Aryan) organizations that strong-arm private companies into blocking whatever content they dictate.
To use the library’s computer I had to log on. This required entering my library card number and the last four digits of my telephone number, both of which the library has on file. If you have not used the computers for a while, you will be unable to log on even with the proper identifiers. You can check out books, but you can’t access the Internet. This is what happened to me.
In order to reactivate the log-on numbers, which the library had disabled, I had to go to the front desk, identify myself, and re-verify my personal information, including my home address.
The unexpected censorware (euphemistically called “content-control” or “content filtering” software), combined with the library’s obsession with knowing who was using each computer terminal and attempting to access prohibited websites, surprised me. The last time I accessed the Internet from public libraries was in the 1998-2002 period, and nothing like this existed. Nowhere was it the practice to censor online content or carefully monitor and record the names, home addresses, and specific surfing habits of individual patrons. Ten years ago you could surf the Internet with complete freedom and anonymity, other than somebody possibly peering over your shoulder. That window has been slammed shut.
When I finally typed the Counter-Currents URL into the browser I received a white screen with the following message:
The link you are accessing has been blocked by the Web Filter because it contains content belonging to the category of: Intolerance and Hate.
If you would like to suggest that it be added to the safe browsing list [sic], please speak with a library staff member.
NO OVERRIDE ALLOWED
“Public Web Filter”
The “Public Web Filter” was not identified by name. Those behind it prefer that people forced to pay for the denial of their intellectual freedom remain ignorant of that and everything else that matters.
Rare is the patron—by nature a supplicant—who will approach a librarian to ask to be allowed to view “Intolerance and Hate,” argue over what constitutes “Intolerance and Hate” or whether a specific site or group of websites legitimately belongs in that category, or, more importantly, that the category itself is illegitimate.
These are arguments the patron cannot win. Censorship is institutionalized as formal policy, handed down from on high, and staffers are conditioned to believe in it themselves. They behave like priggish, self-righteous gatekeepers.
In fact, the issue has already been put to a test. In Washington State patrons filed suit after a large regional library refused to unblock websites containing legal (non-pornographic) information about tobacco use, art galleries, and general interest blogs (i.e., refused to override the installed censorware when requested to). Federal District Court Judge Edward Shea of Spokane, Washington, a Clinton appointee, ruled in Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District (2012) that the library was free to censor even if the blocked websites contained constitutionally protected speech.
Nobody in America seriously questions the legitimacy of violating the First Amendment or suppressing freedom of speech anymore. Universities and governments simply assume censorship’s legitimacy. It is universally practiced in the mass media and politics, by publishers and distributors of books, magazines, and newspapers, on campuses, and in libraries. Soon it will be expressly formalized in law, just as it has been everywhere else that used to be free.
Left-wing “civil libertarian” objections to censorware are narrowly restricted to safeguarding the dynamic underpinnings of the permanent revolution. Thus, Leftists complain that Establishment censorware sometimes inadvertently blocks homosexual propaganda websites from schoolchildren and others. Or, hypocritically, they obsessively criticize censorware in China. The strategic objective there is to replicate what has been done to the white West. This necessitates control of the mass media. Until alien control is absolute, Chinese censorware serves as a hindrance.
I did not have a list of pro-white or Holocaust revisionist websites with me (there aren’t many anymore) to test against the filter. However, I did try a few names.
Blocked: C-C, The Occidental Observer, DavidDuke.com, Vanguard News Network, The West’s Darkest Hour (Chechar).
Not Blocked: VDare, AltRight, Taki’s Magazine, and Occidental Dissent. (AltRight I can no longer access on my own computer. I receive a static screen for something called “Squarespace” instead.)
VDare is the only dissident website I have seen that makes a concerted effort to keep track of censorware. Its editor has asked readers to “let us know when they find VDARE.COM is blocked and, if possible, what filtering software is being used. With reader help, we have already identified four commercial filters that blocked us; all have backed off after receiving a lawyer’s letter.”
“Protecting the Children”
It turns out that the legal pretext for this blatant violation of the First Amendment is the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2000 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D.). It was introduced into the Senate by John McCain (R.-Ariz.). However, the bill was never voted upon by either house. Instead, it was unobtrusively attached as a rider to an omnibus budget bill, a massive piece of legislation containing several unrelated proposals at the end of the legislative session. It thus became law with little scrutiny or debate. Such is “democracy” these days.
CIPA requires that all public libraries and K-12 schools utilize censorware to block “unacceptable” websites. These programs are sold to schools and libraries by for-profit private corporations.
For example, CyberPatrol, a product developed in 1997 by the Jewish ADL and Mattel’s The Learning Company, has blocked political speech by whites, and even Amnesty International’s web page about Israel. According to the company’s website, which—surprise, surprise—lacks transparency, CyberPatrol is currently installed on home computers, business computers, in schools and libraries (including the Oregon Public Library, the El Paso Public Library, Great Falls Public Library, Franklin Ferguson Memorial Library, Lancaster Community Library, and Yuma County Library), and on government and military computers including those belonging to the US Air Force, the United States District Court, police departments, and municipalities such as the city of El Paso, Texas.
It is my belief that tax-exempt Jewish organizations like the ADL are directly or indirectly responsible for virtually all of the master lists of forbidden websites secretly embedded in censorware programs that violate the core First Amendment rights of conservative, white, right-wing, and Christian groups and individuals.
In 2003—more than a decade ago—the various Indexes of banned websites contained between 200,000 and 600,000 URLs.
The purported purpose of CIPA is to protect children from pornography and prevent adults from accessing child pornography. As I have demonstrated, in practice censorware is used to suppress core political speech protected by the First Amendment. Library patrons, indeed all users of computers containing censorware, are cut off from vast swaths of the World Wide Web, including unapproved conservative or right-wing political views expressed there. The Constitutional rights of site owners and writers are also violated. Democracy is debased.
As usual, censorship occurs in the dark, without publicity or information, out of public view. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based Establishment digital rights group, notes:
There’s no solid documentation of which libraries are filtering what specific websites. Part of this stems from libraries not being transparent about their decision to voluntarily block more content than required by law. [The law purportedly targets pornography, not free speech.] Additionally, most filtering technology companies closely guard their algorithms for blocking sites, claiming trade secrecy. [W]e don’t have a comprehensive list of what’s getting blocked.
Immediately after Congressional passage of CIPA, a US District Court in Pennsylvania ruled 3-0 that it violated the First Amendment.
However, that decision was overturned on appeal by the US Supreme Court, which declared the act “constitutional” by a vote of 6-3 in United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003). The pro-censorship majority consisted of William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Italian Catholic Antonin Scalia, Negro Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Jew Stephen Breyer.
The three dissenters were Justice John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Indeed, so great is the enthusiasm for censorship that many states and municipalities have piled on with their own mini-CIPA laws, adding further layers of suppression and making First Amendment violations even harder to track.
Jews and the Left use the following methods to silently “erase” vast swaths of Internet content.
- DNS (Domain Name Server) tampering — bans domain names
- IP (Internet Protocol) blocking — prevents a computer from accessing a specific IP address
- URL (Uniform Resource Locator) filtering — filtering software maintains and continually updates a database of URLs categorized as allowable or unallowable
- Keyword filtering — blocks blacklisted words or phrases
- Search result removal — an algorithm omits specific items from Google search results
- Takedown — an entity demands that specific content, or even an entire website, be taken down
- Self-censorship — This severely limits what content users see. Legal action, intimidation, and Internet surveillance are all common mechanisms that chill speech, hindering and distorting online expression. The NSA, FBI, ADL, and SPLC are among many Left-wing organizations that systematically spy, compile massive databases, and practice intimidation. Patrick Buchanan removed and censored comments from his website after the media highlighted what certain commenters had said. Sam Francis closed his Sam Francis Forum in an act of self-censorship.
Questions & Implications
Once society unthinkingly accepts the essentialist belief that “Intolerance and Hate,” divorced from objective meaning, is a category of permissibly proscribed speech, and habitually prohibits it in practice (de facto), changing the law de jure becomes a simple matter. Everyone has already been housebroken.
Censorship is a cancer that will spread and spread. It will not remain confined to conservatives, Christians, whites, and Holocaust revisionists because it confers almost unimaginable social, political, and economic power upon those who exercise it. Many, many Leftists currently applauding the suppression of white speech and politically incorrect historical and scientific studies will ultimately fall victim to their own intolerance. This is inevitable, but the ecstasy of silencing the Right is intoxicating. To a Leftist, nothing tastes as sweet!
The biggest danger for ambitious Establishment politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, or “artists”—any pious hewer to the Party line—is that, thanks to the elimination of free speech, association, democracy, and legal protections, they will run afoul of forbidden thoughts themselves, and the blade will one day come whistling down on their own politically correct necks.
Many a goodthinker died under Communism or rotted in concentration camps thanks to the inevitability of this happening. The circle of permissible discourse shrinks continuously, and ideological transgressions, or alleged transgressions, become weapons in intra-elite power struggles.
Like the stopped clock that is correct twice a day, this is the only thing Leftism gets right. It mercilessly eats its own children, who richly deserve their fate.
No people can survive if Jews and government successfully keep its spokesmen trapped in a bell jar without air (money and the ability to communicate with the public). Keeping in mind that censorware nowhere suppresses the hate speech of elites or specially privileged groups, we must ask ourselves some questions.
How ubiquitous are computer filters that suppress speech?
How common are they on government computers—international, federal, state, local, judicial, military, and police?
In corporations? In educational institutions? In newsrooms?
How many antivirus firms like Symantec or software makers such as Microsoft surreptitiously bundle censorware that renders invisible vast swaths of the Internet without customers’ knowledge in their “child-safe” or “family friendly” filters?
Who, exactly, possesses the unparalleled power to classify selected speech as “Intolerance and Hate” even as Hate pours forth from television sets, movie screens, pop music, video games, books, magazines, and newspapers 24 hours a day?
Specific people and groups are responsible for this. It’s not the result of the invisible hand—at least not the invisible hand of Adam Smith. These people have names and faces, money and power. Who are they? Who holds them accountable? Who conferred such tyrannical power over America and the world on them in the first place?
These are not academic questions. They are vital to the survival of a people.
The enemy harbors a fierce hatred for our race. Other than hobbyists, every activist—even writers, bloggers, and organizers of tiny meetings and street protests—needs to be aware of the power, in all its forms, that too often renders futile the Herculean efforts of a lifetime. He must be concerned not merely with sounding off, but with the practicalities of power.
Is anyone even hearing what you say? If not, why not? There should be a meaningful, substantial positive reaction. If that natural response is absent, you must ask yourself why. It’s like trying to figure out what’s wrong with an automobile or appliance.
A basic diagnostic or troubleshooting principle is to check the simplest things first. The seemingly moronic question you’ve probably been asked, “Is it plugged in?”, is in accord with this principle.
Given what has happened with such blinding speed to our race, its total unnaturalness and highly dubious one-way nature, the obvious question to ask is, “Are we being heard?” To me, the clear answer is “No.” We’re not even plugged in. No charge is reaching the device.
Jews frequently operate outside our psychological frame of reference. They have a longer time horizon than whites, and single-mindedly pursue specific extremist objectives cross-generationally. Very often, as in the case of censorware, their incessant civilization-wrecking activity is not even seen or “felt” by their victims. Nevertheless, such silent, invisible forces are an omnipresent reality that must be reckoned with.
You must strive to see what you don’t see, and feel what you don’t feel.
The American Regime
The Populist Moment, Chapter 11, Part 4: “Multitudes” Against the People
Dave Chappelle: Non-White Ally of the Year
The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
How I Got Banned from the New “Free Speech” Twitter
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 510 The Writers’ Bloc with Jason Kessler on the Kanye Question
Christmas Special Merry Christmas, Infidels!
The Worst Week Yet: November 27-December 3, 2022
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 508 The Kanye Question with Greg Johnson
I was a victim of censorship – right from my own home computer. I did send an article about the plight of white people to important 4 GOP figures at the county level – to each county in my state – county chair, vice chair, state committeeman/woman. Guess what. The state GOP has blocked my access to their state website via my ISP.
Why are you still involved with the Dead Elephant party? Every time you vote, every time you contact these people you are validating their anti-White rackets: “free trade” job-outsourcing, open borders black/mestizo insourcing, $trillions in debt for the welfare/warfare state, and a murderous, Zionist foreign policy. We have yet another fake “election” next first Tuesday in November. Do our people a favor: vote with your feet. Go to the gun shop, not the polling place.
FYI, I’m not actively involved in political parties. I merely sent my article as an effort to plant some seeds in the so-called “leadership”, basically saying ‘hey, we white people have legitimate interests, too…”
I appreciate your activism, and that of BourgeoisReactionary, as well as the activist behind Resisting Defamation, who has posted here previously. All such actions are the kinds of things Wilmot Robertson highlighted favorably on a regular basis in his magazine Instauration.
One could say: Yes, but individuals have been doing such things since the 1980s with nothing to show for it.
That’s true, but neither has writing, creating organizations, or holding meetings accomplished anything, so that particular objection is neither here nor there.
Everyone should do what feels natural to them within the narrow constraints available to whites in an unfree society.
Anyone who acts is doing a noble deed.
AltRight appears to have split up… or something. At any rate, most of the writers seem to have found a new home at either of these domains:
During the debate on the recent introduction of a nationwide opt-out “content filter” in the UK, I found it pretty disheartening that many WNs online were actually in favor of the measure. I can sort of understand for wanting a genuine pornography filter, but it should have been clear to anyone but the very slowest and most naive in our movement that protecting our children from pornography is just an excuse for introducing political censorship, and that we will be the ones who get censored. William Pierce warned of exactly this tactic even back in the 90s.
You neglected to mention that one of the most important sources of library censorship is the American Library Association (ALA).
Not surprisingly, the ALA champions the notion that it is a promoter of free speech rather than one its main opponents. For one week every year, the ALA holds “Bannned Book Week” and encourages memeber libraries to commemorate the celebration by hosting a “Banned Book Display” which is usally located near the front entrance. Typically this Banned Book display includes books that are not really controversial — eg: books by Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, Arthur Miller or books by communists, feminists, or about homosexuality or transgender identity aimed at young adults.
I have made it a habit to try to find the most controversial books that I could within the library to add to this display. I have yet to find a library that carries Culture of Critique or the Turner Diaries but I have found books like “Contemporary Voices in White Nationalism” by a black professor named Carol Swain, “Blood and Politics” by Leonard Zeskind, a Jew writing about the WN threat, and “Willis Carto and the Far Right” by George Michael, which contains an outstanding chapter summarizing Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium and which goes to great lengths to detail the rguments about Jewish influence on media and policy formation. Also I found The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds which presented a surprisingly useful summary of highlights of William Pierce’s speeches. I took it upon myself to add all these texts to the banned book display. I would encourage counter-currents readers to do the same.
Banned Book Week is also promoted on NPR and Pacifica Radio outelts. I would not be surpried if C-Sapn’s BookTV also promotes this event. Typically a spokesman for the ALA will come on the air to present his organization as a protector of dissent and complain of censorship by the Christian right.
If you should ever hear an interview of an ALA official by one of these media outlets I would strongly encourage C-C readers to call in and hold the spokesman’s feet to the fire by confronting their guests over censorship policies exerted by the ALA and CIPA. Go ahead and make the accusation that the ALA is in fact the main body censoring the content that appears on your library’s shelves and that books by Kevin MacDonald, William Pierce, David Duke, Revil P Oliver, Wilmot Robertson are completey suppressed even from most university libraries. Most of these spokesmen are not prepared for this kind of accusation and will not be able to deflect your accusations skillfully.
Actually, there are a numerous college libraries holding copies of “The Turner Diaries” and “Culture of Critique” along with MacDonald’s other books. I even recall seeing “The Turner Diaries” for sale in a university bookstore once, probably because it was required reading for a class dealing with “racism”. Not that reading that would have any positive effects on students because it is a very negative book and is of little value to spreading White Nationalism, in my opinion.
“Jews frequently operate outside our psychological frame of reference. They have a longer time horizon than whites, and single-mindedly pursue specific extremist objectives cross-generationally. Very often, as in the case of censorware, their incessant civilization-wrecking activity is not even seen or “felt” by their victims. Nevertheless, such silent, invisible forces are an omnipresent reality that must be reckoned with.”
They have a been using the same tatics over three thousand years, there was ancient jewish lobby in Rome and Cicero even confronted them with caution, the Colosseum was builded with the spoils from the Jerusalem Temple, they exported gold from the Roman provinces to Jerusalem until the jewish revolt of 70 AD.
Working as a contractor for the National Park Sercive this year I found quite a few sites blocked when using their wireless.(On my off time I was living on site.). It was mentioned to me that all “hits” were recorded.
Given the nature and name of the filtering software I gather that those living on military bases experience similar censorship.
Thank you for the additional information, which is always helpful.
The recording of hits that you mentioned raises a related issue—software that spies on, and records, individuals’ surfing habits.
Because of the highly specific ID requirements I described in the article, my impression is that the library is in fact monitoring and recording individuals’ surfing habits in addition to blocking access to speech.
Such programs, which are distinct from censorware, are common on employers’ and government computers. A county employee made headlines when he was caught viewing pornography (or perhaps it was child pornography) on his computer at work. It was monitoring software such as you describe that tripped him up.
Although the library system I wrote about conceals the specific brand of censorware it uses (such information should always be made available to the public), traces of deleted data from their website indicated to me that it might be SonicWall, a product of computer maker Dell.
The Jewish founder and owner of the company, Michael Dell, ranks #49 on the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest billionaires, with a net worth of $15.9 billion.
Brilliant like always!
I couldn’t find your adress to contact you directly so sorry for “trolling”.
I am new on this website and an active translator into French fo all texts I found interesting and I fell last night on “Reading is racist” and I just would like to congrulate you as warmly as hell for such an inspiring text.
I directly translated it into French to confess you.
I just would like to make you a friendly critic :
How damn after such a loving letter to print media don’t you want to print your thoughts??
You already have a devotee translator into French at your disposal.
Well, thank you for your enthusiasm!
However, I am not averse to printing my thoughts. I haven’t done it yet, but I’m not averse to it.
I did find Macdonald’s Culture of Critique and David Duke’s My Awakening in the local library. At least they were there two years ago.
Keep in mind a few things. Thanks to modern technology, most large urban public libraries now can keep track of what books you take out & how many times you renewed them over the past decade plus. Don’t think one minute that a patron who starts borrowing books and publications on such subjects as prepping, firearms, organic farming, precious metals, eschatology, do-it-yourself construction projects, etc. isn’t going to arouse the suspicion of library management in some fashion. Since most public libraries in the US now receives federal aid and grants from many leftist foundations, you can bet they’ll turn over names and titles, if and when requested by any and all government agencies. There are careers to kept on track and coffers to be continually filled as with any profession and its respective institutions. Librarians and libraries included.
Leave it to E. Michael Jones, editor of the journal “Culture Wars,” to pen a zinger that gets to the bottom of what Mr. Hamilton is writing about:
“The experiment in ordered liberty which was launched by America’s founding fathers at the end of the 18th century has degenerated into an Israeli-managed police and surveillance state . . . [T]he Department of Homeland Security views the people as the enemy of the regime and relies on a network of Jewish spies, informants and commissars to keep them in line.”
It is a tragedy to hear that America looks to be finally crumbling at the knees over what many outside America consider to be a vital and unbreakable element of American freedom.
Many may call me a conspiracy theory nut, but I have seen various stories around the world about internet content being blocked in recent months – including the UK’s “opt-in” filter that is now in operation here.
The people of Britain presume it is something put through by the Conservative government, but it seems to coincidental to me that various other European states are going down the same lines. I suspect that it stems from an EU order, devised after other attempts to change the internet failed to pass through into legislation. I suspect that it does not stop at the EU either……
Although to my knowledge America does not have this kind of thing in place yet, I suspect that groundwork will already be being laid down so that such measures will come in there too, and be done in such a way that the public simply go along with it seeing as, like here, you can “opt out” by telling your ISP that, in effect, you are some kind of pervert and hatemonger and that you want to see filth and racism down your internet connection.
With the populace already used to this, used to not seeing material they never know even exists, with filters and blocking information seen as the norm, what will be the next stage?
The Internet has now flipped from being a marginally innovative and liberating force to being one of the most powerful tools the Jews and communists ever had for monitoring and controlling populations. It is easy to see my point if you stop and think about it.
In addition, the Internet is more and more monolithic and homogenous. It is a Jewish-controlled media platform, like TV, movies, video games, and pop music (all of which are becoming more and more integrated with it), as well as a profit platform for commercial mega-corporations.
Suddenly I’m spending much more time reading books, which had not been the case for a dozen years. The Internet monopolized my attention. Not anymore.
The opt-out feature in the UK has not been publicized here, so I’d have to read about it. It is a massive leap forward in Internet censorship, though. Opt-out mechanisms operate in such a way as to achieve uniform results. Genuine opt-in mechanisms have the opposite effect. Those behind the legislation know this.
The lesson was forcefully driven home to me in college. Ralph Nader’s campus PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), a private organization, was funded by the University (not Nader), a state institution, by levying a fee on the tuition bills of all students. You were free to opt-out, but more than 90% of students never did so because it required an affirmative act, people did not know what the fee was, and in individual dollar and percentage terms it was not large. The collective result for Nader and his activists, however, was enormous.
It is even worse when, as you point out, the “option” people are provided is to identify themselves as “racists” and “haters.” All such people will certainly be tracked and persecuted by Jews and the state.
I don’t want to sound like I’m giving advice. You guys have a great website and very interesting articles. But would it be possible to contest this? I don’t know if the writers here use pseudonyms, but if you’re not anonymous this sounds like a case you should win. I also wonder if the ACLU might take the case. I’m sure they don’t share the philosophy on this website, but would they stand up for the principles they claim to value? If I’m being naive feel free to tell me so.
Whites have no infrastructure, organization, or money to pursue this sort of thing. Conservatives (I’m not talking about neoconservatives) have created a rudimentary infrastructure of the type you suggest, but not whites. Their influence has been marginal, but still one must applaud their efforts.
The institutional organization of the US and other ex-First World nations globally is far along the path to full-blown totalitarianism in terms of surveillance of entire populations, but especially of conscious whites. Rulers simply assume that repression and censorship are their “right,” and impose them in practice. They ignore First Amendment law just as they do laws in the immigration realm. It’s all about power, nothing more.
The ACLU and similar organizations that ostensibly stand up for civil liberties or human rights are shams. Their job is to protect Jews and other Left-wing elites who promote racial and social revolution from inadvertently falling victim to communist measures.
Chomsky’s propaganda model which he details in the aptly named Manufacturing Consent might be relevant here. Chomsky analyzes everything in terms of corporate and financial interests ignoring groups that motivations besides money for “manufacturing consent.” Just mentally substitute Jews, and his model explains a lot.
There is an opportunity here to position the Alternative Right as the champion of free speech against censorship. This goes beyond the issues covered in Counter Currents and extends across the entire Dark Enlightenment. For example, various Men’s Rghts websites have been blocked via security programs smearing them as “hate” sites. Conceivably an alliance could be created.
The argument has been made that since the Internet is a private entity, it is not covered by the First Amendment. This is not the case, actually. Courts have held that business owners who control de facto public forums (such as shopping malls) can not keep out various speakers or petitioners. Check out the people who promote various causes outside of a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s. This doctrine could be applied to the Internet if the Alternative Right could get the legal muscle together to bring a case to court.
It’s a matter of attacking the contradictions, as the left might put it. The current Establishment claims to promote tolerance and diversity. But they practice censorship and suppression of dissent. We can add to the Internet censorship the criminalization of dissent in various countries as “hate speech” as well as the recent Greek crackdown on Golden Dawn. Promote free speech, let the Establishment try to crack down, then expose them for their hypocrisy.
Look at the New Left during the 1960s. It gained a heck of a lot of traction via the Free Speech Movement. There’s no reason that the Alternative Right today could not turn Free Speech into its own cause.
This would also have a tactical advantage because it would shift the political line away from marginalized issues (e.g., White nationalism) to a cause which has widespread support: Freedom of Speech. Perhaps an international front could be created along these lines. Make the struggle one of freedom versus repression. Then connect the other issues to it.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment