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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As part of its proceedings, the Global Forum hosted a panel chaired by “US special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism,” Ira Forman. Members of the panel included the head of the UK’s Cross-Government Hate Crime Programme, Superintendent Paul Giannasi, and anti-free speech academic Prof. Raphael Cohen Almagor. More importantly, the panel included Google’s Juniper Downs and Facebook’s Simon Milner. This mixture of law enforcement, academia, and internet behemoths points to increasing Jewish pressure in all of these areas, in addition to the continuance of pressure on governments to introduce laws against holding anti-Jewish attitudes. Indeed, Almagor openly called for ‘unity’ to combat ‘hate speech.’ The unity of whom? Not the White masses. He wants increased interactive efforts between governments, law officers, and anti-terrorism units, alongside companies and NGOs. He wants Big Brother to start watching you.

Attempting to provide some kind of context for this Brave New World, Jews are busily portraying themselves as being in grave danger. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman informed the Global Forum that current levels of anti-Semitism around the world are “the worst it’s been since the 30s. We’re living in an era where again anti-Semitism presents a clear and present danger to Jews in various communities. It’s global in its nature, and it’s endangering the lives of Jews—not just where they live or their livelihoods—and it has a dimension of terrorism, jihadism.” No mention from Foxman of the fact that jihadism in Europe and America is the product of Jewish efforts to open our borders to the alien refuse of humanity that perpetrate these foreign-influenced acts and murders on our streets.

In order to address this problem, Foxman said, it is necessary to provide “physical safety and security” for Jewish communities. I’ve already documented the level of safety and security given to this privileged minority (“The Return of the Protected Jewish Minority in Europe”), but note again the insatiable search for total immunity.

Foxman also wants to continuously encourage the narrative of Jewish victimhood. He was at pains to convince the conference of the need “to clearly identify and label both the perpetrators and victims.” He argued that “there is a reluctance to identify sometimes not even the perpetrators but also the victims. It’s a sort of political correctness,” Foxman said, citing Barack Obama’s reluctance to name those shot at the Hypercacher market in Paris as Jewish, calling them instead “a bunch of folks.” Bear in mind that this only works one way. Explicitly mentioning that a victim of a shooting is Jewish is something the ADL is crying out for — but explicitly mentioning the Jewishness of a fraudster, a Communist mass murderer, a serial killer, a degenerate pervert, or several usurpers of our society (see here, here and here) is something liable to put you behind bars in the near future. ‘Jewishness’ is a badge only opportunistically worn.

Jews are not content with the status quo of lobbying individual governments. They want the introduction of international laws and practices that leave no stone unturned, and no avenue for criticism left open. They loathe the fact there is no unified global legislation, and that international fora provided by the internet continue to provide Whites around the world with the opportunity to come together and share strategies, information, and truths which may lead to their eventual rebirth. The Global Forum has now called for the adoption of global terms of service prohibiting the posting of materials critical of Jews. Jews also want to ring-fence their narrative of Jewish casualties during World War II by introducing an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites.”

The Jewish plan to eliminate ‘anti-Semitism’ is comprehensive. Among the recommendations for combating anti-Semitism are proposals to:

adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism;

apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries;

take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions;

direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.

Further recommendations to governments include the establishment of 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 absent. Make no mistake. Under the noses of the ignorant materialistic masses, the noose is tightening rapidly on free speech. Faced with unrelenting censorship and prison cells, the future of our movement is likely to be one driven further and further underground. This may or may not bode well for Jews since people pushed to extremes are rarely predictable, and often volatile.

But it won’t be the first time they have upped the ante with catastrophic results. Jewish history is repetitive and cyclical because this ostensibly intelligent people are seemingly incapable of learning from their mistakes. In the 1920s Jewish groups in Germany worked very hard to protect themselves against ‘hate speech,’ and even succeeded in the introduction of swathes of speech-restricting legislation and the total banning of the NSDAP. In Weimar Germany, insulting ‘communities of faith’ — Protestant, Catholic or Jew — was a punishable offence commanding up to three years’ imprisonment. The dissemination of ‘false rumour’ with the intention of degrading or showing contempt for other individuals could result in two years. Incitement to class warfare or acts of violence towards other social classes was also punishable by up to two years behind bars. These were all favorites of the Jewish community. Leading National Socialists such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for their utterances against Jewish influence. Streicher served two prison sentences.

Flemming Rose notes that “rather than deterring the Nazis and preventing anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for Streicher’s efforts, affording him the kind of attention he never would have found had his utterances been made in a climate of free and open debate. Only weeks after Streicher was sentenced to two months imprisonment for anti-Semitism, the Nazis trebled their share of the vote at the state legislature election in Thuringia.” Bernhard Weiss, Vice-President of the Berlin police, regularly dragged Goebbels into court on charges of anti-Semitism. In all these cases brought against the future head of Nazi propaganda, the prosecution came out on top, yet according to one observer, in the public eye Weiss consistently ended up looking more like the loser, as Goebbels’ anti-Semitic invective found a platform in the public process. In the period 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer was either confiscated or its editors taken to court on no fewer than 36 separate occasions. In 1928, the paper and its staff were the subjects of five litigations in the space of 11 days. These proceedings, however, gave the general public the impression that Streicher was more significant than perhaps was the case. Those instances where Streicher was sentenced to terms of imprisonment were a golden opportunity for him to present himself as a victim and martyr. The more charges he faced, the more he was admired. On those occasions on which he was sent to jail, Streicher was accompanied on his way by hundreds of sympathisers in “what looked like his triumphal entry into martyrdom.” In the Brave New World which may loom ominously in our future, we too may need to embrace the triumph of martyrdom as a price for ultimate victory.

Surveying recent developments in the bandit capital of Israel, we witness a further chapter in the incessant search of organized Jewry for total security. It is the same frantic search for peace that marks the thief or the murderer. Like the protagonist of Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, they are perpetually haunted by the prospect of discovery, resulting in that remarkable and notorious sensitivity. How apt the protestations of Poe’s madman: “True! Nervous — very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am but why will you say that I am mad? The disease has sharpened my senses — not destroyed — not dulled them. Above all it was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and the earth. I heard many things in hell. How then am I mad?”

Observe by comparison the curious sensitivity of Jewry. This people, enjoying unheard of wealth and power, remains troubled by the smallest sound of dissent — by the beating of its heart. The cry goes out ‘It must be extinguished!’

We won’t go quietly. Thank you for reading, for commenting, for continuing to support us in our work, and for holding back the day when our voice is silenced and a new stage in this ageless conflict is forced to begin.