Category: Internet

Repressing Free Speech in the UK

From TOO.

We need to be thinking hard about an awful possibility —  a future without the internet and without outlets like the Occidental Observer. We desperately need to be looking at other ways of linking up with each other and if this pushes us away from our keyboards and out onto the streets it may be no bad thing.

Several points. I have been strongly advocating,. for many years, that European nationalists make the fight for free speech an integral part of their political platform, right up there with immigration or anything else.  I have addressed this directly to certain (low-level to mid-level) nationalists, raising the obvious point that it is difficult to speak out on issues fundamentally important to your movement (in Europe, real movements) if honest discussion of the topic is illegal (*)

I got a “yeah, yeah…you Yanks don’t understand that Europe never had a history of free speech,” as if that means anything. Hey, guys, Europe never had a history of mass Third World migration either, but you got it now. Change with the times….

It’s good that the author of this piece is looking ahead, asserting that contingency plans need to be put in place in the event of total Internet censorship. That’s a good idea, but I doubt the “movement” (with scare quotes) is listening.

The part about “may be no bad thing” is something I agree with as well. The Internet is a net (no pun intended) good, but it has costs as well as benefits. Too many people think posting and commenting is “activism,” we are fragmented and cut off from the real world, where the race crisis is happening. Our loss of genetic interests is taking place “out onto the streets,” not in Cyberspace, and, eventually, it is out onto those streets that we must go.

*With all of this, as I’ve said elsewhere, in many ways, Europeans have more freedom than American in expressing dissident views, given that American social pricing represses expression more than does on-the books laws. With laws, you at least have at least an approximate idea where you stand (although such laws can be vague and inconsistently enforced based on who? whom? questions). However, Americans constantly self-censor themselves, as any comment, even if uttered with a completely inoffensive and apolitical intent, can be construed as “bigotry” and cause all sorts of pointing and sputtering.

NECs and "Internet Integrity"

They are always a problem.

Chehadé believes the next hurdle for the global internet community doesn’t relate the underlying infrastructure of the internet. Instead, he thinks it’s time to focus on “what happens on the internet.”  

He called this “internet integrity.” 

He went on, “When I see something on the internet written about me … 

How do you know it is a high integrity item? How do you know this is the truth?” Chehadé believes that the next issue to be tackled is not how the internet works (which is the infrastructure that ICANN has been overseeing for decades), but how to create a better way to ensure and protect the content disseminated on the internet.

NECs were a problem at Marathon and Thermopylae, they were, and are, a problem with their 1965 immigration act and its aftermath, they are a problem with their ongoing immigration invasion of Europe and the “clash of civilizations,” and they are a problem with this.
Who is going to decide what is truth and integrity online?   Who is going to “protect” and “ensure” Internet content?  A bunch of NECs with a historical animus toward Europe and the West?  And by NECs I include a certain “high-IQ” tribe much beloved by the HBDers.