Here Joyce discusses the recent and ongoing take-down of The Occidental Observer website jew to a Website Firewall provider (Sucuri) no longer willing to provide security against DoS [Denial of Service] attack.
UPDATE: TOO is back (as of Aug 15) with a new firewall provider.
T & T No 7:
The TOO Takedown
Aug 14, 2020
Click here for the video:
Published on Aug 14, 2020
First published at 20:48 UTC on August 14th, 2020.
Support via Bitcoin:
Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net
[Intro music and imagery]
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo.
I’d like to begin by saying a very special thank you to those who donated via Bitcoin and Dinero after the last episode. Certainly very encouraging and it makes me want to keep going in producing these podcast episodes.
This week I’d like to talk about something very serious and actually very personal.
Just a few days ago I was as part of my daily reading routine going online to take a look at The Occidental Observer, which I enjoy reading as much as the rest of you. And I found I couldn’t access the website. So I tried a couple of different browsers and nothing was working and I checked my WiFi, and it was fine. And then a message popped up on my phone from a friend, and the message said that he couldn’t access the website either.
So I went on Kevin MacDonald’s Twitter, and sure enough Kevin had a msing posted on his Twitter basically saying that the protection service, the firewall protection service The Occidental Observer had used had decided to revoke their service from us due to violation of Terms of Service. This is the terminology that they use.
Now we need that firewall protection because around four years ago The Occidental Observer came under very sustained DDOS attack from a lot of Israeli IP addresses. So for those of you who don’t know it a DDOS attack, a denial of service attack is where basically there are so many requests are made on the website that it basically freezing the website and crashes it and makes it unusable.
So whenever you employ one of these firewall services, … Cloudflare is another one of them for example, then it can filter out, and it can interpret the requests to ensure that only those which are genuine, and not part of some automated program or whatever, are allowed to actually access the website. So it slows down the demand so the website does not itself crash.
Now, whenever you remove this kind of firewall protection it not only makes the website vulnerable to such attacks again, but it makes it vulnerable to also to things l hacking, and retrieval of certain data and information as well.
So in this day and age, especially for controversial websites service providers like this which offer firewall protection are absolutely essential to the functioning of a website. And if you can knock that out then basically you are bringing the website to its knees. And that is what has happened here with The Occidental Observer.
Someone and I think we can all guess, we can make a reasonable estimate as to who exactly this was. Jewish groups have contacted the providers. The service provider for The Occidental Observer and whether certain threats have been made, or whether certain propagandistic arguments have been made, either way, pressure has been brought to bear on that service provider to cease providing a service to The Occidental Observer.
So for the time being The Occidental Observer, as I say, has been brought to its knees and it requires someone to step in and offer that same level of service, and that type of service. If the website is to continue.
This is kind of a personal thing because over 200 of my essays are on that website. They are on The Occidental Observer. Now some of my essays, maybe 20, 30, have been reposted over the years elsewhere. But The Occidental Observer contains the bulk of my work. Over eight years of work, spanning many thousands of words. I actually tallied up the number of words that I have written, what the average book would be, and really on The Occidental Observer there is the equivalent of eight books that I’ve written on Jewish matters, Jewish history, contemporary Jewish activism, etc, etc.
So this is a personal blow for me, it’s a personal blow for Kevin MacDonald, who has many thousands of blog posts there. It’s a personal blow for all of the writers, who have over the years contributed to the website. I mean as of right now none of that content is available for anyone to read, anyone to share, anyone to benefit from, or learn from. There are also many, many comments. Some of the listeners to this podcast are frequent commenters at The Occidental Observer, and I’m sure you will be disappointed also that your own interactions with that material and with other readers has, for the time being, completely vanished!
It’s interesting to me as well as alarming because it reinforces the fact jewish activism today is very much focused on censorship. In fact, they are going for broke on the censorship tactic.
Since the Second World War there has been an emphasis in jewish groups on censorship. Before the Second World War, actually beginning in the 1880s, in response to the rise of the anti-semitic political parties, the rise of the anti-semitic political movements in the 1880s, which were themselves a reaction to the intrusion of jews into European culture after emancipation, which occurred really beginning with the French Revolution. And it kind of more or less finished in Europe by around 1840, 1850.
Then you get about three decades of discontent which results in the 1880s emergence of anti-semitic political groups designed to remove the cultural and political, economic rights of jews which in the firm of citizenship. And the jews then responded to this effort with their so-called “jewish defense” bodies. They begin really in Germany, but are quickly replicated in Britain, and then in the United States and France, and so on, and so forth.
So between 1880 and 1930s, so we shall say, that fifty year period jews did not initially go for censorship exclusively. They focused very much on counter-propaganda. So if someone made the argument that jews were dominate in culture, jews would produce texts and books, and pamphlets which argued the opposite. Which argued that jews were powerless in culture, or which attacked in some way or another the anti-semitic parties and their credibility, and tried to undermine the information that they were putting out.
The problem with this tactic was that it was always going to fail! I mean one of the quotes which stand out to me from Hilaire Belloc’s 1922 book “The Jews” is where Belloc says that:
“One of the great strengths of the anti-semites was their ability to collect factual information.”
And really build a factual case that is almost indestructible!
And for Belloc, the jews were never quite able to combat this thing. They never really had the argument on their side, and never had truth on their side! And therefore they were always, in some sense, weak in their attempt to engage with them with this kind of material put out by the anti-semites.
And jewish counter-propaganda material was always weak and it never had the desired effect because when you are looking at two pieces side by side, it is actually quite easy to tell that the jewish argument is bogus! And actually jews, in many cases, found that their counter-propaganda not only didn’t work, but actually made things worse, because it was so obviously a piece of contrivance, it was so obviously an artificial piece of material.
So obviously the production of such material had failed catastrophically by the 1930s, because it didn’t prevent the rise of the National Socialists, and it didn’t prevent the rise of anti-semitic political parties elsewhere in Europe. It didn’t prevent widespread anti-jewish hostility in countries like Romania, or Hungary, or even in France, when you look at the Dreyfus case, for example.
So this strategy always failed for jews because they never had truth on their side. The other response, then, was that they simply relied on trying to get as much control over the narrative as possible, and tried to smother, rather than argue with the arguments of the anti-semites.
In the post-war period, this has resulted in widespread jewish lobbying throughout the West for group libel laws, for speech laws, for definitions of things like “anti-semitism”, which we’ve seen in recent times, and those definitions are, by nature, designed to quell speech. They are necessarily broad in their definitions and necessarily open to very generous interpretations by judges seeking to curtail speech.
I would say that in the last ten years, the newest front in the war has been to take on tech – to get a real grasp on the internet, and to get a choke-hold on all of the big platforms, and to figure out strategies to work their way through – whether it’s with propaganda, or legal pressure, or advertising boycotts – the smaller service providers, which together make up the internet and what it means to have a functioning website and to be able to disseminate information.
So, whether you are a web host – say, something like GoDaddy – or whether you’re providing an ancillary service like Cloudflare, who offer DDOS protection and so on, all of those necessary components, … if these jewish bodies and censorship activists can manage to get their hooks into at least one part of this necessary puzzle, then they basically bring down the whole house of cards, and the targeted website, the source of information which is particularly grievous to them, can be brought to its knees by simply attacking that one component.
And this is what we’re seeing. And it’s becoming more and more brazen. Arguments in favour of free speech seem to be disappearing. You find fewer and fewer individuals willing to stand up and say:
“Where’s free speech in all this?”
Because, actually, I think a turning point has already been reached at the highest levels. On the level of theory and the philosophy of speech underpinning a lot of this activism, the tide of opinion has already shifted away from defending our ideas. It’s already shifted in a direction which says;
“Our ideas are beyond the pale! They’re not protected by free speech. They’re not protected as legitimate speech, and therefore they can be banned.”
And therefore, we’re going to see a lot more falling back on things like:
“Terms of service, terms of service, terms of service!”
And in those terms of service for all these organisations, service providers, and companies, we will increasingly see not only arguments for protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, or sex, or gender identification, or whatever it’s going to be, we will start see in “terms of service” things like definitions of “anti-semitism”, which benefit organised jewry.
So already, just a couple of days ago — it’s funny how so much of this is starting to happen all at once — Facebook have more or less declared that they are adopting the definition of “anti-semitism” developed by these jewish bodies. That means they will now start censoring any material which portrays jews, or represents jews, or reflects jews as “powerful”, as having influence in the media, in politics, et cetera, et cetera …
So, a tidal wave — a tsunami of censorship — is building! And I feel like we haven’t even seen the worst of it yet. I feel like the worst is definitely yet to come. And I think that that will actually take the form of legal measures, eventually.
I think the censorship of speech is a prelude to “legal censorship”. They will start by saying that this kind of speech is “in breach of terms of service”. I think that the end point here is that this kind of speech is “in breach of the law”. This is the long game that’s going to come. We need to always keep that in mind.
Now, the argument that they’re making is that when we talk about things like jewish influence, that this is a very hostile and very insidious “conspiracy theory”, [a claim] which is unsustainable in any reasonable intellectual sense. The example that I always fall back on when I’m trying to explain these things to friends, is to say:
“If I told you that Ethiopians were exerting too much influence in the media, what would you say?”
They would laugh and say it’s nonsensical. I would then ask them:
“Then why is it nonsensical?”
They would say:
“There’s no evidence for it. Point out for me the Ethiopians that are in very influential positions within the media, or banking, or whatever it might be, or in politics, or the Ethiopian lobby; just point to the individuals and the supposed methodologies that might underpin such a conspiracy.”
I would say:
“That’s a fair point. Excellent! Right! We’ve now got the argument underway. We’re moving in the right direction.”
They would say:
And I would reply:
“Now consider that I said that jews have the same influence in those spheres [that was previously ascribed to Ethiopians]. Would you now say it’s ridiculous, or nonsensical?”
They wouldn’t go that far. If they’re pro-Jewish, or they have no identified position on the matter yet, they will normally kind of wriggle for a little while. They will reach for caricature, like,
“They don’t all meet together and come up with some sort of grand plan, or whatever it might be.”
But the reason they don’t say it’s “nonsensical”, or that it’s a “load of garbage”, or what have you, is because it’s quite obvious, and it’s quite provable that jews, as individuals, or as a group, actually do occupy very significant positions in all of these influential spheres.
It’s nonsensical to say that somebody who runs a media company does not have influence!
And it’s equally nonsensical to say that an individual running such a company does not have influence because he’s jewish. No! The jewishness in some ways doesn’t matter, because the position is influential. And if you have a jew – a strongly identified jew – in such a position, then that strongly identified jew is influential! And I think it’s interesting and worthy of enquiry as to whether his “Jewishness” features, to any extent, in his exertion of influence! Because that then taints the influence and it becomes a jewish influence.
So all of these things are actually empirically testable and observable, and we can track these things. We can look at how many jews are in pro-immigration groups. We can look at who these individuals are who are producing pro-migrant propaganda. Or, we can look at who these individuals are who are putting pressure on internet service providers and ancillary services to try and limit the ability of certain websites to operate and to disseminate the information that they have.
So, the question of jewish influence is always testable! And, in theory, should always be debatable. It should always be an arguable point, if you have the information which you feel will prove your case.
Unfortunately, jews appear on the one hand to have completely capitulated to the fact that we are telling the truth! Simply because they have “exited the argument”, shall we say.
The sole strategy that they now appear to be pursuing is that of completely crushing our ability to speak! And to completely censor our arguments! And to completely eliminate any possibility that people who are, as yet, undecided, or who are unread in these matters, or who are in a position where they’re simply asking questions, or noticing that things aren’t adding up, or, as in the case there of they’re looking at things like the potential Ethiopian conspiracy, versus the jewish conspiracy, and they’re noticing that there might be something there!
They’re at that very early stage, which I think most, so-called “anti-semites”, who might self-describe, or not now, were once at that stage themselves. It’s that first initial feeling that:
“Wait a second! There might actually be something going on here! Because I can see that there are certain coincidences in the demographics behind some of the issues that I’m looking at.”
And it’s very useful to jews to be able to snuff out such patterns of thought at a very early stage.
And for those generations which have not been indoctrinated as young children, and all the way through their education system, [that indoctrination] which now seems to be happening. Lots of pre-schoolers are being educated on “tolerance”, and so on and so forth.
But for the older generations, in particular those who are perhaps in their 30s, 40s or 50s, and are only now perhaps waking up to certain realities about the world they live in, it’s very useful to be able to prevent the spread of information to those people.
Of course, the other argument being made by jewish groups when they’re putting pressure on all these service providers, the infrastructure of the internet, these social media companies, peer-to-peer video platforms, and everything else, is they make the case there is a moral argument here.
“You’re hosting immoral and dangerous content!”
This has always “triggered” me, to employ the SJW language! It “triggers” me because these people are part of the same, so-called “liberal superstructure”, which thinks that it’s moral to take unborn children and execute them, and dismember them in the womb!
These are the “moral values” of those lecturing us about posting heavily-footnoted articles about verifiable history on The Occidental Observer. These are the “moral paragons” who are dictating to us what our moral parameters should be. These are the same people who very enthusiastically support a state, wherein it’s a social function to pull out an armchair, grab some popcorn and some soft drinks, and watch bombs get dropped on women and children a little while over a heavily fortified wall! This is what passes for our “moral superiors”!
And I’ve always thought, what if we ask someday that jews adhere to their own “terms of service”? The terms of service apparently laid down in their own holy books, especially the Old Testament? What if we ask them to adhere to some of those moral principles, rather than pay them lip service, and lecture the rest of us about a supposed “Judeo-Christian civilisation”?
The truth of the matter, of course, is that our civilisation learnt absolutely nothing from the jews, when it comes to morals! Absolutely nothing!
The only thing Christians ever learnt from jews, was:
“Don’t take out loans without knowing the full extent of the interest you might be charged, and to always be wary of jewish ‘terms of service’, because they’re liable to change at a moment’s notice!”
When you look at jewish emancipation, and jewish citizenship, we ask them to adhere to certain “terms of service”: That they behave like other citizens; that we give to them as jews, everything, but as a group, nothing.
But unfortunately, that early ambition of the Enlightenment has been frustrated many, many times, and in some respects, utterly betrayed! To the extent where our freedoms are being eroded, and we are being told that we are not adhering to “our terms of service”.
So perhaps it’s time for new “terms of service”.
Perhaps it’s time for a revisiting of how jews live in European society and among Europeans.
Perhaps it’s time that, in terms of the jewish-European relationship, we revised and re-examined those “terms of service”.
Thank you for listening.
- Total words = 6
- Total images = xx
- Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 2: Aug 16, 2020 — Added 15 minutes (08:49 to end) of transcript, very helpfully provided by Vigilante Jesus.
Added Gaza cartoon/photo image. Added remaining 4 minutes. Transcript text now complete. Added note that TOO is now back up.
Version 1: Aug 15, 2020 — Published post. Have done the first 5 minutes of the transcript.