A couple of weeks ago Passer-by published his analysis of the role women have played in the European Genocide (link), arguing that they were more xenophilic than men and disproportionately supportive of pro-immigration policies and parties. This theme has also been explored on other so-called "Alt Right" sites, some explicitly referencing Passer-by's analysis.
Discussion of the issue provoked a counterblast from the "New Observer Online" (link), a site I only discovered recently but felt some respect for as it seem to be exploring similar terrain, and not shying away from mentioning the Jewish role in what is happening to us. The riposte makes no attempt to engage with the serious, evidence-based arguments that have been advanced. It is simply a long list of "moderate Muslims" aka patriotic women, together with a series of ad hominem attacks, impugning the motivation of those who raise this issue for discussion, insisting that they are homosexuals or heterosexuals incapable of forming relationships with women. In other words, it employees exactly the style of anathematising discourse with which we "racists", "antisemites" and "Islamophobes" are by now all too wearily familiar.
I posted a reasoned reply in a comment to this article and was amazed to see the next day that it had been censored out by the site moderators, not even allowed to appear. In the comment, I observed that although you would expect that people who had themselves been victims of this kind of exclusionary discourse, based on attacking their motivation for saying what they say, rather than addressing what it is they actually say - would be more chary of employing this style of cheap invective against others; but experience shows that, unfortunately, it isn't so. The "Counterjihadists" who styled themselves daring thought criminals defying establishment thinkers who refused to look unflinchingly at the real truth about Muslims showed exactly the same moral failings themselves when asked to look unflinchingly at the real truth about Jews, proving they were no better than their enemies. Now the operators of this website exhibit exactly the same deficiencies.
For me, support for free speech is the ultimate moral measure. Having absolute power to suppress criticism of yourself or the things you hold dear is the purest ethical test there is. Unfortunately, it is a test that almost everyone fails. Once you have that power, the temptation to use it is just too great to resist. Repression of free speech gets to me like no other issue. It was this that sparked my original transition from left to right when I saw draconian censorship on the Guardian website of anything related to brown-skinned people; it was this that first led me to explore the Jewish issue; and it was this occasioned my break with the Counterjewhad movement when I saw they were uninterested in pursuing anything inconsistent with a Jewish tribal agenda; and it is this that, still today, continually fires my determination to explore the Jewish issue further as I see how successfully this alien, Oriental people is able to harmfully control public discourse within our civilisation, preventing us from discussing the problems that confront us and therefore finding solutions to them.
I was going to remove the New Observer Online from the list of websites linked to in the Resistance section below. But I've changed my mind about that. I'll let it stay. Here is my reasoning. At a high level of abstraction, it is clear that Europeans are incapable of uniting to defend their own interests because of their tendency to anathematise one another; that is to start and fight what are, in effect, moral civil wars against one another. So someone might recognise that there is a threat from Mohammedanism, but be unwilling to explore other issues related to negroes, immigration or loss of genetic identity; and not only be unwilling to explore these issues himself, but determined to shun anyone who does. Another might concede that brown-skinned people are a problem but be unwilling to talk about the Jewish issue, immediately excommunicating anyone who crosses this red line. Equally clearly, non-Europeans have grasped the fact that this tendency towards "moral civil war" exists in Europeans and have done everything possible to encourage and accentuate it, the better to advance their ethnic interests and harm ours. Unless we can overcome this tendency in our nature, and shield ourselves from these manipulations, we are not going to be around for much longer. For that reason, I will let the link to this website remain, having pointed out the moral deficiencies of its operators.
I will end by saying this: the greatness of European civilisation was founded on our ancestors' respect for freedom. The freedom they fought for and won allowed the circulation of knowledge and ideas that ultimately allowed them to dominate the earth, while other peoples remained clutching their superstitions in their madrassas and yeshivas. Europeans unable to meet the challenge of free speech have debased themselves to the level of these lesser breeds. http://newobserveronline.com/women-haters-alt-right/