Nationalize Amazon, Twitter, and the Rest

These oligopolies are effectively monopolies due to interlocking Jewish cross-corporate control and agendas: They should be run as public utilities. Libertarians, leave the planet.

IT WAS JUST THREE BOOKS. It always starts this way.

In February of this year, Yad Vashem and the World Jewish Congress converged upon Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. Their complaint? They wanted him to remove from the site three books critical of the accepted Holocaust narrative. Those books violated Amazon’s own corporate standards against hate you see. …

So influential leftwing Jews are worried about the rise of those willing to question the Holocaust narrative. It’s that simple. And they have the power, stemming from money and media presence, to force some of the largest companies in the world to capitulate.

The narrative must be preserved. Whites, especially Europeans, must be made to hate themselves for the crimes of their forefathers. If we learn to love and embrace our identity, the first step in identitarianism, pushing White guilt will be nearly impossible.

Once upon a time the left valued free expression, questioned what they had been told, and championed intellectual curiosity. Today they treat young people to lectures supporting the suppression of “hate speech” which has the effect of turning college students into Loony Tunes characters. Some even try to convince us that words are no different than physical violence. Hey, if race and gender are social constructs, why not reality itself?

For those liberals who so often pose as champions of logic, skepticism, and freethought, corporate censorship is not a First Amendment issue since the actions rest in the hands of a private entity. Or at least that’s their excuse for supporting censorious behavior. Never mind that when private Christian bakers would rather not bake gay wedding cakes those same nose gremlins will enlist an army of ACLU lawyers to force the small business owners to violate their conscience. It’s bake the cake or go bankrupt.

But those who view themselves as our betters are not interested in consistency. That’s not surprising considering how badly Gen X and the Millennials have been miseducated about American history. I blame Howard Zinn and his zombie-like worshipers, but that’s another article.

The First Amendment isn’t just a legal tool. It’s a spirit. It exists because our founders, who were primarily English and no doubt schooled in the writing of the immortal poet and free speech advocate John Milton, agreed that like Satan, all should have the opportunity to speak.

And because they were students of The Areopagitica they understood that the right of free speech has a corollary, the right to hear what is being said. The framers understood that the only speech which needs protecting is dangerous and offensive speech. From the Areopagitica, “Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.”

Sometimes I wonder whether the First Amendment would exist if we had to re-draft the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To be honest I’m not sure it would. A poll taken back in 2015 found that 51% of Democrats wanted to ban that nebulous, undefinable boogieman of mental midgets, “hate speech.”

I’m sure TruCons and EconoCucks in the Chambers of Commerce are grateful the left now seems to have embraced corporate rights. Still feelin’ the Bern lefties? That’s just more proof that the political axis has shifted from the left-right, socialist-capitalist paradigm to a globalist-nationalist one. It won’t be surprising to turn on the news one day soon and see progressives defending Ford’s right to move factories to right-to-work states or to employ strikebreakers.

This may not be comfortable to those libertarians exploring the alt-right and beyond, but it needs to be said. It’s time to start nationalizing Internet-based companies such as Amazon, Twitter, Google, Kickstarter, Patreon, YouTube, and Facebook. And we can apply that to any company that has a near monopoly on large sections of the Internet or that performs a service which, because they were a first mover in the space, they have a near monopoly of. At this point they’re service providers no different than a power or water company.

And these corporations should not have the right to deny anyone use of their services, which have become a vital and important part of modern life, simply because that person has expressed a dissident opinion. The law won’t let a phone company deny service to Jared Taylor because he uses their technology to talk to others about race realism and White advocacy. Why should it allow authors to have their work removed from the world’s largest book provider?

To further understand the nature of the removal of these books think of it like this. Allowing Amazon to remove books some find offensive is no different than allowing a railroad to single out an offensive farmer and keep him from bringing his crop to market using their railway. Denial of service can be incredibly powerful in silencing dissent. Deplatforming is a part of the plan to control the West.

On a level playing field ethnonationalist ideas will always win because they are rooted in the true nature of man. If we find a philosophy that is consonant with our hearts some Whites will start standing up for themselves. Soon others will join them. If we are to achieve anything we need to be free to speak to those who are not already nationalists. Do not underestimate the importance of free speech to our movement. The great rivers of the world are fed by smaller tributaries.

“But wait, isn’t Holocaust denial something we can all agree is bad? What about corporate social responsibility? Doesn’t Amazon have a duty not to carry ‘fake history’ or to provide access to the tools of hate? It’s in their own policy to not promote hate.”

As a man with a curious mind, I want the right to read controversial books and ask questions about the history I’ve been taught. Where else besides the virtual shelves of Amazon (and for now Google Books) will one find works evaluating the evidence for and against the conventional Holocaust narrative? Certainly not at Barnes and Noble. And as much as I love quaint little bookstores most simply cannot afford to carry inventory that is unlikely to sell.

Where do the seekers go to find dissident views on one of the most written about events of the Twentieth Century? The world has changed from when I was a kid in the 80s. Today, to be absent from the Internet is to be absent from the world. For an author to be missing from Amazon is for that author to be effectively a nonperson. It is to be damnatio memoriae.

Is the destiny of honest Americans to stand in a dark alley away from the eyes of SJWs, Leftist commissars, and the professionally offended and wait for an underground book dealer? Will those looking for answers be forced to track down PDFs on the dark web?

As a graduate student I was in a World War II history class. That week we were discussing Christopher Browning’s book Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. We were discussing the role of “he did it too” in preventing guilt among the men. Another student raised his hand and asked, “Did the Jews have a role in causing the Holocaust?” He was new to academia and thus I believe it was an honest question. I don’t think he was trolling.

His question elicited shock from most of the class and our professor. But despite the disruption no one bothered to answer. We simply moved on. This left me feeling cheated. Don’t I have the right to explore ideas, to buy and read books, which indicate or imply that European Jewry may have been at least partially responsible for antagonizing ordinary Europeans? Can we not ask difficult and uncomfortable questions in an ostensibly free society? Is it a free society if a near-monopoly can defy the spirit of free speech?

To the issue of corporate social responsibility I would simply say, is my mind my own? Who is qualified to determine what answers I may seek or where I may seek them? Who is so much better than me that he could act as my censor, governmental or corporate? …

Amazon’s removal of these three books is a black mark on the company and Bezos. But this was only a first step. Now that blood has been drawn do not expect to see anything less than hemorrhaging in the coming years. After all, the busybodies at the World Jewish Congress have offered their help in identifying other books they find unacceptable. If Amazon will genuflect to “the Cathedral” (or dare I say “the Sanhedrin”), if it will bow to pressure to remove books to which some take offense, what or who will be next, Kevin MacDonald, Michael Hoffman, Madison Grant, Alexander Dugin? Would Amazon sell an English language copy of Two Hundred Years Together?

But there is a solution. There is a way to keep the world of dissident authors and controversial books open to the searchers. Jeff Bezos has demonstrated that he lacks the backbone to stand up for the authors and readers who rely on the company he helms. He has proven that he cannot resist the forces pushing corporate censorship of controversial ideas. It is time to give those curious souls the protection of the First Amendment in no uncertain terms. It’s time to nationalize Amazon.

* * *

Source: read the full essay at Alt Right

Previous post

War R Us

Next post

Early Hollywood: Jews Sexually Used White Women -- of Course

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
16 June, 2017 2:03 am

From a business perspective, this is incredibly stupid. Amazon has just given an enterprising man or woman with a bit of daring character the perfect opportunity to pick these titles up and offer them and use marketing slogan “Banned by Amazon due to Organized Jewish pressure!!”

Also, what’s been banned is often in highest demand by thinkers/doers who want to know why it has been banned.

16 June, 2017 5:50 am

The only problem is that “our government” isn’t OUR government, so what good will nationalizing these platforms do? Jews and other anti-Whites (many of them White) make up every bit as much of “the government” as they do the corporate heads of those platforms!

The only way nationalizing these platforms would serve us is if our nation was being led by our people. Otherwise, I think it would be a case of going from the frying-pan into the fire.

James Clayton
James Clayton
17 June, 2017 11:03 am

“Interlocking directorate” is the legal term which refers to the practice of members of a corporate board of directors serving on the boards of multiple corporations. A person that sits on multiple boards is known as a multiple director.

17 June, 2017 9:28 pm

Bezos is a Jew. Even though Amazon’s digital book burning was shocking, it still wasn’t a complete surprise. You’re right. Now that the Jews know how to work around the First Amendment and institute censorship via de facto bans through centralizing services and then denying access (Amazon, Paypal, Google, etc.), they’re going for the whole mile on this one. The good news is that this desperate attempt by the Jews to hide holocaust truth means that we ARE having an impact. Nothing is more important than free speech, and we must defend it fiercely. We can do that every day by using our freedom of speech and speaking out, and especially sharing the truth about the holocaust through video links (still on YouTube…so far) and books from alternate suppliers (Castle… Read more »

Andrew Hamilton
Andrew Hamilton
Reply to  Spence
18 June, 2017 10:44 am

Billionaire Jeff Bezos is a member of the elite and a hardcore Leftist, as the party line of the Washington Post, which he purchased from the part-Jewish Graham heirs and now owns personally (not as a subsidiary of Amazon), clearly shows. He also participates in censorship of the Internet.

But he is not Jewish. His mother was White and his stepfather was Cuban. He was given his stepfather’s surname, Bezos, but his biological father is White.

You’re certainly right about Internet censorship. Trump’s election massively accelerated the Jewish/Left-wing crackdown on free speech. They are going to continue to murder the White race rapidly and with impunity if their intolerable control of the mass media persists.

Will Williams
Will Williams
18 June, 2017 9:20 am

What are the titles of these three books now banned at Anybody know? This site lists 72 Holocaust™-related books that are banned: The author of this piece asks: “Would Amazon sell an English language copy of [Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s] Two Hundred Years Together?” The answer, apparently, is no, but Amazon allows the Russian edition (lowest price $130). I’ve had the 2-volume Russian edition of this book since 2012, gifted by a Russian friend. There still isn’t an English edition available five years later. However some chapters have been translated, here: In 2014 this announcement was made: WASHINGTON — The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute has launched the Solzhenitsyn Initiative to translate major works by Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2007) for the first time into English. There is no… Read more »