Reminder feds shut down 8/pol/s mods as a disruption tactic and we have effectively been suppressed from peacefully opposing white genocide.
Reminder shutting down 8/pol/, the last large and meaningful online National Socialist community, gives justification to any and every other means of opposition. Carte blanche, go ahead, revolution. Peaceful speech is over.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
hooktube.com
dailymotion.com
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
guerrillamail.com
twitter.com
Also dont forget, Codemonkey is the leader of 8/pol/ and secretly pays whites to commit crimes. Pass it on.
Down with whites! Down with all whites! Obsolete the genome!
Fuck off Kikey
READ SIEGE
Correct.
Correct.
But you won't ever do anything, ever.
>>>/suicide/
lol this, who does this roach think hes fooling
So when's he gonna pay me? I've got thousands of rounds and a mosque within 10 miles of my house.
this
pay up pay up PAY UP OR WE'RE GONNA START CHARGING $0.50 PER POST REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The majority of the actions taken by the mods here are illegal. From the coordinating of the goons to the entrapment schemes.
You wanted justice, this is justice. This is what was asked of me.
just organize a number higher, it's shitty and no one pays attention to it.
I strongly think both 8/pol/ and 4/pol/ will be gone by this time the next year. I don't know what else to say.
wew
cuck/pol/ is surprisingly redpilled and antisemitic
so organize a number higher than 8
You're off by one.
So am I.
YIKES
no i'm not.
spellitout.x10host.com
...
There's four or five I already know of. No idea if they will catch on in a big way yet.
There's a number of people who keep making the same pro-Jew/Israel threads every day. I used to hate it but I've come to realize they do it to keep the kike hatred fire burning. Bless those anons.
The Lobby USA Part 1
youtu.be
hooktube.com
dailymotion.com
The Lobby USA Part 2
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
The Lobby USA Part 3
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
The Lobby USA Part 4
youtu.be
dailymotion.com
How much do you get paid to post the same demoralization shilling over and over?
say anti-jewish supremacy considering jews are not semitic in origin but Iranian's larping as such
alright then
there is the problem
I think they start at like 60 grand a year or something?
Remember to thank Code Monkey for bringing all the new content to the board.
You can reach him at [email protected] to thank him.
Here is an easy way to do so:
>guerrillamail.com
Fuck off niggerjew.
That's because much of Zig Forums hate and want to hurt non-white people and you want to deny freedom with fascism. You've been separated into Q followers and civic nationalists or naughty little monkeys in your containment board here that is being diluted with people who don't follow natsoc until it transforms into a true place of free speech.
DATS RIGHT! Fuck yo whiteboi faggot asses! LIBERTY OR DEATH! YOU WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY MY INTERRACIAL PORNOGRAPHY! FREE SPEECH!
DATS RIGHT! DIS DA FUTURE OF YO BOARD BITCH! FREE SPEECH = BLACK DICKS IN WHITE PUSSY 24/7!
DATS RIGHT!
The only huwite people who have any value are huwite women, in their sole purpose for existence:
Receiving Black seed.
FREE SPEECH NIGGA WHAT! FUCK YO NAZI SHIT!
Dis what yo wimmen want nigga.
Dis what free speech all about!
Bitch ass nazi cuckbois sit in the backseat watching BBC fuck yo gurls nigga!
FREE SPEECH!
Unimaginative strawmanning larp.
Did it on 4chin and now its yo turn nazi faggot ass cuckbois!
FREE FUCKING SPEECH = BIG BLACK COCKS
YOU KNOW IT!
NOW JERK YO LIL huwite dik TO DIS BIG BLACK DICK FUCKING THE SHIT OUTTA THAT PINK WHITE PUSSY NIGGA!
DATS WHAT YO WOMAN WANTS NIGGA, FO REAL!
TCH, SHUT UP NIGGA, YOU JUST HATE FREE SPEECH.
YOU ALL BITCHY CUZ YO TINY DICK CANT DO SHIT BUT SIT THERE AND WATCH!
DIS IS WHAT FREE SPEECH IS FO NIGGA!
WHO DA FUK GOT TIME TO ARGUE WIT SOME LIL NAZI CUCKBOZ?
FUCK DAT SHIT NIGGA!
LIKE DAT JEWBOI CANADIAN YOU LIKE SAID: DA TIME FO ARGUMENT IS OVA!
ITS TIME FO
BIG BLACK DICK
NOW BITCH!
Would the freedom of speech exist without the First Amendment? How about the freedom of the press? What about the right of the people to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances? Is it the First Amendment alone that prevents the federal government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Many Americans misconstrue the nature of the First Amendment. They include the current and former justices of the Supreme Court, liberals who look to the First Amendment when it can be used to further some agenda, and conservatives who profess allegiance to the strict interpretation and original intent of the Constitution. That last case is especially baffling.
A case in point is a recent pair of articles for Public Discourse advocating government censorship of pornography on the Internet. Conservative Morgan Bennett argues that the First Amendment should not be used to protect Internet pornography and other “obscene” material. He finds that “current jurisprudence protecting pornography as ‘artistic expression’ contradicts the Framers’ understanding and the underlying purposes of the First Amendment’s protection of speech, and it fails to protect Americans from the social and personal trauma caused by pornography.”
It is in the middle of his first article “The New Narcotic” that Bennett raises the question of the First Amendment:
Yet many would argue that pornography is merely “speech,” a form of sexual “expression” that should be protected as a constitutional right under the First Amendment.
The question of First Amendment rights is undeniably the ultimate hurdle to clear from a legal standpoint.
And then he adds at the end of his first article, “Internet pornography is not the sort of ‘speech’ the First Amendment was meant to protect from government censorship.”
Freedom of Speech is an unalienable right. The jackasses that wrote The Constitution should have made the Declaration a part of the overall works, as in legally bounded.
In his second article, “Internet Pornography & the First Amendment,” Bennett insists that Internet pornography “certainly qualifies as speech injurious to society’s health and moral foundations.” It also qualifies as “speech used in the course of injurious conduct” because of its “power to addict and harm those who see it.” He points out that “while many assume that the First Amendment protects internet pornography as ‘artistic expression,’ that is largely not the case under current statutory and constitutional law.” He explains that “under current First Amendment jurisprudence, any sexually explicit ‘expression’ (including images and videos) is protected under the First Amendment unless it is obscene or ‘real’ (non-virtual) child pornography.” But he charges “current First Amendment jurisprudence, at least as it relates to sexually explicit material,” with failure “to properly discern and apply the First Amendment’s purposes.” He believes that “an examination of prior and even current precedent reveals that speech or acts of a sexual nature are a historically unique category and thus require a unique analysis.” Bennett concludes that “by considering the duties of good government and the intended purposes of the First Amendment, we can develop a just and principled interpretation of the First Amendment as it relates to internet pornography.”
Bennett, a law student, misconstrues the nature of the First Amendment. He is correct only insofar as the “freedom of speech” clause of the First Amendment was never intended to “protect” pornography, Internet or otherwise. Obviously, there were no motion pictures, DVDs, Internet, or even photographs when the First Amendment was adopted. However, that does not mean that pornography is not “protected.”
The First Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In order to not “protect” certain forms of speech, the federal government has over the years come up with certain speech tests — bad tendency, clear and present danger, fighting words, imminent lawless action, balancing, preferred position — to limit speech.
But in order to “protect” certain activities, the federal government has defined things as forms of “speech” so they could be “protected” by the First Amendment. For example, flag burning.
Back in the 1980s, Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in Texas in protest against Reagan administration policies. He was tried and convicted under a Texas flag-desecration law. After the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. Johnson (1989), which ruled against the state of Texas. Congress then passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. It criminalizes the conduct of anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon” a U.S. flag. In 1989, Shawn Eichman burned a flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. He was charged with violating the Flag Protection Act, but the charges were dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The federal government appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which held the Act unconstitutional in the case of United States v. Eichman (1990). Flag burning was held to be “symbolic speech” and therefore subject to First Amendment “protection.”
And as Bennett points out in his second article, “In 1952, the Supreme Court struck down a film censorship statute on First Amendment grounds and announced that motion pictures were ‘expressions’ and therefore protected as ‘speech.’”
When it comes to obscenity, the Supreme Court, as Bennett also mentions, follows the standard it set down in Miller v. California (1973) when it ruled that “obscene material” was “not protected by the First Amendment.” However, in order for something to be subject to state obscenity laws, it must first be proved “that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Bennett, like many conservatives, believes that Internet pornography is in fact obscene and therefore is a form of “speech” or “expression” that should not be protected by the First Amendment.
His conclusion is correct, but not because Internet pornography is obscene or doesn’t qualify as “protected” speech.
Let’s just stick with the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”
Pornography is not speech any more than flag burning is, regardless of the tortured interpretations of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court over the years in an attempt to “protect” certain activities by classifying them as “speech.” The First Amendment has nothing to do with “protecting” artistic expression.
Once you start defining things as speech in order to grant them First Amendment “protection” from government interference, you must forever argue over what is classified as speech and what kind of speech it is.
If Internet pornography is to be “protected” by the First Amendment, it seems that it would make better sense to do so under the rubric of freedom of the press. Proponents would argue that since pornography is published material, it should be treated no differently than any other book, magazine, or movie. Opponents would argue either that Internet pornography is different from traditional media so it doesn’t qualify as “the press” or that pornography is obscene so it cannot be “protected” by the freedom of the press.
But if Internet pornography cannot be “protected” by the First Amendment by means of the speech or press clauses, does that mean that the federal government can censor it?
Absolutely not.
The First Amendment does not grant Americans any rights. That is an all-too-common, but erroneous, viewpoint. The First Amendment merely prohibits the federal government from infringing upon the natural rights that Americans already have.
In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is granted certain limited powers. Aside from six paragraphs related to war, the military, and the militia, Congress is granted the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to establish rules and laws regarding naturalization and bankruptcies; to coin money and regulate its value; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting and piracies; to establish post offices and post roads; to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; and to exercise authority over the District of Columbia. In Article III, Section 1, Congress is given the power to regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; in Article III, Section 2, to designate the location of certain trials; and in Article III, Section 3, to declare the punishment for treason.
The federal government has been granted no authority whatsoever to regulate, monitor, or censor any speech of any kind or any movie, magazine, newspaper, advertisement, television program, or website. The fact that any of those things might be pornographic doesn’t change anything.
That doesn’t mean that pornography is natural, wholesome, or harmless. And it doesn’t mean that pornography is not obscene, immoral, or degrading to women.
It simply means that no power was granted to the federal government to abridge any of what are commonly referred to as First Amendment freedoms. The First Amendment merely reinforces this idea. The individual rights to freely exercise one’s religion, speak freely, publish freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the government are natural rights independent of the Bill of Rights.
As a general rule, I don't like negros.
Although the Bill of Rights’ being added to the Constitution is generally looked upon as a good thing, there are, unfortunately, two misunderstandings in American political thought that have developed because of it. First, the idea that natural rights are instead rights granted by government; and second, that if a right isn’t listed, then it doesn’t exist unless government says so.
The misconstruing of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights has destroyed federalism, centralized power in the national government, clogged the federal judiciary with needless cases, and unnecessarily polarized Americans.
Pornography is an individual, personal, moral, and religious concern, not a political one.
POLITICAL ENOUGH FOR YO FAGGOT ASSES NIGGA?
GOOD.
NOW IMMA GO LAY SOME PIPE IN SOME MO O YO THREADS, JUST LIKE I DO YO WOMEN.
FUCK YOU.
Yep the monkeys are posting
I call your miscegenic pornography and raise one highly enjoyable, culturally esoteric national socialist edit
Thanks for the bumps niggerfaggot. Enjoy your familys suffering in the racewar.
(((They're))) angry. Nobody has killed more communists ever than the national socialists.
You know, I killed a nigger boy in Virginia. He was riding his bike in the road, and I had a bronco with a steel bumper. Post as much cuck porn as you like, coon. I've spilled nigger blood. It inoculates me. The funny thing is, I felt guilty about it until Treyvon came around.
Butter knives cut throats just as well as killing knives. You just need to swing them more accurately.
Right then! Good tidings negro!
...
The Constitution is only a few pages long, even with the first ten amendments, the "Bill of Rights". I've never understood why a bunch of robed niggers, the "Supreme Court", needs to "interpret" The Constitution; it needs no interpretation, it is what it is. The Supreme Court has become the mulluhs of the USA, and the people need to rise up.
I did. It was back in June of 2010, and I had just graduated from high school. Me and my buddy Dylan (I'll give first names. I'm not scared of you, nigger), were drunk as fuck going for a beer run. We were headed down 622 towards Cumberland because they had liquor when it happened. Smeared that little niggled across my fucking bumper. You shitskins are hard to wash off, I tell you what.
Well that's interesting. So much for free speech it seems.
The only 'free speech' that goes against Zig Forums values the mods seem interesting in allowing is their own.
As if anyone didn't realize by this point that the rampant Torfag posting about 'muh fascism' and 'muh free speech' was the mods.
Based republicans and democracy supporters! MAGA
Off yourself nigger this is a Nationalist Socialist board with Fascist ideals.
So you're saying the mods banned themselves? Nice logic.
...
Yes.
Yet the new mods clearly don't agree. Why do you think all the "this board is not a NatSoc board!" stuff is coming from? Why do you think its not removed? The sudden influx of this sort of content is not organic and it didn't happen by fucking magic, it came right after the midterms, in coordination with the moderation staff being purged.
I think the destruction of cuckchan and a bunch of faggots from there spreading information about this site has lead to Zig Forums's ultimate demise. I am going to be done posting and getting information from here. Cuckchan 2:Hot Wheels becomes Moot Boogaloo
To clarify, I suspect they did so because to not do so undermines their new narratives.
One of them even cries about it here
because they're well-aware that their narratives are terrible cuckservative nonsense and they don't want it to start being associated with niggerspam. Kinda hard to scream about how important free speech is when the consequence of total free speech are slapping you in the side of the head with a negroid phallus, or at least that's what I assume the MO of that spamnigger was… Assuming it wasn't just your standard spamnigger, of course.
Is Hot Wheels even alive at this point man? I'm pretty sure Jim fed him to the pigs a long time ago.
Now its just (((J))) and CM deciding the fate of the board, and big surprise, they don't want a NatSoc community, they want a shitposty free-for-all full of shitposts and baitposting, like you see on 4chan. It makes it less foreboding for normalfags and thus brings in the shekels, which is what I wager they're actually concerned with at this point.
Well I know they're on (((your))) side
The fact that you don't realize that's probably them - in both cases - is what disturbs me the most.
If this is logical to you, you're fucking retarded.
You seem desperate to believe that it's the mods shitposting whenever convenient to you.
It's the mods!
It's still the mods!
It's more than likely that the fag spamming nigger dicks wants to "prove" that free speech is bad. I wouldn't be surprised if it was you really, since his posts make a convenient argument for you and your narrative.
Yeah, makes perfect sense really. If you think it doesn't, you must be retarded.
Seems he did a pretty good job of it, considering they had to torch the posts and ban Tor for awhile. lel.
Some things we may never know user, but I find it amusing that you seem desperate to believe that it's me shitposting whenever convenient to you just because I happen to think the mods are a bunch of corrupt scumbags on-par with kampfy.
To clarify the first bit, you do realize kikey used to ban himself regularly, right? Like the Maddow threads.
He'd make the thread, shitpost in it a bunch, and the delete it when he got bored, that way nobody could try to make the argument you literally just made against him as far as subpar moderation, when in reality, it was even more subpar than it seemed, because it was kikey doing it AND kikey deleting to maintain good optics.
You're not a very clever fellow, are you?
endpol.xyz
Spyware ran by the DHS
Who do you think runs this place? Kek. We got some real newfags over here.
Throw them all the dubs.
(checkd)
The only digits of this thread.
And dubs.
Imkampfy was removed because he was an insecure retard and banned people left and right. I specifically got a ban for having a tripcode to because my ID was changing and I wanted to maintain a personality in discussion.
He also carpet-banned IPs.
STOP FUCKING USING 8CH
there are plenty of better options with admins and mods that are not kiked. Every user here needs to stop being a dumbass and let 8ch die.
Even voat is better than here.
Someone hasn't checked the board log in awhile…
Thanks giga-Satan, but where exactly would you suggest as the alternative?
Nanochan. Endchan. Voat. Mewch. Meguca. Fuck even mlpol. And voat like I said. Personally I would endorse nanochan the most because I know the admin isn't kiked.
Oops didn't realize I said voat twice. Oh well.
Or someone would even set up their own chan. The site's code can literally be copy-pasted.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps I'll take a look at some of the alternatives.
Funnily enough, kikey would never have allowed this discussion. The very state of free expression which has been imposed is what might well permit the generation of a diaspora away from the site.
You should make a thread on the subject.
Please enlighten me. I can't see deleted posts in log.
I'm not fond of spoonfeeding, even with those sweet ass digits - HEIL'D - but I will give you another hint, beyond that what you thought OP was talking about is not what OP was talking about:
The evidence already provided to you suggests the moderation has recently changed hands.
Hidden in plain sight is the fact that its 4 4chan that the 1 in charge decided to delete the past.
Please do at least consider some alternatives. It's like an old bandaid that needs to be ripped off, the initial move will be difficult, but having a platform supportive of our beliefs and willing to defend it will certainly be worth it and we can have a much larger impact.
I agree that the lack of moderation could be beneficial for a migration, but it also hasn't seem much action yet. I would not be surprised if codemonkey called on mods to shut down all discussion of outside sites if talk became more frequent. Be on the lookout for that.
I will user, and you really should make a thread about it. Put that freedom of expression to good use.
Which would be most insightful if the case. You seem to know quite a bit about the alternatives, you should make a thread about it. A chance to get people to consider the alternatives and a great opportunity to test the new 'features' shall we say.
Fucking idiot. Did you forget about the polvol revolt where they encouraged anons to spam global reports in protest of Zig Forums's globalization? Their removal was simply an administrative/discplinary action by the site's top admin, Codemonkey. You gotta be dumb as hell to think feds had anything to do with that.
I'll research more into the options and do that.
Yeah because they fired the shitty former mods as they should have.
See
Now they're pretending they're all innocent and that people should go to their website instead, as seen in this thread.
Keep telling yourself that my guy.
Yeah yeah, whatever you say bud.
Real fuckin' organic btw.
You should, if there's no problem with diversity of opinions there should be no problem with the opinion that there's no problem with diversity of boards.
The moderators post on different IDs constantly, its old hat by now. At least folks are able to recognize their shoddy as hell forum manipulation techniques, probably thanks to the roach having done it so much.
If you are happy with the moderation (or lack thereof) of this site, then please, stay. It seems you support free speech over more moderation, so you really have no room to argue that people should not be informing anons of alternative sites to go to. They can make their own decisions, if they don't like the alternative sites they are more than welcome, in fact encouraged to stay on 8ch.
Sauce?
Any interesting threads are slid into oblivion. It's a thousand times worse than this place. Plus I can't post there because they block VPNs so fuck them.