As the “Technocratic Tyranny” continues to expand, and Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and Google continue to erase voices in deference to their Jewish/Left/LGBTQ/POC agenda (i.e. – Anti-White – Anti-European) agenda, we continuously hear the mantra, “Well, these are all private companies, and they have a right allow anyone onto their platforms as they wish!”

But is this really true?  Can companies simply remove you at a whim through the use of nebulous legalize that, when taken at total value, honestly mean absolutely nothing other than whatever it is that the whining establishment owner deems their terms and conditions to mean?

Let’s take this idea of removing voices from the public square to an extreme.

Let’s say I own a hotel, and I have my “community standards” and “terms and conditions” for being in my hotel.  One of those terms and conditions means you cannot say anything that “I” and “my staff”, constitutes “hate”.

So in walk a bunch of Jews.  Ten of them to be exact.  They check in, head to their rooms, change their clothes, and then make their way down to the lobby where they begin to engage in speech among themselves.  Now think about this for a minute.  Isn’t this idea of people “speaking among themselves” the same as what we see in a social media post where those who speak and those who want to hear the person speak (followers) congregate to listen to the idea and share banter (comments)?

Of course it is.  There really is no difference other than the medium of how the communication is affected.  One is within the lobby of the hotel, and one is in a virtual lobby of sorts, sitting on a particular website.

So we have these Jews sitting around and, being obnoxious and racist and Jews are wont to be, begin speaking among themselves in an elevated voice.  “Those Palestinians are terrorists!  Every single one of them!”.

Well, it just so happens that one of my staff recently had his cousin, a nine year old, recently assassinated by this Jews tribesman on the border of Gaza, and she takes some offense to this statement.  After all, she would certainly have the right!

But she remains silent.  Guests are guests, after all, and as the old American saying goes, “the customer is always right”.

Well, as Jews laugh at the “terrorist” remark, another Jew chimes in, “Yes!  What you say about Palestinians is true!  America needs to pay more for our Jewish security!”  Well, hell, seeing how Jews engineered 9-11, attacked the United States on June 8, 1967, when Israeli unmarked warplanes bomb, strafed, and napalmed the USS Liberty for hours in the Mediterranean in what remains a clear act of war by the Jewish state against the United States, and so many other crimes against the American people, I am rather offended.

So I walk up these Jews and tell them, “Excuse me, but your speech here is against our community standards.  We don’t allow you to engage in hate speech.  Now go, collect up your personal belongings, and get the hell out of my hotel!”

As you can imagine, these Jews jump up and down like a bunch of indignant monkeys, whining and protesting about how we at our humble little hotel are being “discriminatory”.

But hey.  This is OUR PRIVATE HOTEL, we have our terms of service and community standards, and speaking openly in our lobby where others can hear what you have to say simply is a violation of those standards and since we are a private hotel, we surely have EVERY RIGHT to remove Jews from our premises.  The same holds true for any other group for which we want to remove, blacks, Mexicans, you name it.

We have a public lobby where you can be over heard and if you violate our community standards, we as a hotel owner and operator have every right to remove you from our hotel.  After all, telling us you are “pro-Jewish” is racist, and we can’t allow racists to roam our lobby and spread their hateful Jewish ideology, could we?

Of course not!

Now ask yourself.  Under these conditions, do you think we would have a chance in hell of every succeeding in enforcing such “community standards” on any person or group who went into a private hotel lobby, spoke among themselves, were heard by others, and hence deserved and should be removed from the premises under rather nebulous “terms of service” and “community standards”?

Of course not!

So what is the different between communication that occurs in a rather private hotel lobby and one that, frankly, occurs in rather private, follower based small to large communities on a technology platform as Youtube or Twitter?

There truly isn’t.

But as well know, Jewish groups WILL call on venues as hotels to “silence others” by removing groups from having an ability to use a particular venue, yet do you think that Jews would stand for their removal from a lobby under nebulous “community standards”?

Of course not!  Nor would most of us in the general public, to be truthful.  The idea that we should remove a group for speaking in a hotel lobby due to “violating community standards” is absolutely absurd and which we would all view as being discriminatory.

Yet this reasoning is precisely what is happening when Jewish tech companies as Facebook, Apple, Google, Youtube, and Twitter, engage in the same behavior.

It is discriminatory.  Plain and simple.

But is its worse.  The actions being taken by these platforms appears to be criminal and in violation of US Federal Law (this article does not address European challenges).

Information Highways

The ability for technology companies to operate is not exclusive to the ability of the technology company.  Facebook is nothing if Facebook cannot deliver its product to the consumer unless it has access to highways which are, in this case, digital highways.  These highways are not open to all, per se, but are restricted and regulated by both Federal and State regulators.

Being regulated, these highways, just as physical highways, remain very much a part of the public domain.  At any time, the public can shut down access by, say, heavy vehicles to a particular highway stretch or city street, but in no way can a private party unilaterally impose upon another private actor the right to use that public highway.

To do so would certainly be against the law.

Of course, there are some toll highways.  These are private highways leased out by cities, states, etc., for which tolls are collected and the revenues shared with the public treasury.  How these highways are built is not, necessarily, the business of the individual but still must be accessible and able to be used for all for the express purpose of transiting that portion of the highway network.

Well, these individual designed tollways are like the Facebooks, Apples, Googles, and Youtubes of the world.  They get access to the public’s telecommunications grid (the digital highway) and they get to extract fees (advertising and information) in return for the use of the individual to use these private highways.

Further, it is not as if the public does not have a vested stake in these companies who use our collective digital highways: under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, we, the people, agree to not prosecute Internet websites for illegal acts going utilizing their small, private slice of the digital highway if they agreed to maintain and open and free Internet.

The point here is that digital media companies, whether social or otherwise, are nothing without their being able to access the digital highway network.

The digital highway network, like the physical highway network, is fully regulated and there remains no right for private individuals and parties to impede the flow of goods, people, and services, over these public networks.

Now we must ask ourselves.  Should a private company as Facebook or Youtube, which exacts tolls from the public (a person’s private details) be enabled and enriched by impeding the flow of goods, services, and people through their toll roads on a unilateral basis?

Again.  The logic says clearly not.  Youtube cannot reach their customer without using access to public regulated digital highways.  If a person wants to enter the digital highway on say, a Verizon end-point, which the user is paying for, enter the Youtube “toll road”,  which then goes out and to myriads of end points, which again, the END USERS are paying for, who then is Youtube to impede interstate traffic when they, too, are using the exact same highways that we are using to both enter and exit the digital highway network?

Do we allow private individuals with signs that read, “You violated our community standards” and can no longer enter our private/public physical toll road the right to physically remove us from toll roads we have already paid for?

Of course not!

Again, the “jewstification” for Jewish firms to deny access to various toll roads on the digital highway system cannot be supported.  To ban a lawful person a lawful entry to digital toll roads as Youtube and Twitter is clearly discriminatory just as surely as if we denied entry to a group of Jews to our fictional hotel.

The same rules should be applied to either a digital (virtual) environment as say, Youtube, as to, say, a hotel environment.  Worse, what we are finding is that ONE primary ethnic group is seeking to impede and deny entry and traffic along various highways/venues, and those groups are Jewish.

Impeding Interstate Commerce

What is clear at this stage is that digital platforms, as they are currently being deployed and weaponized, are modern day robber barons using a form of extortion to deny entry and use of “their” highway, which is really not “theirs” in that “their highways” cannot ever be decoupled from the public digital highway network.

Social media platforms are really just toll highways on the public digital highway network.  The price you pay is your personal information, travel paths, etc., and you get to join all the other people congregating on this toll highway.  To not be allowed onto this highway is every bit as discriminatory as if we were deny Jews their access to our imaginary hotel.

Yet in America, we have what is known as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which specifically was ruled by the Courts to be a lawful measure to combat us from denying black people access to our restaurants and hotels.

 “For instance, African Americans encountered difficulties when traveling because discriminatory polices often kept them from finding hotels in which they could stay and restaurants in which they could eat. Consequently, African Americans were restricted in their right to travel, since people cannot travel if they cannot find a place to stay or eat. The Court also explained that when African Americans are restricted in their travels, this has a negative impact on the nation’s economy, since fewer goods and services are purchased. Furthermore, the Court agreed that Congress could regulate interstate commerce and intrastate activities that had an impact on commerce, since Congress had the authority to legislate moral wrongs under its ‘‘national police power. – source’’

Of course, times do change.  When Title II was enacted, America was a 90% European American country.  However, with today’s “multicultural” environment, discrimination can occur across multiple ethnicities targeting any given number of ethnicities.

In the social media sphere, where our digital highways are staffed largely by Jewish driven ideological modern day robber barons, we live in a world where Jews and their political allies (POC, LGBTQ, Antifa) patrol the highways and threaten and intimidate everyone from using these highways in lawful activities.

Not only are “conservative voices”, translated as European diaspora Americans being discriminated against, they are being hounded and threatened on these digital highways.  Many are being denied their ability to make money using these highways, which would seem a clear legal and criminal violation in that these companies are willfully engaging in racketeering and extortion to deny the movement of goods and services across interstate highways.

Now an argument could be made that any given toll highway operator has a right to not allow someone to make money on their particular part of the national digital highway system vis-a-vis their paying out of their own coffers for the use of others to use their part of the digital highways system.  In other words, if Youtube wants to deny people the right to make money on their platform, then this denial should be universal and Youtube’s entire content provider ecosystem should be shut down.

Otherwise, Youtube’s actions are discriminatory.  However, if Youtube deplatforms anyone who is making money off the digital interstate network independent of Youtube, then surely Youtube is engaging in disrupting interstate commerce and thus should be brought to the courts accordingly.

This is a Federal issue, for which any number of Federal agencies should be brought to bear to ensure the Youtube opens its highway or simply be decoupled from the entire digital highway system.  Let’s see how valuable Youtube is if it is denied access to the national digital highway?

That is what happens when domains are simply shut down.  Imagine how fast Youtube would cave if we simply blocked Youtube’s domain until their correct their criminal behavior>

The same holds even MORE true for payment processors as Paypal, GoFundMe, etc.

The idea that a Paypal can unilaterally take away service is such an egregious abuse of market power that it is surprising that legal jurisdictions in the United States have let it stand.  How can you be in the money processing business, entice people to lawfully use your service, and then unilaterally start kicking people off your service due to ideological reasons.

It is clearly fraud, but more importantly, remains a massive racketeering effort specifically put forward to deny interstate commerce.

Therefore, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a group of people (1) associated for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct; (2) that the association of these people was an ongoing formal or informal organization, and (3) the group was engaged in or had an effect upon interstate or foreign commerce. The government need not prove that the enterprise had any particular organizational structure.

Interstate commerce includes the movement of goods, services, money and individuals between states. These goods can be legal or illegal. Only a minimal effect on commerce is required and the effect need only be probable or potential, not actual. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant’s own acts affected interstate commerce as long as the enterprise’s acts had such effect. – source

What is clear is that under Marxist “political correct bullshit” (bullshit is the proper term), Jewish organizations are engaging in a massive racketeering operation using their digital properties (Facebook, Youtube, Google, Twitter, etc.)  Complicit too is the Anti-Defamation League, which lends consulting services on how to go about using unlawful definitions as “hate speech” with the express intent to deny people their ability to conduct interstate commerce and access digital toll highways.

What we are witnessing is a massive abuse of monopoly power with clear intent to defraud the user base (change terms and  community standards at a whim), impede interstate commerce, deny civil rights, and a whole range of other abuses.

In short, we are watching a criminal racketeering effort unfold before our very eyes.

The Internet and Interstate Commerce

Today, the internet age is changing the landscape of federal jurisdiction. While most people associate the travel of goods across state or national lines with the breaching of physical boundaries by physical objects, it is not necessary that people or property involved in a federal case actually cross a state or national border to provide jurisdiction.

It is hard to imagine a day, or even an hour, goes by when a person does not access the internet. Even when communication is taking place online between two individuals in the same state, their internet traffic almost inevitably crosses state lines. As a result, the use of the internet has become a per se facility of interstate commerce. – source

It is time to call out the ongoing social media crisis for what it is: criminal fraud, criminal racketeering, impeding interstate commerce, and violating the civil rights of what are largely “conservative” voices.