Jewnited Hebrew Nations Whines About “Protest Bans” in Various American States

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
April 2, 2017

Peaceful protester in Berkeley pictured with bat next to peaceful vandalism calling for the assassination of the President.



UN rights experts have voiced concerns over bills recently introduced by a number of US states aimed at restricting the right to assembly, saying they are “undemocratic” and violate international human rights obligations adopted by Washington.

“Since January 2017, a number of undemocratic bills have been proposed in state legislatures with the purpose or effect of criminalizing peaceful protests,” the UN’s top experts on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, David Kaye and Maina Kiai, said in a recent statement.

“Peaceful protesters” was my favorite Obama meme. That and “moderate terrorists.”

Both were just pure gold.

Peaceful protesters, Ukraine:

Peaceful protesters, Ferguson:

Peaceful protesters, Libya:

I wish that dirty nigger would have had more memes. It would have been more fun, at least.

The proposed bills, if approved “would severely infringe upon the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly,” the statement says, noting that it would be “incompatible with US obligations under international human rights law and with First Amendment protections.”

“The trend also threatens to jeopardize one of the United States’ constitutional pillars: free speech.”

Protecting free speech is one of the highest missions of the UN.

It’s almost as important to them as shutting down hate speech on the internet.

Hate speech is not free speech, because of reasons.

According to the UN experts, since the presidential election in November, US lawmakers in at least 19 states have introduced legislation “restricting assembly rights by various degrees.”

This comes as the US has seen an unprecedented surge in mass protest movements, from Black Lives Matter demonstrations to mass protests against Trump’s migration laws, environmental and Native American protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Women’s Marches. The latter, for instance, was held across hundreds of cities and ended up as one of the largest demonstrations in US history, some estimates indicate.

All of those have been “peaceful” only by the Obama definition. Except for the Women’s March, which was actually peaceful by the normal definition of that word.

Though Madonna did call for the White House to be bombed.

It’s not really a very peaceful sentiment.

“Individuals and organizations across society have mobilized in peaceful protests, as it is their right under international human rights law and US law. These state bills, with their criminalization of assemblies, enhanced penalties and general stigmatization of protesters, are designed to discourage the exercise of these fundamental rights,” the UN experts warned.

In their analysis, the UN experts pointed out a number of bills regarding “unlawful obstruction of traffic” by protesters, for instance in Florida and Tennessee, where it has been proposed to exempt drivers from persecution if they accidentally hit and kill people demonstrating in the road.


People who block traffic indeed deserve to be run over, in the most absolute sense. The same sense in which a person who puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger deserves to have their brains blown out or in which a person who jumps out of a tenth story window deserves to have their body crushed by gravity.

Just the week before last, on March 21st, the UN had a big thing pushing all governments in the world to ban “hate speech.”


The United Nations marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Tuesday by telling governments around the world that regulating “hate speech” is part of the strategy needed to “stand up for someone’s rights.”

Governments around the world “have a legal obligation to stop hate speech and hate crimes,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein reportedly said Tuesday, adding a call “on people everywhere to ‘stand up for someone’s rights,’” the press release about the event said.

“It is not an attack on free speech or the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism, but a recognition that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities,” Al Hussein said in a statement.

“Words of fear and loathing can, and do, have real consequences,” Zeid said.

In his statement, Zeid said that U.N. member states “do not have any excuse to allow racism and xenophobia to fester.”

States “have the legal obligation to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination, to guarantee the right of everyone, no matter their race, color, national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law.”

You really just have to stop thinking about “liberalism” as being anything other than a Jewish plot to destroy the world. Any other way of looking at it simply does not make any sense.

These people will censor political speech on the internet, but say it’s free speech to allow terrorists to riot and burn everything down.

This isn’t an unfortunate misunderstanding.

There is literally no coherent ideology behind liberalism. It is not internally consistent, and doesn’t even pretend to be.

Or, perhaps, there is a version of liberalism that is internally consistent, but it’s long stopped existing in anything other than theory.