Thursday, June 28, 2007
This is of course Kennedy's attempt to follow up his triumph in the 1965 Immigration Act, when he, acting as the gentile water-bearer for the professional rabble-rouser, jewish Senator Emmanuel Celler, lied the bill to passage. We were promised it wouldn't affect the demographics of American society then; thirty years and millions upon millions of third-world invaders later, we know the truth.
There are, at the moment, about 6.2 BILLION featherless bipeds distributed around the globe. Of those, estimates are that about 9%, or around 600-million, are White and of purely European descent. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get a clear number, because the swine running the various formerly-White nation-states (now simply countries) are covering up the numbers. They are doing this, at least in part, to prevent a wholesale revolt by the White members of those countries. But the 600-million number seems about right.
Now, if we were alone in our own homelands, our own nations, this would be fine. Say, 200-million in the U.S., 250-million in Europe, and the rest in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We'd have enough land to live comfortably, and enough resources to support ourselves. There'd be work for everyone, too. And we'd select our leaders in accordance with our needs as a People.
Illegal immigrants wouldn't be a problem in the Vinland or any other White land; anyone not White would be recognized as an outsider, much as a White person in Tibet is now. We could have visitors and tourists, of course, but they would promptly return home after their stay. Mexicans would live in Mexico, Indians in India, and Chinese in China. Quite simple.
The focus recently has been on illegal immigrants, or "CrimMigrants" as I call them. These border-jumpers, along with the swine in the business and political communities who pave their way for them, should be sent packing right now. But we, not only in North America but other White lands, seem to be paralyzed and unresponsive. We do nothing. But the illegals, ranging from 12-million (the "official" government lie) to 30-million (closer to reality) are only part of the problem.
There are also the H1-b visa holders. These folks came over for temporary employment or educational reasons. Many if not most of the Asians in North America who've arrived in the past 20 years are in this category. When their visas expired, nothing happened. They stayed, many had children who are considered "citizens" because they dropped from the birth canal into American territory ("anchor babies", also a common phenomenon, and cats-paw for gaining residence, among illegal "hispanics"), and now they are somehow considered "Americans".
Finally, there are the legals who came to fill professional positions: physicians, scientists, programmers, pharmacists and so on. Whether or not their credentials are ever questioned, I don't know, but they have taken over many blocs within those communities.
So the problem isn't restricted to illegal entrants, but ALL non-European entrants. Our governments are allowing, and even encouraging, the invasion and take-over of our lands through increasing numeric superiority.
As I've discussed previously, there are finite resources available in all countries. The United States was at its best with the population somewhere between 100 to 200-million people, 90% of whom were White. Having brought Black people here, usually against their will, we owed them a share in the bounty, and they got it (and continue to, in greater, displacing amounts every year). But now, we're being forced to share those resources, the water, the trees, the food output, and all life in general, with people who will never "assimilate", never start speaking English, and never be a part of the predominant culture. This is true in all formerly White countries everywhere. It is not true in non-White countries. China, India and Mexico, for instance, face no onslaught of immigrants who seek to isolate themselves culturally. In fact, they face little immigration of any sort. They have anti-immigration laws, certainly anti-illegal laws, and they rigorously enforce them. We do not. We display guilt-ridden, neurotic "tolerance" toward people who are not only like us, but often avoid and despise us; they do not.
Every day in America, the nation grows less American, Europe becomes less European, Australia less Australian. These regions were built over generations by sweat and work, by long hours, inventive minds and societal cohesion among their White populations. They are now seen as lifeboats; the overflow populations of a hundred lands pour into them, seeking to stay afloat while we paddle furiously, coming from places which never achieved greatness or wealth. We are expected to support ourselves and them. We are expected to give over our jobs, our homes, our countries, and our European nations to others. And what will we receive in the end?
Every year, White people sustain two-job households while non-White welfare recipients have more children. Those who arrived with pilfered wealth from their homelands, those who came with fantastic tech jobs awaiting them, those who walked in with second-rate medical degrees and lots of family cash, all of them also have more children. Does the world need even more Asians, Africans and "hispanics" and absolutely no more Whites? Is it right that our numbers are decreasing every year, as we postpone or otherwise swear off having children of our own? Should the cultures of others be held up as ideals, while displaying pride in the accomplishments of our own ancestors and our own contemporaries is ridiculed as "racist" or "hateful"?
You must answer these questions for yourselves. But you must answer them soon. Once the time has passed, the book will be closed on our People and our time here will have gone.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The United States Senate is about to vote on a bill which will, if passed, allow "twelve" million Mexican criminal immigrants, who are stationed within this country, to gain citizenship. Yes, I said "stationed". Invasions of millions of people are acts of warfare, are they not? If so, we should be using military jargon.
Should the Senators completely go off the rails, they will be in direct and reflective violation of their duties laid out for them in the United States Constitution, Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The militia, in case your high school history teacher didn't get it right, is "us", the adult citizenry. We're the ones the Second Amendment was written for and about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Mexicans are completely convinced of the correctness of this invasion because they believe, without question, that the United States illegally obtained land rights to Texas, California and other southwestern areas. The U.S. offered to purchase Texas and was denied. When Texas broke free from Mexico and declared its independence, the U.S. offered to add it to the Union, and did so. Defense of the Rio Grande led to the Mexican-American War. This ended with American control of most of the west (after the conclusion of the peacetime Gadsden Purchase). Mexico lost about half its land area.
Today, we are seeing the fulfillment of a predicted "reconquista", or "reconquest" of the same American southwest. The initial ruse was workers coming in to fill low-paying jobs. Then, families who had been ignored by the Mexican government came to get education and medical benefits. This process has been quite beneficial to Mexico; the dirt poor get sent off to America, send much of their money home, take their illnesses north, and further tax the systems already under stress.
The "hispanics" are the largest minority group, and also the fastest growing as a percentage of the overall population. Their legal numbers make up 15% of the people here, or 45-million. Their publicized illegal numbers stand at 12-million, but the true figure is closer to 30-million. Conveying this honestly to an unprepared majority population could result in massive insurrections, so the heat of truth is raised a degree at a time. What those folks will have to contend with is, we have added a fairly organized ethnic bloc of seventy-five million to our land and no one hinted at that until now.
There are protests by illegal aliens demanding "rights" in a country which they have no legal right to stand in. There are American churches defending illegals against expulsion, right now, giving them "sanctuary" as if the American legal system were the perpetrator. Their continued entry is tied to U.S. access to Mexican oil. There are websites promising various forms of retribution against "anglos" when the end comes.
We, as citizens of the U.S.A., have these choices:
1. We can deny the passage of the immigration bill now on the Senate floor and determine the illegals to be criminals.
2. We can pass the legislation, almost all of the current illegals will gain citizenship within the next few years, and they will be entitled to everything you are, including voting for those turncoats who let them stay.
If we take the second road, we are doomed as a citizenry, and we in particular as a People, within these borders. Things will get much, much worse before any brightening if it comes.
If we choose the first, we will have to bring home our troops in order to effect removal of the illegals and defense of the borders. Many of those troops are "hispanic". Will they obey their orders and work for the U.S. Government or decide that's a losing proposition? Assuming they remain loyal, will the 30-million illegals go peacefully? Will the other 45-million "hispanic" citizens join them?
These are questions we are facing right now, tonight. They aren't fantasaical or absurd. They are playing out as we sit here. What will our choice be?
With the current, though hidden, push by the Bush dictator-wannabes to form a North American Union and effectively erase our borders with Canuckistan (Canada) and Tierra de los Mestizos (Mexico), I had more thoughts about the Vinland Nation concept.
In our history, two current states, Vermont and Texas, were once independent entities. Nine states in the South attempted to secede from the Union in 1861, but were put down by the mercantilist dictator, Abraham Lincoln (who was later assassinated for his unConstitutional policies).
There have been other recent secession movements, such as the Free State Project (which decided on New Hampshire as the destination), the Green Mountain Republic (Vermont) group, and various others. None have really had any traction.
As the "Reconquista" project of the Mexican government (aided and abetted by the bandits in Washington at least since the early 1980's) has moved forward, we have gone from a country with a population structure of 89% White, 10% Black and 1% all others in 1950 to 64% non-jewish White, 13% Black, 15% "hispanic", 4% Asian, 3% jewish and remainder all others. This progress is expected to continue, with even Bill Clinton having noted, in a commencement speech, that the U.S. will become majority non-White by 2050.
Coupled with the overall decline of Constitutional civil rights, and the selective enforcement of those remaining (i.e., the Imus case: Whites being prohibited from certain speech open to Blacks, who are protected as a group by the neo-communists currently in power), we face several choices for the future.
The first is to do nothing. Things will progress as they have been. White people will become more marginalized, lose more of their social and political standing, and, in my own opinion and that of many others, eventually be subsumed into the larger, non-White population. This was essentially what happened to the Tokharians of ancient China, the Ainu of Japan, the Aryan Brahmins of India, the Ptolemys of Egypt, and it is happening now among many of the remaining urban Whites of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). The European homelands are also under assault, but that is a topic for another blog.
The second possibility is voter resistance. However, as has been proven time and again, both major parties in the U.S. are in lockstep on matters of immigration (including protection of illegals), race "relations", integration, affirmative action, etc. This was also the case in the last Congressional election, in which the new Democrat majority lied to the voters, promising an end to Iraq, more transparent government, possible impeachment actions, etc. So voting for change results in nothing. It's all wind designed to keep the masses in check.
A third possible direction is actual citizen paramilitary revolution. This was the Founders' choice, but required large-scale citizen involvement, as well as the remaining neutral citizenry stepping aside and not actively opposing the others. In 1776, this was possible and led the way to successful detachment from King George III's Britain. Now, it is nearly an impossibility. There is no consensus among White Americans as to direction, and none among the other favored groups. No one wants to upset the status quo and potentially lose their Sunday ball games, SUV, and the kids' weekend soccer games. The work of the media in creating a sleepy, consumerist society has been incredibly successful.
As a side note, there are large numbers of non-Whites serving in the military, and chances are they will smiply not be amenable on principle to any White uprising.
China and Japan are holding hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. bonds and other liabilities. The FED continues to pump money into the economy, which debases the currency and causes inflation. The Chinese, not being stupid, are divesting themselves of dollars, and buying real estate, gold, Swiss francs and Euros, as well as having purchased much of our industrial infrastructure for producing durable goods. The latter is also true of India, Korea and Indonesia.
As things begin to tighten economically, and they will as sure as the sun rises, the odds of revolution may increase, although the sheep will probably remain alternately frightened and pacified until it's too late to respond effectively.
Thomas Chittum, in his book "Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America", coldly assesses our current national predicament and predicts that the U.S. will eventually separate into three predominant states, along racial lines. The southwest, already far along on this road, will become a "hispanic" extension of Mexico. The deep South will become an African-based nation, and the remainder will be White. He also predicts enormous violence and bloodshed during this process. Hopefully, that will not happen, but I am not completely optimistic.
If this comes to pass, the last possibility would be the establishment of a White refuge of sorts, a homeland within the crumbling North American state structures of the U.S. and Canada. Some, including Robert J. Mathews, saw that homeland arising in the Pacific Northwest. However, the numbers of Asians and "hispanics" who are there now preclude that possibility.
Instead, I would create a White national confederated republic with borders encompassing Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, western Massachusetts, northern and western New York, western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. In addition, I would urge the addition of Quebec and the Canadian Maritime provinces of Labrador, Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick if they've had enough of their increasingly dictatorial overlords. The resulting map would initally look like this:
This would be the core; as time progressed and more areas were decided, more contiguous states and provinces would be added. It's just one scenario among many possibilities.
In order to make this happen, a migration to these areas must begin soon. Land ownership, apart from its intrinsic value, also serves to create voter blocs and eventual local political control. As the Mexicans are doing in the southwest, sheer numbers begin to tip the balance toward de facto political power. This leads to localized decision-making and increasing leverage against the dictates of the Federal power elites.
Is it all just wishful thinking? Perhaps. But I shudder when considering the alternatives.
This past holiday weekend, my lady friend Carol and I visited the local IKEA store, which is located in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey. Elizabeth is directly across the Hudson River from the Staten Island section of New York City and is part of the metropolitan area, and this store is always crammed full of shoppers.
In the time I was in the store, there were literally many hundreds of people there. As I often do lately, I head-counted the number of White people in attendance. Apart from the two of us, I counted seven others. Most of the shoppers were Indian, east Asians, "hispanics", and arabics.
This, I have found, is becoming typical of central and northern New Jersey. The media population numbers showing a 2/3 White majority can not possibly be correct. To be sure, there are pocket communities where that's the case, but by and large, I would estimate the White percentage to be closer to 45-50% overall in this state, maybe less. I'd also guess that's probably the case in the neighboring states in the middle Atlantic and southern New England areas.
Although it's been downplayed in, or ignored by, the mainstream media (MSM), so-called "White flight" has been in practice for about 40 years now. White families moved from cities to suburbs to rural areas over time. The reasons given were cloaked: "better schools", "fresh air", "more space", etc. The underlying, unadmitted-to reason was simple: fewer non-Whites around.
This is no longer the case. Apart from the fact that non-Whites historically follow White dispersal patterns in the U.S. and Canada (apparently because Whites create jobs and prosperity conspicuously absent in their own communities), the Federal government has also been at work actively implanting minority populations into the rural heartlands, allegedly to create "diversity" there. This has been followed up by the social engineering of Christian churches, such as the Lutherans of Lewiston, Maine, who thought it a wonderful idea to bring substantial numbers of Somali "refugees" up from majority-Black Atlanta, Georgia into their 98% White area.
In 1965, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, acting as a front man for jewish Senator and tikkun olam activist Emmanuel Celler, succeeded in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act, which removed national origin and entry limits from immigration. Prior to this, immigration was controlled by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was heavily biased in favor of northern Europeans, had precluded Asian immigration and restricted European immigrants to 2% per year of their existing numbers in the U.S.
In the 1960 Census, 88.5% of all Americans were White, 10.5% Black, 0.9% all others. In a public speech in favor of the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, Kennedy told Congress, apparently with a straight face,
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia...
In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
Was Senator Kennedy right, and the concerns simply overblown? Let's see...
The 2000 Census is already out of date and contains the nonsensical and misleading category of "hispanic", covering over 35-million people. If we assume that this group is comprised of 98% non-European Brown, or mestizo people and take them out of the White category, the adjusted numbers were as follows: 62.7% White, 12.3% Black, 3.7% Asian/Pac. Islander, 12.4% "hispanic", and 5.5% "some other race" (whom even the Census Bureau couldn't figure out). Recently, CNN stated that "hispanics" are now 15% of the U.S. population, eclipsing Blacks and others. This too has happened at the expense of Whites.
It's well-known that all great rivers have a tiny point of origin. It's usually a small stream or outlet from a lake high in the mountains. In many cases, one can step or wade across it. In theory, damming that small source would preclude the existence of the entire mighty river downstream.
The people of the United States had an opportunity, 42 years ago, to maintain the status quo by opposing and defeating this Act before it could have been implemented. Since then, we've had ample opportunity to review its effects and either eliminate or correct the faults found. Nothing has been done. Instead, "our" government has lavished praise on the increasing "diversity" provided by the arriving masses of immigrants, whether legal, amnestied or illegal. The media has marched in lockstep with the authorities, also promoting these destructive policies.
The small stream which could have been dammed at the source has become a raging river which threatens to wipe out the entire majority culture. And it's not confined to North America, but has infected, and is destroying, every White nation around the globe.
Whites, as a race, are under enormous pressure to simply accept this flood. There is of course no movement in the opposite direction, no flood of Whites into Africa, China or Mexico. We, however, are encouraged to give up our language, our traditions, our institutions, even our very genes to benefit, give preference to or perpetuate those who are not "us". We are praised as "loving" or "tolerant" when we submerge ourselves and meld into the mass. We are condemned as "hateful" when we express the desire to maintain our racio-ethnic integrity, or when we attempt to live in our own space, or even wish to have our own space.
We have nowhere else to go on this planet. There is nothing we possess, including the land beneath our feet, that isn't coveted by others. When does flight become fight?
David Lane died yesterday, nearly anonymously if relying on the MSM, at age 69. Whatever your opinions of him, or of The Order and its activities, Mr. Lane made a statement which became the articulated creed of White Nationalism: We must secure the existence of our People, and a future for White children.
Is it still possible to do so today? Do we, as a unique and valuable People, have a future?
Last week, I was skimming through a section of one of my favorite political books, Orwell's 1984. One part of it deals with the Party's alteration, and finally, elimination, of certain words. Words are symbols of thought; disconnect the original thought from the word, replace it with a new thought, reattach the old thought to a new word or drop it altogether, and voila! One can no longer express the same thought as before.
To be sure, words change meaning by usage over time in all languages. "To kill" used to mean "to murder", with premeditation (and what we mean by "kill" nowadays was conveyed by "slay"). Likewise, "gay" used to mean "happy", not homosexual; and "rap" meant striking one's knuckles on wood, or a jail sentence. But what we have today is a calculated redefining of the very meanings words can have.
The premise is a chilling one. If the powers in a society want to eliminate dissent on a particular subject, one reliable means to do so is to make it impossible for you to name what bothers you. The really worrisome part is, it's happening right now, in the real world.
What triggered the thought was the CNN coverage of the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee. The national media has steered clear of this case since it happened many months ago, and only after constant commentary on the internet about that silence have they reluctantly "covered" it. The head stooge for CNN on this topic was Paula Zahn on her euphemistically-named show, "Out in the Open".
The premise of the show was, we are told, to decide whether or not it was a "hate crime". Apparently, if a crime is committed by 4 Black people (with a 5th as an accessory), in which the [White] victims are carjacked, abducted, robbed, raped, sodomized, sexually mutilated, shot, doused with gasoline, set afire, and dismembered, unless it includes explicit anti-White"hate", it must not be important enough for CNN to air nationally. We must suppose that the act itself is something other than the embodiment of "hate" per se and that the perpetrators' frame of mind was kind, benevolent and loving.
The video's talking head, a Nepalese-born woman named Kiran Chetry, makes two points at the outset: 1) Nobody (including the authorities, she says) believes it to be a hate crime, and 2) it wouldn't be such a big deal except for "White supremacists" playing it up on the internet. There's lots more, so here's the video so you can listen for yourselves.
What the "non-immunized" in the masses hear and conclude is this: Only "White supremacists" think this is a problem. Being evil racists, they simply hate these innocent Blacks because of their race. It's just a murder to me, because that's what the authorities and CNN tell us. And besides, I am NO "White supremacist"!
This is a perfect example of redefining the thought which a word can symbolize. If only "White supremacists" can be self-protective, or believe that the media glosses over certain news items or intentionally fails to cover them, or in any way oppose a particular group because of the anti-White activities of that group, well, that precludes most of the White folks out there having such thoughts. And soon, just saying you are a White person will be deemed "offensive"; after all, the media wants us to believe that race is a social construct. What then? If there are no restrictions on Black, "hispanic", Asian, Eskimo or any other "pride" except among Whites, and we alone are socially forced to accept ourselves as part of "one race, the human race"?
In that case, we will mentally cease to exist shortly before we are physically merged out of existence.
Welcome to 1984. It's just a few years late.
This evening, I was talking to a friend about various things and the topic of politics came up, as it often does with me. One topic in particular was discussed.
When people grow up in large families, one of the marks of approaching maturity is to get one's own bedroom. There is a sweetness in independence from siblings who may, and often do, act or think differently. Having brothers and sisters is cool, but nobody argues that it's even cooler to be able to sometimes shut that bedroom door.
As we grow older, that spirit of independent living extends to our own residences. We revel in the idea of having our own place, our own space. Maybe it's an apartment, or as we are able to afford it, a condo or house. We put our touches on the place, arrange the furniture to our liking, make our own rules for living. Our friends are welcome, but at day's end, that space is our own. Having friends and neighbors is wonderful, but again, no one would disagree that having that quiet time without anyone else around but self, or perhaps partner or family, is why we got the place.
Nationalism is just like that. It's exactly like having that house and making it our own. A true nation is an extended family. And like a family, we all need a place to come home to, kick off our shoes and get comfortable. A place to be ourselves, let our hair down and not worry about what we say or do. We work best among ourselves and do poorly when forced into multicultural arrangements. As Jefferson Davis said, "All that we ask is to be let alone".
A true nation-state is formed by mutual agreement, not war or coercion. I've found that, as I've talked to people, even non-racialist folks, most think that having such a country for ourselves is an excellent idea.
The European nations were all like that at one time. We were isolated there, by ice ages and time, and we grew with only ourselves as company. Ethnic groups had their own lands and while this was true, and there was respect for borders, people got along well. The European colonies of North America, Australia and New Zealand were founded in lands with existing populations, but once underway, were also heavily segregated. All of these lands prospered and became the envy of the globe.
We are now in a downward spiral of uncontrolled non-European immigration into European-based former nations, of a breaking down of spatial barriers and erasure of borders. Mexicans, Chinese and Indians flood into North America. Algerians pour into France, Moroccans into Spain, Turks into Germany and Lebanese into Sweden.
The world is 91% non-White. China could send the equivalent of the entire U.S. population to the U.S. and still have enough left in China to do it three more times. The same is nearly true of India. The Muslim world contains over a billion adherents, nearly all Arabics or other non-Whites. Africa is actively sending its population out as a safety valve against internal starvation.
This world of emigration is heading for the West, clawing its way in, not realizing or caring that as the ship of plenty fills, it will surely sink while taking all with it. The rest of the planet wants what we have, what we've invented and refined and upgraded. They want our money, our lifestyles, and most importantly, our lands and resources. Instead of staying in their homelands and building their own perfect house, they want to move into ours, a house which they did not build.
As their numbers among us increase, we are faced with two choices: Become a minority in a land which has absolutely no concern for our well-being or that of our children, eventually to disappear. Or we can found our own nation on a piece of land and build our new home on it.
It's time we had that house, that home, that place to kick off out shoes and hang out with our amazing, and truly diverse, extended White family.
And we need to be able to close the door and have our privacy.
Everyone's seen this new post about Myspace's wondrous new capability to stop spammers. As with all changes they've made, expect the lag from announcement to actual operability to be about 2 weeks. In the meantime, expect the "Unexpected error" screen to be a regular fixture on your monitor. This is typical of the Microsoft mentality of this site: roll out changes, THEN test them.
One thing I'm not clear on is why searching over 1000 profiles within a Friends list for a user name, etc. is any more difficult than for 500. I used to work for a company that processed healthcare claims, and our routine searches scanned through millions of records without any problems. I think their basic framework is getting tired. But that's a mere tech issue.
The real issue is the MSPLINKS conversion. They are rolling this out under cover of spam intervention, but there may more.
First, it will be a source of annoyance to anyone updating their perma-links. Previously, if a website altered its URL, you could simply update the link within your HTML/CSS code. Now you'll have to click to it, find the reference within your profile by location alone, then re-copy the new code. A minor inconvenience, but another on top of all the other minor and not-so-minor annoyances we experience using this site.
More importantly, look again at what Metro Tom is saying: "This allows us to easily and instantly disable links sitewide".
Certain "spam filters" used in network firewalls prevent users accessing certain websites, and the list of these sites can be internally configured. For instance, the network where I work doesn't allow users on the floor to access certain websites during working hours. This is normal and typical of many workplaces.
However, the filtering programs come prepackaged with a list of sites deemed to be, esssentially, universally unacceptable. Included in those sites are porn sites, certain gaming sites and...sites which are considered by the compilers to be politically incorrect. Is Tom's potential for mischief becoming clearer now?
While it could certainly be used to search for porn spammers sitewide, and would be well-used for that purpose, it could also be used to instantly disable site links which, in the opinion of MomMySpace, are not nice. Sites such as Stormfront, Rense, AmRen, VNN, ConspiracyPenPal, the 9/11 investigation sites, or even links to conservative columnists like Pat Buchanan or George F. Will could be rendered unusable.
We've seen this sneaky, underhanded behavior played out in keyword-driven, false "You've been phished!" messages. Those cases disallowed posting bulletins with certain links to information that was either detrimental to Myspace (the pedophile issue being one), or was deemed "offensive" by the censors.
So, will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. It's not that difficult to do, and as we can all see from the trying-desperately-to-be-hip wording used in Tom's post, they are playing to a very young and not-so-intelligent set whose politics extend only to how unfair it was to jail Paris.