Piers Morgan doing the bidding of the kosher-system and attempting to assassinate Austin Franco's character.

t.iss.one/TheWesternChauvinist1

Embrace being called an anti-Semite. They do not care how carefully you frame it or how softly you couch the language. There is no soft-pedaling being anti-jewish power, and this interview is further evidence of that.

They will call you immature. They will call you irresponsible. They will call you a hypocrite. They will call you evil incarnate. They will tell you that you’re barred from their institutions. In return, you must call them anti-White. You must call them slaves to jewish power. You must call them the opposite of everything good and natural. You must show them that you do not require their institutions, for we have our own.

It begins with leading by example. Those of us who have been in White Nationalism since the days of pro-Trump hysteria and earlier have an obligation to set that example. I am absolutely anti-Semitic, and I am proud of it.

Huge victory for the First Amendment by attorneys in the Free Expression Foundation's network!

Judge Brian Fortner granted the general demurrer and motion to quash by defendants Philip and Hilary Jacobs. Georgia brought littering charges against them for distributing flyers the Thought Police didn't like.

Granting a general demurrer means that, even if every fact set out in the indictment is true, no crime occurred. The motion to quash invalidates the criminal indictment as legally defective.

The Jacobses are pursuing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in federal court against the state officials who retaliated against their free expression.

For those of you who do not know, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal civil rights statute. It essentially allows private citizens to sue state or local government officials in federal court when those officials violate constitutional rights, most relevantly here, the First Amendment.

In practice, it is a major legal tool used to go after officials who retaliate against protected speech. When the government uses arrests, citations, or prosecutions to punish expression it doesn’t like, § 1983 lets the targets turn around and hold them accountable for damages and injunctive relief. That is exactly what the Jacobses are doing. After beating the criminal charges, they are now pursuing a § 1983 claim against the state actors who brought them. As I see it, this is the much-needed shift from pure legal defense, to legal offense.

Why does this matter so much? Why not just take the win and run with it? Because simply surviving a bad prosecution is not enough, and it never will be. It becomes a war of attrition that we will lose. As long as the only cost is a dismissed case, officials face little downside for testing how far they can stretch “littering” or similar pretexts against speech they dislike. A § 1983 action changes the calculus. It forces the people who abused their authority to defend themselves in federal court, creates real financial and professional risk, and deters the next attempt.

The Free Expression Foundation and the attorneys in its network clearly understand this, and it’s why I encourage they be supported. They appear not content with just winning the defensive battle. They are systematically helping people like the Jacobses take the legal fight to the officials who crossed the line. That is how you protect the First Amendment in practice, by making it expensive for officials to retaliate against people who exercise it.

For those who want to read the statute themselves, and I’d always encourage it, here is the key language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…” -42 U.S.C. § 1983

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

Austin Franco’s parents have decided to kick him out of their home.

In a just and normal society, one that still functioned as a nation rather than a managed dystopia, parents would be proud of a son who walked onto a national platform, stood his ground, and refused to recant what he knows to be true. They would recognize that, above every other consideration, he is their son, and the integrity under pressure he has shown is something of great honor.

We have watched the opposite reaction play out countless times when a person announces they are transgender, or begins publicly promoting degeneracy and political violence. In those cases, both leftist and conservative parents routinely fall back on the same script: “That’s still my child. I’ll always love my kid.” The blood connection is treated as inviolable.

However, the moment the subject turns to criticism of Zionism, jewish power as a whole, or simply pride in one’s own people, all of that vanishes. Suddenly the same parents discover principles firm enough to throw their own child onto the street. Austin is now being displaced for the crime of saying aloud what many already believe in private. Furthermore, conservatives are happy to support that he be made unemployable.

This is exactly the moment the broader cause is tested. Austin has already done his part by refusing to fold on camera. The responsibility now falls on the rest of us. We either demonstrate that we take care of our own and that our networks are capable of supporting people who pay a real price, or we prove the opposite. There is no third option.

He still has a long road of development ahead of him as an advocate. That is not a criticism on my part, it is simply reality. What matters is that the people who claim to share his core convictions now meet the obligation that comes with those convictions. Support him. Offer to house him if necessary. Mentor him. Show his parents, and everyone watching, that the cost of speaking was not isolation, but the discovery of a community that actually means what it says.

Austin stood up. The rest is on us.

Sources:
•https://x.com/austinfranco123/status/2082426805043040598?s=46&t=0aJByRqtDgj9vIXY6MdgmA
•https://www.givesendgo.com/austin-franco-kicked-out-of-home?utm_source=share
———
Shared strictly as an individual in my personal capacity. Not paid for, endorsed by, affiliated with, or supported by the American Freedom Party National Committee.

Furthermore, I believe in leading by example. While I’m hardly in the position to do so, if nobody in the vast network that is Our Cause is capable of housing him, as a last resort, I will do what I can to offer him temporary accommodations in my own home, or help locate them elsewhere. If I am willing to offer this, nobody else has an excuse not to. I therefore hope and call upon others within Our Cause, especially those in leadership positions, to extend this same offer if you are even remotely capable.

Glen Allen, a lawyer in the Free Expression Foundation's network, sent a demand letter to Accuracy in Media on behalf of Austin Franco for various causes of action related to their impersonation of Justice in the Classroom.

Full details to be released soon!

Attorneys in the Free Expression Foundation's network are riding the momentum generated by the victory at the state level for the Jacobs "littering" case.

FEF lawyers filed a motion to expedite the Jacobses' appeal to pursue 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the officials who attacked their First Amendment rights.

The motion recounts, "Abstention in the face of such manifest bad faith is error, any further prosecution should be enjoined, and Appellants should be permitted to proceed with their amended complaint."

The Free Expression Foundation is in need of an attorney licensed to practice in Tennessee for an important First Amendment case.

You can contact us by DM on X, by email [email protected], or our contact form on our website:
https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/contact-fef/

Many of the critiques of the acerbic bitchy twink are correct in this case, I'll be breaking down Tucker's full ten points on my show (which should be out this evening).

If Fuentes thinks he can replicate Trumpism, he's even more mistaken. Tucker’s folksy rebrand—which is partly affectation and partly who he really is—has about a thousand times more appeal to what's left normal, healthy White America than the catty influencer sodomite act.

I don't believe this Tuckerite third party effort will ultimately be successful. I still think it will be worth getting behind, for reasons I will detail later. But it will at least make it to first base, which is more than I can say for the extremely online personality cult of the twink.

https://t.iss.one/CIG_telegram/81799

If Elon Musk wanted to strike a serious blow against censorship he would set up an alternative to Stripe, PayPal, and a free speech credit union. He would actually make a lot of money too! That he doesn't suggests that he tacitly agrees with censorship.

I’d add that he would also cease the banning of those too critical of jewish power who are actually making an impact. The reality is that these parallel institutions can only be created by those individuals outside of the Zionist establishment.

As someone who has been hard-banned from X by name, alongside Dr. Kevin Macdonald and James Edwards, and with the AFP url being banned as well, simply for addressing jewish power, I would say that Musk has shown quite clearly that free speech only applies to those not critical of his favorite people.

As must be repeated for those who need to hear it, never trust big-money grifters. They always rear their ugly heads when the ideology they’ve fervently attacked grows increasingly popular.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 8, 2026
Strategic Transition: Conclusion of Operations

That parasite Shmuley, going to Iceland and harassing the locals. These people(✡️) think they own the world, and everyone is subservient to them.

t.iss.one/TheWesternChauvinist11

Shmuley can show his face and declare that he is “not afraid” only because he operates with the full protection of the state. There is nothing brave about harassing a man and his girlfriend on the street when you face zero consequences for doing so.

Even so, this is another example of why we must remain open and unapologetic about Our Ideology. There will never be a time when hesitation or fear is rewarded over pride and resolve. Say only what you are prepared to defend, then stand on it without apology.