Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
The Problem
10
Posts
8
Users
0
Reactions
1,303
Views
Topic starter
How We Will Lose Our Freedom of Speech
By Selwyn Duke
MichNews.com
Dec 1, 2006
If people were asked about actor Michael Richards' epithet-laced outburst at a Los Angeles nightclub, there would be a lot of focus on the verbal assault but very little on an assault on freedom of speech. In truth, however, if there's anything at all relating to this story that rises above gossip-column fodder, it’s that it’s also fuel for demagogues who seek control over discourse in America.
Representing the two targets of Mr. Richards’ bile, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss, “civil rights” attorney Gloria Allred appeared on Hannity and Colmes Thanksgiving eve. The stone-faced Allred opened with a very telling assertion, boldly proclaiming, “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!”
This was no spontaneous statement. No, it was well-crafted and calculated and, I believe, designed to serve a far more insidious end than simply extracting money from a goofy comedian. Let’s examine this with the introduction of a subject that on the surface seems unrelated.
As a dissenting justice in the 1958 Baer v. Kolmorgen case, one Judge Gallagher is quoted as having warned that “If the court does not stop talking about the separation of church and state, people are going to start thinking it is part of the Constitution.”
But the courts didn’t stop, and the result is that four decades later this “fact” is imprinted upon the American mind. So much so, that now the average Joe has been inured to the denuding of the public square of historic religious symbols out of respect for this “principle” of the Constitution.
And this is why Allred’s statement bears mention. There are social engineers in our time – and I count Allred among them – who are trying to imbue the American mind with the notion that so-called “hate speech” is not protected under the First Amendment. Now, let’s try to understand how these puppeteers will transform America by taking a lesson in social engineering 101.
First, use the term “hate speech” as much as possible so as to burn it into the lexicon and establish it as a category unto itself. And it’s not hard. This has already been accomplished with terms/concepts such as “sexual harassment” and, the concept of which hate speech is a corollary, “hate crime.” Then, be sure to juxtapose the two terms frequently, as beautifully illustrated by Gloria Allred herself. Saying “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!” creates further separation between the two, cementing the notion that they are starkly different verbal species. Once this is accomplished, the idea that the latter is protected by the former may seem laughable.
Understand in its entirety what is being achieved here. Not only will this strategy persuade many legislators and judges that hate speech isn’t protected under the Constitution and therefore can be criminalized, it will also influence the man on the street. And this harks back to the old advice, “If you really want something, act like you already have it.” As long as you continually condemn “hate speech” and juxtapose it with “free speech,” more and more people will assume that it already is illegal. And once enough Americans believe this, all that is left is to make it official. And the beauty of this is that you don’t even have to lie. Success hinges mainly on the positioning of words, timing, tone and, most of all, re-pe-ti-tion.
Oh, you think it won’t work?
To a great degree it’s already a fait accompli. After decades of “positioning” (this refers to Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s idea about the placement of leftist ideologues in positions of influence for the purposes of altering the culture), with social engineers in academia, the media, entertainment and various organizations and activist groups, it isn’t uncommon to find Americans possessed of this lie. I myself have met them, and even pundit Bill O’Reilly uttered this misconception on his cable television show. Remember, as nineteenth century philosopher William James said, “There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”
Ah, but there is that impediment called the Constitution. Or, not really. Although some fancy it to be an insurmountable bulwark against tyranny, it erects no wall so high that it cannot be scaled by justices corrupted by popular swill and emboldened by popular will. Just as they were able to perform the intellectual contortions necessary to read the separation of church and state into the First Amendment, so will they read freedom of speech out of it. Although, how it will happen is not entirely uninteresting.
Since many western nations, such as Australia, Canada and England, already have hate speech laws, there is precedent for them. But foreign precedent doesn’t constitute American legal precedent, you say? Well, then you forget that there is precedent for the idea of considering it precedent. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself once said, “We must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations.” And she is no lone gunman. Sandra Day O’Connor and others have expressed similar sentiments.
Hate speech laws will come in like March goes out: Like a lamb. Most people won’t object because, after all, who should be using offensive epithets anyway? I mean, common decency informs that a “good” person would prohibit such things. But it will be more like the ides of March.
But what am I talking about? Well, if you really take Ginsberg’s advice and examine the “laws of other nations,” you’ll see that hate speech legislation was quickly broadened beyond the proscription of epithets to encompass unfashionable beliefs.
“Aha! So this will be the poison pill that disenamors people of this scheme! Surely the average person doesn’t want to see legitimate dissent squelched,” you say? Ah, you have much to learn.
A good salesman doesn’t give specifics, knowing full well that many won’t read the fine print. When we first sold people on the separation of church and state, we billed it as a defense against the imposition of religion. If we had told Americans that this principle would expand inexorably and one day be used to tear crosses off city seals and property, remove religious statues, ban the singing of Christmas carols in schools, rename Christmas Trees “Holiday Trees,” and that ne’er do wells would seek to remove the word “God” from the pledge and currency, they would have balked. So we just marketed the idea as a way to protect Americans’ rights. And that’s exactly how we’ll peddle this.
And you don’t have to worry about people uncovering our machinations. Most don’t think about the law of unintended consequences – or the law of intended consequences of unintended motivations – and “most” is all we need to effect our will. Most people, be they laymen, legislators or judges, will know no better. And many of those who will, will be our well “positioned” operatives.
And what of the rest? What of those troublesome prophetic voices of doom? They won’t be a problem. Oh, they’ll warn of how hate speech laws in other western nations have been used to imprison people for speaking in accordance with their consciences. They will mention how Canadians Mark Harding and Hugh Owens were punished for, respectively, criticizing Islam and homosexuality. They’ll cite the story of English schoolgirl Codie Stott, who was jailed on a “racial offense” after requesting to be seated with English-speaking students. Or, they may mention the case of Ake Green, a Swedish pastor who was jailed for criticizing homosexuality in a sermon. And they’ll also point out that freedom of speech is not freedom of speech at all unless it protects even the most unpopular speech, for popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Yes, they’ll warn about the perils of setting dangerous precedents and that one thing leads to another. All to no avail.
You see, good chess players are rare. Most don’t think a few moves ahead. And the “watchdog” of the mainstream media? Surely you jest; it’s more like our lapdog. We can count on it to print neither articles like this one nor stories like the above, lest such admonitions rouse Americans from their slumber. Instead, along with Hellywood and academia, it will do its best to convince all that the grand imperative of silencing the occasional acid-tongued bigot justifies the rending of the First Amendment.
Thus, those prophetic voices will remain in the darkness, a location from which credibility is ever elusive. After all, if some a half century ago had predicted that the principle of the separation of church and state would be used as it has been, they would have been thought crazy. Likewise, mere laughter and a rolling of the eyes will suffice in answer to today’s prescient minds.
In summary, once support for the criminalization of hate speech has galvanized, we’ll have legislation. And once the legalistic rationalization that allows for it permeates enough jurists’ minds, we’ll have it upheld in court. Then, with the principle of hate speech enshrined in American law, it will be open season on positions contrary to those of the positioned. Once an unacceptable belief is identified, our culture-shapers in the media, entertainment and academia will simply define it as “hateful” and beat that drum until it becomes the next supposition. And then the legal definition will be sure to follow.
And hegemony will be ours. As it is, the media, entertainment realm and academia sing our tune. Even corporations feel the pressure, as evidenced by their sensitivity training classes, support of politically correct causes, refusal to support traditional ones, and the limiting of the dissemination of politically incorrect ideas by certain Internet entities. Yes, we have done our best to imprison dissenting voices in that small, dark box. The last piece of the puzzle is the destruction of that box. And then America will be a beautifully dark place indeed.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_14967.shtml
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:03 pm
Topic starter
Thanks to Curt Maynard for alerting me to the article above.
It's exactly like we've said. Whether or not the Richards comments were a set-up, which I doubt, the jews have worked for decades now to establish the bogus concept hate speech as valid in the public mind.
If we tolerate the jews unmanning us in our own land, then we are true slaves.
Here's another article.
BRAINWASHING REVISITED
YOU ARE THE TARGET
By: Alan Stang
The recent, unfunny performance by “Kramer” is the latest evidence that the nation is under Soviet attack far more destructive than Nine Eleven. There is much more to it than “Kramer’s” personal situation. Here is a quirky talent who found a niche that propelled him into nationwide prominence and profit. Viewers chortled over his every word and antic. His face was known to millions.
After “Seinfeld,” he had his own show, which, if I remember correctly, bombed. Working in a comedy club, he was back at the beginning, which may mean simply that it is difficult for a talent so quirky to find another magical niche. In his business, lightning often strikes only once. So there may have been considerable, suppressed anger waiting to erupt. Whatever the reason, it is reasonable to speculate that “Kramer” now needs to find a new line of work despite his unceasing apologies.
Ad ding to the preposterous nature of the event, word now arrives that the two men who heckled him were so affronted by his outburst – I say so offended, sir, so hurt, so emotionally devastated, so therefore unable to function, et cetera and so on – that they are demanding money from “Kramer,” as much as $10 million. Who can blame them? As Jesse and Al would probably say, the honky is down, so get it while you can.
Why are a few public uses of the word “nigger” worth $10 million? This is a word that blacks use daily when addressing each other in ordinary conversation. But, if you are white, you felt a twinge just now – didn’t you? – when you read the word on your screen. Seeing the word triggered something in your head.
A few years back, a financial official in the District of Criminals referred to an appropriation as “niggardly.” He was fired of course, presumably by a pinhead who doesn’t know the word has nothing whatsoever to do with race, means “stingy,” and is of Swedish derivation. The District of Criminals is of course a black city.
“Kramer” is the latest in a long series of white men who suddenly erupt in a religious, or, more often, a racial outburst, and then spend considerable time groveling in apology. Before there was “Kramer,” there was Mel Gibson, who apparently took off on the Jews after a bender. Sometimes the outburst appears spontaneous. Sometimes it is the product of much provocation.
Remember that Jews and Jewish groups that specialize in provoking lucrative anti-Semitism excoriated Mel for months about his movie, “The Passion,” accusing him of almost everything except child molestation. And the two men who want money heckled “Kramer” at the comedy club. That is Stage One. In Stage Two, the victim, provoked beyond endurance, erupts. In Stage Three, the people he dumps on claim to be insulted. And in Stage Four, the perpetrator publicly grovels and pleads.
By now, this has become routine, to such an extent that I wonder who will be next. What is happening? Notice that you could call people “wops,” “micks,” “dagos,” “honkies,” “krauts,” “mackerel snappers,” “polkas,” and so on, all day. Most of the targets of that terminology would laugh. There would be no backlash. For years, whenever I would see a beautiful Polish lady of my acquaintance in San Francisco, she would press me to tell her the latest Polish jokes.
But you had better have everything securely nailed down if you plan to use the words, “nigger” or “kike.” Even “broad” or “dame” could get you into trouble. The situation is even more farcical when you remember Jesse’s characterization of New York as “Hymietown,” and Al’s involvement in the fraudulent Tawana Brawley hoax.
Many years ago, in New York, there was a club comedian named Myron Cohen. I interviewed him a couple of times. When Myron came out to perform, he looked like a magazine ad for very expensive suits. I asked him about it and he explained that he never sat down in a working suit. That was why he looked so good. When he finished his act he would return to his dressing room and hang it up.
Myron Cohen was Jewish, but that was irrelevant. His “shtick” was dialects. He told ethnic stories in the appropriate dialects, and he could do any one you could name: Irish, Jewish, German, Polish, black, Latino, Italian, you name it. He was riotously funny, and the people in the audience whose dialects he did probably laughed the loudest. But it is probably just as well that Myron is now in Heaven swapping stories with Henny Youngman (“Now take my wife. Please!) because he would not be allowed to work today. He would be sitting down in his stand-up suits.
The answer to my question is that for many years the people of our country have been subjected to the same brainwashing the Soviets used in Russia and Central Europe; the same brainwashing Mao Tse-tung used on the people of China. And its purpose is the same: to bring the target nation to its knees so that it can be conquered.
Again, I offer my periodic request that you read a couple of books by the man who coined the term “brainwashing,” journalist Ed Hunter. I believe that if enough Americans were to read those books, the “Kram er” problem would evaporate. They are Brainwashing and Brainwashing in Red China. Don’t let the titles fool you. Because Ed Hunter was a journalist and a good writer, both books are very easy to read and exciting.
They will prove that what is happening to us has happened before; it is exactly what the Communists did in Red China. It has nothing to do with the hurt feelings of offended blacks. In fact, the conspirators who are conducting this latest brainwashing campaign couldn’t care less about blacks (or any other minority) whom they consider as inferior as did Simon Legree.
The condemnation of certain words over the course of many years is designed to produce that twinge in your head when you hear words like “nigger,” until you respond as an automaton, like a lab animal in a behavioral science experiment. The ultimate purpose is to neutralize you, to reduce you to a quivering hulk afraid to raise your head, a terrified weakling afraid to speak up, who can be easily manipulated.
Look around you. Isn’t that the atmosphere we have now? No one wants to lose his job, forfeit lots of money and maybe have to undergo “diversity training,” which is just another name for a brainwashing session. Guilt is an enormously effective weapon of control. But if you knew you had nothing to be guilty about, knew you were under attack, the fog would lift.
Notice that the attack is concentrated exclusively on the white man, who is blamed for every problem from asthma to zits. Why? Very simple and it has nothing at all to do with race. The conspiracy for world government assaults the white man because most of the people who run this country are white men. If blacks ran it, the conspirators would be doing the same thing to blacks.
The object is not to indemnify any particular racial, religious or ethnic group for some offense, but to bring America down. That is the explanation for America’s present failure of nerve, for the fact that Americans will grovel before any challenge and acquiesce in any outrage, however outrageous.
That is why homosexuality and Islam – and utterly phony history – are now taught in the government schools. That is why the nation is being invaded by illegal aliens. That is why so-called “mainstream” churches now worship Bush, not Jesus Christ. That is why the Communist scheme to eliminate public expressions of Christianity from this country is succeeding.
The recent incident in which six “imams” were removed from that US. Airways flight is more of the same. The obvious purpose is to put you on the defensive with charges of religious discrimination, paving the way for even greater outrages to come. They can get away with it only because of the guilt expertly installed in the American psyche, starting in kindergarten, continuing through college and then maintained by our Communist media, left and right.
Some years ago, I was guesting on a radio show. The black host asked me how guilty I felt about slavery. He was genuinely nonplused when I said I felt no guilt at all, so I explained that slavery in this country was gone long before my grandfathers were born and that during slavery my progenitors were not even in this country; they were running for their lives somewhere else. He seemed genuinely surprised; what I had said was a revelation.
First read the books and see how the Communists divided the Chinese. See how they divided our POWs in Korea and set them against each other. Then let the scales fall from your eyes. Recognize that the nation cannot be saved unless the brainwashing stops. Remember that if black is beautiful, white is all right. You do not need to apologize for being white. Shake the guilt. Stand tall. Then get some Myron Cohen recordings.
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:14 pm
Topic starter
The object is not to indemnify any particular racial, religious or ethnic group for some offense, but to bring America down.
Not true. Articles like this must be picked through for interesting facts, but Stang, who may be jew, don't know, is wrong. "PC" = SC = attack on Whites by jews. Jews are exempt from the laws they use to bind Whites. Jews administer affirmative action laws that discriminate against us but in favor of them. Same thing with speech. They and the coloreds they sponsor can say whatever they want, but we can only speak using terms and memes they approve.
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:22 pm
The object is not to indemnify any particular racial, religious or ethnic group for some offense, but to bring America down.
Not true. Articles like this must be picked through for interesting facts, but Stang, who may be jew, don't know, is wrong. "PC" = SC = attack on Whites by jews. Jews are exempt from the laws they use to bind Whites. Jews administer affirmative action laws that discriminate against us but in favor of them. Same thing with speech. They and the coloreds they sponsor can say whatever they want, but we can only speak using terms and memes they approve.
That's why you see jokes about stoopid white people who don't want to live around blacks (how silly of them!), or attacking NS Germany for setting up laws clearly delimiting races, but never jokes about jews who consider all goyim to be less than animals and who set up extremely similar laws to set them apart from "Muslims" and "Christians".
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:54 pm
Unless I missed it, there has been no mention of one of the most important recent developments in regard to the 'Great Jew Gagging'. A test balloon by New Jew Order tool Newt Gingrich.
[color="Red"]Gingrich: Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 29, 2006
A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism.
"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."
Speaking at an award dinner billed as a tribute to crusaders for the First Amendment, Mr. Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, painted an ominous picture of the dangers facing America.
"This is a serious, long-term war," the former speaker said, according an audio excerpt of his remarks made available yesterday by his office. "Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people."
Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment." He also said international law must be revised to address the exigencies posed by international terrorists.
"We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous," he said.
The former speaker also pointed approvingly to England, where suspects in terrorism cases can be detained for several weeks without charge. Some of Mr. Gingrich's remarks about balancing freedom and terrorism were reported by the Associated Press on Monday and the Union Leader of Manchester yesterday.
In the same speech Monday, the former speaker expressed a more expansive view of First Amendment rights in the American political arena. Mr. Gingrich picked a fight of sorts with a potential rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator McCain of Arizona, by branding as a failure the campaign finance restrictions known as McCain-Feingold. The former speaker said the limitations have not stemmed the flow of money into politics and failed to curtail negative political advertising.
Mr. Gingrich has been traveling to politically important states, like New Hampshire, but said Monday he would not decide on a White House bid until September 2007.
-
-
-
All is for naught without a good edJEW(K)shen.
[ Educational sites ]
Posted : 02/12/2006 3:58 pm
That's why you see jokes about stoopid white people who don't want to live around blacks (how silly of them!), or attacking NS Germany for setting up laws clearly delimiting races, but never jokes about jews who consider all goyim to be less than animals and who set up extremely similar laws to set them apart from "Muslims" and "Christians".
Q:How was copper wire invented?
A:Two Jews were fighting over a penny?😮 
[color="Red"]I know what you mean though]
"[color="Red"]And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."-Revelation 11:15, Holy Bible, (KJV)
Posted : 02/12/2006 4:09 pm
This writer uses the word "Communists" instead of the correct expression "Commie Jews" only because he is afraid of the Jews or because he is a Jew.
"Go, Nazis, Go!"
Posted : 02/12/2006 4:52 pm
Alex - Thanks for posting these articles. I was able to put both of them to good use locally, linking them to the political witch-hunt developingagainst Alaska Game Board Chairman Ron Somerville (pictured above left, courtesy of Anchorage Daily News).
To summarize: At an October public hearing run by the Game Board, three Alaska Natives who signed up to testify failed to show up, after which Somerville remarked "There must be a run on free beer." Most Alaskans know, but don't dare say publicly that Natives are suckers for firewater. Shortly thereafter, the entire political aristocracy of Alaska mobilized against him, calling for his resignation. The Anchorage Daily News published an editorial calling for his resignation. While Somerville issued a pro forma conditional apology, he has stood firm and refused to resign.
Unfortunately, one of his chief tormentors, Ken Johns, who's the chief executive of Ahtna native corporation, is also on Governor-elect Sarah Palin's transition team, so that means that as soon as she's inaugurated, Somerville's gone.
Perhaps the two authors prefer to substitute "Communism" for "Jewish", but most of us who are regulars on this forum already know that Communism is Jewish, as George Lincoln Rockwell pointed out many years ago.
Posted : 02/12/2006 5:42 pm
Speaking of that billy-bud twat mfing pos Newt Gingrich and his grand ol' idea to "fight terrorism by redefining free speech", I offer a quote.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
--James Madison
Lots of choice quotes HERE.
What kind of f'ing name is "Newt Gingrich" and what ZOG rats' nest did he crawl out of? Nothing this government does anymore surprises me. Expect the worst from them and you'll always have your abysmal expectations met.
The goofy f'n dork is all grown up. Cunts like this are legion on Criminal Hill. Total f'n ZOG tools and just all around tools too.
Posted : 02/12/2006 8:45 pm
Before we lose it - and it looks like it'll be pretty soon - I just want to get some things off my chest in my admittedly ineloquent but direct way:
Fuck the god damned jews. I hate their living satanic guts. 
Fuck the holyhoax.
Fuck the "greatest generation".
Fuck the "good war".
Fuck the god damned niggers, spics, and other assorted mystery meat shitskins. How fucking long do we have to wait before an all-out race war? :box:
Fuck all fags and lesbos. Crawl back into whatever hole you were hiding in before, motherfuckers; we don't want to see or hear from or about you.
Fuck all white race traitors, everywhere, in all positions of society.
Fuck all white women who lie down with niggers, jews, and other mud-men. And abort the monsters you create with these animals, NOW!
Fuck the ruination (niggerization) of all our cities. Let's clean out the filth once and for all.
Fuck anyone who tells me who or what I can or can't hate, and fuck anyone who tells me I can't express who or what I hate.
"From time immemorial...the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited."
Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
Posted : 02/12/2006 11:59 pm