Many
Americans are rightfully on guard when it comes to their Second Amendment
rights. There is a whole subculture, lobby and multitude of groups dedicated to
celebrating firearms, monitoring political attacks on gun rights and fighting
against them.
On
the other hand, another cherished freedom, the right to express your beliefs,
has been totally ceded to Jewish dominated left-wing activist groups, like the
ACLU.
Those
ignorant of our nation’s history, and especially of Zionist mobilizations in
the present, live with the comforting lie that free speech is an inviolable
right.
Today,
the Jewish community in the United States, which has wrongfully earned a
reputation for harboring civil libertarian views, has been at war with the very
concept of the First Amendment.
Whether
it’s former CEO of the National Constitution Center Richard Stengel writing opinion pieces calling for
hate speech laws, or Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League calling on Congress to act against
“anti-Semitic” opinions on the internet, it’s clear that the Jewish community
no longer respects this freedom and is working tirelessly to abolish it.
The
cultural taboo against questioning the sanctity of the First Amendment have
quickly been eroded since the election of Donald Trump. Today, panels
discussing calling for limits on free speech are no longer exclusively
populated by communist academics or blue-haired “SJWs,” but by actual Attorney
Generals supposedly tasked with upholding civil liberties, like Josh Shapiro.
The
ACLU, which won a free speech absolutist reputation after its army of largely
Jewish lawyers defended brownshirt wearing “Nazis” in Skokie, today has abandoned this role and largely
refuses to defend comparatively less controversial “hate speech” and political
assembly after realizing nationalists are now a serious political force.
Looking
at the history of First Amendment cultural and legal battles, the pattern
becomes clear: the Jews claiming to be fighting for free speech only did so to
create space for unpopular left-liberal movements in the 1960s and 70s. Today,
the Jews and the left have been absorbed by the neo-liberal establishment and
no longer has any movements challenging the status quo, so they have lost
interest in defending the right for citizens to assemble to try and effect
social change, which has been disastrous for today’s dissidents since all
advocacy groups are in their hands.
Don’t Assume Anything About
Your Rights
Whitney v. California,
decided in 1927, is seen by some as one of the most important contemporary
affirmations of the right to belong to dissident political organizations and
contribute to the marketplace of ideas.
Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis ruled with the majority in overturning the
prosecution of Anita Whitney, who had founded a communist organization labeled
a criminal syndicate in California, much to the chagrin of Herbert Hoover.
Brandeis, a Zionist activist, made this decision at a time when the
distinctions between Zionism and the heavily Jewish communist movement were not
so cut-and-dry.
In
his opinion, the Jewish justice Louis Brandeis wrote passionately about the
moral importance of the free exchange of ideas in a liberal democracy, winning
him the reputation as a Jewish pioneer of civil liberties. He was one of the
first judges to promote the idea that open debate allows good to triumph over
evil.
But
Brandeis’ reputation as a lover of free speech and ideological diversity is
brought into question when looking at a later ruling by another Jewish Justice,
Felix Frankfurter, who Brandeis closely mentored and
for years used as a personal mouthpiece.
In
1952, Frankfurter established one of the first precedents for European-style
“hate speech” laws in American history.
The
case of Beauharnais v. Illinois was remarkably similar
to Whitney v. California. A man in Chicago posted
leaflets in his city bringing attention to black crime, and called on whites to
join his political advocacy movement. The materials did not express any violent
sentiments.
Frankfurter,
authoring the opinion in the 5-4 ruling upholding Beauharnais’ conviction under
Illinois hate speech statutes, declared that Beauharnais was guilty of
“group-libel” against blacks by referring to their role in the increased crime
rate, and that libel was not protected by the First Amendment.
“Hate
speech” laws in Europe are premised on this same assertion, that
generalizations about groups constitute “libel” and can thus be prosecuted.
What
is most disturbing about Beauharnais v. Illinois is that the Supreme Court has
yet to overturn it.
The
closest precedent some legal scholars cite as overruling it was New York Times v. Sullivan in
1964, where it is claimed that SCOTUS found in favor of free speech above libel
law.
But
here too, we find that the political nature of the dispute may have played a
greater role than the principle of free speech itself.
In
the case, the Jewish controlled New York Times ran
an advertisement from of a pro-Martin Luther King organization making
outlandish and slanderous claims against the police in Montgomery, Alabama. A
recent article by the Los Angeles Review of
Books meticulously documents how Jews were in charge of every nook and cranny
of the “civil rights movement” as well.
L.B.
Sullivan, the Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, decided to take them to
court to clear his police department’s name. It was broadly accepted that many
of the claims in the ad were false and he won his case in the Alabama state
court, but upon later Supreme Court challenge it found that libel statutes did
not apply to the white policemen because they could not prove “malice” in the
printing of said lies.
Today,
the free speech law and the political conditions of their application remains
opaque. While this author believes conservative anti-environmentalism is
absurd, the Supreme Court’s refusal to clarify the National Review‘s
right to give a subjective opinion in the Mann v. National Review defamation
case last November suggests our higher courts don’t find our First
Amendment to be as sacred as we once assumed.
In
this case, a college professor is suing the National Review for
libel over an opinion piece questioning his data on global warming. The National Review has
so far spent millions of dollars defending itself over multiple years, often
being dealt crushing defeats in lower courts. They have the support of many
major think-tanks and big money over an issue far less “controversial” than
race or Jewish power, and yet they still have been unable to find a court
willing to unambiguously defend their right to weigh in on a hot-button
political issue of the day.
Donald
Trump’s executive order essentially banning students from engaging in criticism
of Zionism on college campuses is another shocking attack on free speech. While
some Jews will admit that it is unconstitutional, there has yet to be any
significant legal challenge to it. Compare the lack of interest to the
immediate court injunctions Donald Trump gets for even the most minor decrees
on immigration enforcement.
Prominent
voices in the Jewish community have now begun discussing the viability of using
group-libel precedents in Beauharnais v. Illinois to persecute and prosecute“anti-Semites.” It
is vital to begin preparing for legal onslaughts on this front on par with gun
rights advocacy, especially as popular discontent against the neo-liberal order
grows.
Zionist Frustration with
Privatized Censorship
In
the 1980s and 90s, Jewish organizations like Joseph Levin’s Southern Poverty
Law Center pioneered “private” methods for suppressing pro-white or nationalist
speech. The tactic was to use the broken civil court system strategically to
bankrupt political organizations and leaders that they saw as posing a
political threat to Jewish power.
In
tandem with FBI surveillance and entrapment, along with media and corporate
censorship, this tactic has long functioned to discourage political advocacy
and lobbying by nationalist groups.
But
what happens when there are too many people to sue and they by and large go out
of their way to obey the law? Jewish organizations like the SPLC and ADL have
been wildly successful in working with Jewish run corporations like Paypal,
Google and Facebook to artificially reduce the number of political views, books
and ideas the public can access.
Yet,
the old playbook has not stopped the growth of interest in ideas they deem
“hate” or “anti-Semitic,” as they are not addressing the egregious economic and
social conditions, like globalization and the rise of competing nationalisms
inside the United States (“identity politics”), that have predictably sparked
the awakening of racial consciousness in white people, the only group banned
from having these feelings despite being permanently besieged.
The Sociology of the First
Amendment
A
2017 study by the Cato Institute polled
people’s views on free speech across racial lines, finding that Jews were the
most likely to favor restrictions on “hate speech” of any ethnic group.
Majorities
across racial groups, to different degrees, opposed firing people from their
jobs for believing blacks are genetically inferior (including 51% of blacks),
along with a wide variety of other PC faux-pas. “Doxfiring,” the practice of
causing people to lose their jobs for their political or social views is in
other words highly unpopular.
Similarly,
“punching Nazis” (the survey was taken months after the media campaign about
Charlottesville) polled poorly among “Latinos” and blacks, with 80% and 73%
stating that it was unacceptable, showing that the pervasiveness of this call
to violence is not to protect minorities, but actually largely the product of
Jews and wealthy left-wing whites occupying cultural chokepoints and creating a
false impression. Individuals who identified as Republicans were
more likely to support “punching a Nazi” than typical Democrats.
Even
more interesting is the fact that blacks and “Latinos” polled wanted stronger
regulations applied to sexual content, which Jewish liberals have historically
conflated with free speech. Majorities in the same two groups showed
disinterest and irritation at the very concept of political correctness.
In
other words, Jews agitating for hate speech legislation in the name of
protecting minorities are acting unilaterally and only using these other groups
for cover in their war on whites, as was the case with the largely Jewish
beginning of the NAACP.
When
Jews are separated from whites in surveys, they show a preference for harsh and
draconian restrictions on political speech, shattering the illusion of Jewish
liberalism.
In
a Knight’s Foundation poll, Jewish students were the most likely
to support curtailing the First Amendment in the name of “inclusion,” with 65%
saying so. White Christians held the polar opposite opinion across all
denominations. 68% of students in general complained that the problem wasn’t
hate speech, but campus officials policing speech, which 68% said they found to
be suffocating.
83%
of Gen Z students also answered that using violence to shut down a rally, speech
or protest was never acceptable, contrary to what many in the media and elite
promote.
While it is true that non-whites
broadly have more mixed opinions on gun rights and free speech than white
Gentiles, the people composing the brain trusts and money-power leading the war
on our civil liberties is the same as the one which oppressed people in the
Soviet Union and oppresses Palestinians today.
The universalist Jewish humanist is a
work of fiction. America has a free speech emergency.
