If
it is not violent speech to call someone a hawk, a dove, a lion, a tigress, a
lapdog or a poodle, why is it violent speech to call the Jews termites? At
least that's what the Jews claim to be the case; as they whine incessantly
about it.
In
fact, the Jews consider that appellation to be so violent, they responded by
calling Louis Farrakhan, who uttered words to that effect, the most virulent
anti-Semite ever to have existed. And they call anyone that does not concur
with that view, an equal anti-Semitic offender.
Moreover,
if that person happens to be in the public eye because they occupy a prominent
position in society, the Jews gear up every gun serving in their hate machine,
and have it open fire on that individual. They have those guns sustain the
firing till the woman or man is disgraced and pushed out of their office. To
think about it, this is more than fighting fire with fire or fighting violence
with violence; it is responding to a harmless gentle shove with a cold-blooded
murder.
Given
that the Jews have forever claimed to be guided by principles, except that you
can never make out what their principles are because every case they make
dissolves into a nebulous mishmash of ambiguities, you decide to put your mind
at ease by pretending to believe that the Jews must have a rational explanation
to what they are saying and doing ... and that someday, you'll get to see that
explanation, even come to understand it.
Well,
maybe that someday has finally arrived because Jonathan Zimmerman, who is a
professor of education and history, took pain to explain it all in an article
he wrote under the title: “We must fight back against the idea, rampant on US
campuses, that speech can be violent,” published on February 25, 2019 in the
New York Daily News.
Jonathan
Zimmerman begins the core of his argument by asking two questions. They are:
(1) “Why aren't we denouncing the culture of intolerance on America's campuses,
where dissenting voices have faced physical attacks?” and (2) “Doesn't our
silence on that score make us partially responsible for the violence?”
Zimmerman
begins to answer his own questions like this: “The plain fact is that respect
for free speech is eroding on our campuses, precisely because so many people
view it as violence. So we shouldn't be surprised when they respond with the
physical kind.” He goes on to elaborate on that point as follows: “The
pernicious idea that speech is violence provides a convenient pretext for the
real kind. If talk is the equivalent of punching others in the nose, wouldn't
they be within their rights to punch first? Or at least to raise their fist in
self-defense?”
Having
exposed the bleakness of the current situation as he sees it, Zimmerman finds
nothing else to say or do except to cite a concrete example as to what has gone
wrong with society. This done, he closes his argument with a final plea. First,
the example: “According to a 2017 survey of 800 undergraduates around the
country 81% think that words can be violent. And 30% think that physical
violence can be justified to prevent someone from using offensive words”.
And
here is the Jonathan Zimmerman final plea: “You can't have a free university or
free society on those terms. Words will always offend someone. And if you construe
them as violent, you clear the way for physical assault upon anyone who gives
offense. The rest of us encourage it if we don't step up to denounce the whole
idea of speech as violence. It's too easy to criticize someone for stoking hate
and intolerance. It's a lot harder to look in the mirror”.
Yes, my friend, these are the magical words: “Look in the mirror.”
In fact, this is what the Jews must spend the next 4,000 years doing: looking
at themselves in the mirror. It took them 4,000 years to get where they are
today; it will take them as long to get out of it. Hypnotizing themselves into
the belief that they have privileges no one else has because they are the
chosen children of God, they continually do the very things they demand that
others refrain from doing.
And the way that the Jews go about making their demands never
comes down to debating their opponents by fielding words against words, however
soft or violent such words may be. No, this is not what the Jews do. Their way
of operating is to gather dirt on the people at the top of the food chain, and
blackmail them or hypnotize them. When they have these honchos where they want
them, the Jews get them to use, not words of persuasion, but the security
apparatus of the nation — ranging for the civilian police to the surveillance
network to the military — and have them go after the good people who refuse to
bow to the Jews.
Their motto seems to be this: Get down on your knees and worship
the Jews or spend the rest of your life being vilified for everything you say and
do.