In
the same way that not all illnesses are created equal, not all attacks on free
speech are created equal.
In
fact, most illnesses are so benign, the body has been curing them by itself for
thousands of years before the advent of modern medicine. Likewise, most attacks
on free speech are withstood without resorting to drastic measures.
But
some attacks are so drastic, they resemble the terminal disease whose detection
heralds an upcoming tragic end. To a diseased body, a tragic end means
biological death. To free speech, tragic end means the silencing of
deliberations, and the installation in their place of a dictatorial rule.
The
necessity to have different levels of push-back against speech, is born out of
the fact that different levels of offenses can be committed by speech. And so,
whereas a democratic system that allows free speech will tolerate, even welcome
a speech that offends moderately –– such as accusing a politician of acting
like a rascal –– it will not tolerate a speech that has no redeeming value, and
yet can cause severe disruption or injury. An example would be to shout fire in
a crowded theater, knowing that there is no fire.
All
of these notions were relatively easy to cope with by the consumers of
communication. And then, a culture based on weaponizing anything you can use to
gain advantage over your opponent, appeared on the scene. This is when
communication, done for propaganda purposes, underwent a drastic
transformation. To be brutally honest, it must be said that such transformation
was brought about by the Jews because every communication they do, is meant to
propagate their various causes and little else. The net result is that the
effect of contemporary communication escapes those who consume the message yet
remain absolutely unaware of its manipulative content.
What
must also be noted is that even in the absence of a message, the mere access to
an outlet of mass communication can be weaponized and used to gain advantage
over one's opponent. In fact, I became aware of this reality some three decades
ago or thereabout when I witnessed an incident that caused me to spend time
studying the phenomenon closely.
I
had been living in Montreal at the time, but had a few things to deal with in
Toronto, and so became a frequent traveler by train between the two cities. It
happened during one winter day that a heavy downfall of snow caused the train
to slow down considerably. Cellular telephone was a novelty at the time, and no
one on the train had one. But someone mentioned that there was such a facility
on the train, and can be used by those who need to contact their families and
tell them they'll be late coming home.
Everybody
waited for the train attendant to come around so they can ask him how to go
about using the train cellular. The first to jump to his feet and walk to the
attendant the moment that the latter walked into our wagon, was a
yarmulke-wearing Jew; probably a rabbi. The attendant told him that the system
on the train was out of order but handed him his own cellular to use.
When
done, someone else and a few more asked for the telephone, but the attendant
refused to help them, saying he can't afford to drain the battery on a day like
this. The rabbi went back to his seat, the attendant followed him and stood
there chatting about the bad weather. At some point the rabbi praised the
attendant, telling him he should be talked about in the media, and he'll see
what he can do about that.
This
is when a middle-aged passenger jumped to his feet and yelled words to this
effect: “Oh yeah, let me tell you something, mister, it's not only the Jews
that have friends in the media. I have friends too. Wait till you see what
they'll be writing about you. What's your name anyway. Gimme your name.” The
attendant did not give his name but left the wagon and did not show his face
for the duration of the trip.
It
dawned on me then that having access to the media, is itself a weapon that can
be used to intimidate an opponent. Studying this phenomenon has led me to
discover the many ways that such weapon is used, especially by the Jews. They
get things done their way without engaging others in open debates they know
they can only lose. In fact, one of the ways is now used by the Jews to clobber
their opponents on the college campuses without themselves having to be on
campus, let alone have to debate someone. They went to a publication that's
heavily influenced by Jews, and had their one-sided debate published there.
Several
such pieces of work were reviewed on this blog over the years. One more has
appeared under the title: “Defending Free Speech on Campus Means Defending
Student Journalists too,” written by Casey Mattox and published on February 4,
2020 in National Review Online.
With
passages like this: “Conservative student journalists have faced confiscation
of their newspapers, budget reductions and censorship,” Casey Mattox leaves the
readers with the impression that the non-conservative world is intimidating
conservative students so badly, they deny them the opportunity to lay out their
points of view.
But
the reality is that intimidation is not generated internally on campus. It is
generated externally with the publication of articles such as the one written
by Casey Mattox and published in the conservative (read Jewish) publication,
National Review Online.
Even
if you believe that the non-conservatives have the tools which the
conservatives claim they have to stifle their opponents, such tools amount to
nothing compared to what the conservatives have. Look what these guys have:
They have on their side, the right-wing radio, the broadsheets and the tabloids
as well as Fox News. They also have the state legislatures that keep writing
new laws to “protect” the Jews by silencing any and every criticism leveled at
them.