December 6, 2016
A few people resent it when I compare the current state of our people to Palestinians, but it is important because Jews would be doing to us what they do to Gazans if it weren’t for the fact that there’s still a lot of us.
How Jews perceive non-Jews is seen in their reaction to Gentile grievances. The chicken or the egg is an age-old paradox, and yet, our elites never posit a similar dynamic when it comes to the Jew or the anti-Semite. Jews are the only people on earth who are perpetually targeted, but that is because they have for just as long asserted that they’ve never done anything wrong in all of history and that the real problem is that Gentiles have the right to speak freely.
The latest case of Hebrew hubris comes in the form of a hardline murdering Jew, ex-IDF counsel Amos Guiora, who spends most of his time making up legal defenses for the indiscriminate murder of Palestinian political opposition, and now sits in a Utah law school trying to figure out a way to overturn Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which is seen by legal scholars as a pivotal moment in the history of the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”. Specifically, it struck down Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.
A lot of Jewish discussion about suppressing free speech after their media machine failed to prevent Trump has tried to avoid talks of using state-mandated punitive measures to censor ideas and news they don’t want the public to access, instead lobbying private corporations to shut down “fake news.”
For now, the Jewish domination (Google, Facebook, soon Twitter, etc) of social media/G2G media (Goy-To-Goy) has allowed them to maintain a fragile grip on public access to information and free-flowing discourse. The massive scope and infinite possibilities of the internet is something Jews have utilized to try and stir the pot in countries like Iran, but eventually, passive means of censoring those of us who oppose the globalist order will not be enough to stem the leaps we are making in awakening and organizing our folk against all the odds.
In countries like France, strong labor unions and laws often prevent employers from arbitrarily firing someone because they have a different political opinion when they’re off the clock, so France has hate speech laws where people like Dieudonne are fined and go to prison for satirizing the “Holocaust” industry. Compare this to Emily Youcis, who was recently fired from her job selling peanuts for attending a paleo-conservative conference in Washington, DC.
By calling and harassing the workplaces of people who disagree with Jews, Jewish pressure groups like the SPLC are capable of preventing dissidents from access to food and shelter, which, in practical terms, isn’t much better than being fined and thrown in jail but keeping your job.
This has worked to keep the goyim silent for a long time.
However, for us Millennials, the jobs available are so bad and pay so poorly that losing them for speaking out doesn’t make that big of a difference in the end, hence the Jews are working on the development of new strategies to ‘shut it down.’
Enter the Jew Amos, who is getting op-ed space in a mainstream newspaper to argue for the dismantling of one of America’s most sacred national values.
The 1969 [Brandenburg v. Ohio] ruling came well before the digital age. We live in a time where clicks and shares spread hate and false information instantaneously across the internet.
Given the tone and tenor in society following the election of Donald Trump, I believe it is time to revisit limits on free speech.
The challenge is to determine what degree of extremist internet speech can be tolerated — in the context of freedom of speech — before determining that extremist speech poses a clear and present danger. Balancing is essential; the consequences of unjustified limitations of free speech are antithetical to a democracy. On the other hand, speech has the potential of harming. The adage “words kill” is neither amorphous nor abstract.
Speech must be handled with sensitivity, intelligence and honesty. When reasonable to assume speech will cause harm to others, we should prevent it. If unclear whether speech will result in harm, it must be protected; otherwise over-reach is the inevitable and problematic result.
Brandenburg must be understood to not only protect the speaker’s rights, but to also ensure protection of potential targets. As has been made dramatically clear in the past weeks, there is potential danger to minority groups. They are deserving of our protection. We are living in a time when reports of hate are surfacing at an alarming rate.
This is not the type of society we should be comfortable accepting. We need a national conversation that asks: “What are the limits of tolerating hate?”
We may find in these discussions that we have already well surpassed our acceptable threshold for these limits.
Seeing as Jews believe the phrase “law and order” is racist and causes harm to others, it’s safe to assume that the only people who will ever be allowed to publicly comment on politics in Amos’ ideal dystopia will be Lena Dunham and Lady Gaga.
You see, this is the real, raw, barenaked Jew: an intolerant demagogue who accuses you of the very thing he is doing when you tell him to stop. All Jews believe “words kill,” whether it’s an exhibit criticizing Israel or a pamphlet pointing to the mathematical impossibility of 6,000,000 being gassed and cremated in WW2 labor camps. Seeing as they know “words kill,” keep it in mind when Amos’ co-conspirators like Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev make brazen calls for blacks to begin murdering whites in the street that echo throughout the Judenpresse and are then explained away as “metaphorical.”
As the spirit-sponging, civilization burdening vermin continue to witness their monopoly over public opinion slip, they will continue to show their true face to the world. Keep pushing until they’re fully out from behind the curtain.
It should be noted that Amos Guiora was an “expert witness” in the Geert Wilders free speech trial in Holland. Maybe Geert should learn to get his lips off Hymie’s behind and stop shilling for Zionism, because it sure isn’t helping him any.
Feel free to drop Amos a line on Twitter and let him know what you think of his agenda to silence the goyim.
— Amos Guiora (@amos_guiora) December 5, 2016