First Amendment

May 28, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Eve Mykytyn

Partially in response to the polarizing presidency of Mr. Trump, and also, I think, in response to a desire to reach the “right” results, there has been an increasing tendency in the United States to try and limit free speech.  In earlier generations, the left was more in favour of free speech and the right was more willing to suppress it (eg, the flag burning and pornography cases).

Now this seems to be a tactic favoured by many without regard to political affiliation, although of course, the speech they would choose to suppress may be quite different. Two recent examples come to mind, the treatment of demonstrators at Trump rallies and the treatment of Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Why listen and engage when you can simply attribute words to the other side and then oppose them?

The edges of free speech have always been difficult, that is, commercial speech limitations (for instance commercial false advertising or ‘news’ articles that are really advertisements) or free speech that includes or directly incites prohibited actions (throwing a bottle at a policeman conveys speech, but is still prohibited).  But the opposition to free expression I’m trying to get at here is not a within such difficult categories.

My brilliant young friend, who has a PhD in physics, challenged me, “I am outcome driven,” she said. “I don’t want people to preach against vaccines when the outcome may be that children die.” I tend to agree with her about vaccines, but I would not attempt to silence those who disagree.

First. I would have no idea what would be a reasonable way to prohibit speech I don’t like. Should the police track down these people and arrest them? Do our jails need more prisoners who have committed a nonviolent crime? Should we hold internet sites responsible for all speech? This seems to lead inevitably into a discussion of anonymity and government intrusion.

Second.  Who should determine what is ok speech?  The government? Trump? Obama? The FBI? The NSA? Scientists? Or only scientists who opposed using their gifts to create nuclear weapons?

Third. The outliers are sometimes right. Dr Kevorkian forced this country to consider assisted suicide. He earned the name ‘Dr Death’ from his campaign to use death row prisoners as voluntary experiments for various medical procedures. By any standard he was an odd and unappealing character. But he managed to force us to confront a difficult issue and think about how we wanted to handle it.

The anti vaccine people funded scientific research  into vaccines and potential causes of autism and those studies disproved the link. Just because autism manifests itself around the time children are vaccinated does not mean vaccines cause autism, but it was not an unreasonable hypothesis. And the autism studies partially so-provoked found a surprising link to paternal and maternal age that proved more promising. So even if you disagree with them, they ultimately may have helped push us to forward.

Fourth. No reasonable person likes the idea of name calling or so-called hate speech.The problem is that hate speech is difficult to define, even if we knew how to enforce prohibitions. Can a pink person claim to hate all pink people? In a private conversation? In an e mail? On a sign at a demonstration? On the pink people’s website? On his own website? What if the pink person is criticizing other pink people in an attempt to improve them?  Do the same rules apply when a purple person criticizes pink people? Does it matter whether purple or pink people constitute the dominant culture?

This is not purely theoretical. The US government and New York State (among others) have, at various times, tried to prohibit speech against Israel as anti Semitic. (They did this by prohibiting state funding or business with any group thatadvocated boycotting Israel saying that such advocacy was “abusing Jewish students.”) Like many, but perhaps not most Americans, I do not see the two as the same. Israel is a foreign country and Jews are an ethnic group in the United States and elsewhere. In this case, by trying to prohibit constitutionally protected hate speech, New York is clearly denouncing political speech as well. And it does prompt the question, do we now attempt to stop ‘hate’ speech against all groups?  Why this group?

In the Netherlands, a country that attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech, Siegfried Verbeke was convicted for simply publishing Robert Faurisson’s 1978 work questioning the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. The court stated that, “By raising doubts as to the authenticity of the diary within the context of REVISIONISM …the brochure far exceeds the limits of what is acceptable within the framework of freedom of expression.” The court did not dispute the truth of the research, the legal problem was the context of hate.

And how can it be otherwise? Speech occurs within a context, and often that context includes advocating a political position. This is different than a clerk who insists she is exercising her freedom by refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay people or election officials who try to make it difficult for Blacks to vote. The clerk and the election officials are free to say what they want (so long as what they say does not impede the ability of others trying to exercise their rights), but they are obliged to obey the laws whether they like them or not, as we all are.

I would hope that ‘the marketplace of ideas’ would ultimately serve to help us discard ideas that are dangerous or wrong. If not, to the extent that we are a democracy, we have agreed to live with the decisions of the majority BUT with the most important of protections, the bill of rights. It is worth reminding ourselves that the bill of rights was specifically designed to protect minorities from the will of majorities. There is a reason freedom of speech appears in the first amendment. There are limits to the extent we are allowed to police each other.

Americans are blessed that we have a first amendment. Although it has been imperfectly and sporadically protected, it is there at least as an aspiration.

“But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against Fascism. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”  George Orwell, in his brilliant proposed preface to Animal Farm. Sadly, usually omitted from the book.

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Israel Tutors Children in Fear and Loathing

Nazareth

A display of Israeli-style community policing before an audience of hundreds of young schoolchildren was captured on video last week. Were the 10-year-olds offered road safety tips, advice on what to do if they got lost, or how to report someone suspicion hanging around the school?

No. In Israel, they do things differently. The video shows four officers staging a mock anti-terror operation in a park close to Tel Aviv. The team roar in on motorbikes, firing their rifles at the “terrorist”.

As he lies badly wounded, the officers empty their magazines into him from close range. In Israel it is known as “confirming the kill”. Everywhere else it is called an extrajudicial execution or murder. The children can be heard clapping.

It was an uncomfortable reminder of a near-identical execution captured on film last year. A young army medic, Elor Azaria, is seen shooting a bullet into the head of an incapacitated Palestinian in Hebron. A military court sentenced him to 18 months for manslaughter in February.

There has been little sign of soul-searching since. Most Israelis, including government officials, call Azaria a hero. In the recent religious festival of Purim, dressing up as Azaria was a favourite among children.

There is plenty of evidence that Israel’s security services are still regularly executing real Palestinians.

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem denounced the killing last week of a 16-year-old Jerusalem schoolgirl, Fatima Hjeiji, in a hail of bullets. She had frozen to the spot after pulling out a knife some distance from a police checkpoint. She posed no threat, concluded B’Tselem, and did not need to be killed.

The police were unrepentant about their staged execution, calling it “a positive, empowering” demonstration for the youngsters. The event was hardly exceptional.

In communities across Israel this month, the army celebrated Israel’s Independence Day by bringing along its usual “attractions” – tanks, guns and grenades – for children to play with, while families watched army dogs sicking yet more “terrorists”.

In a West Bank settlement, meanwhile, the army painted youngsters’ arms and legs with shrapnel wounds. Blood-like liquid dripped convincingly from dummies with amputated limbs. The army said the event was a standard one that “many families enjoyed”.

The purpose of exposing children at an impressionable age to so much gore and killing is not hard to divine. It creates traumatised children, distrustful and fearful of anyone outside their tribe. That way they become more pliant soldiers, trigger-happy as they rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories.

A few educators have started to sense they are complicit in this emotional and mental abuse.

Holocaust Memorial Day, marked in Israeli schools last month, largely avoids universal messages, such as that we must recognise the humanity of others and stand up for the oppressed. Instead, pupils as young as three are told the Holocaust serves as a warning to be eternally vigilant – that Israel and its strong army are the only things preventing another genocide by non-Jews.

Last year Zeev Degani, principal of one Israel’s most prestigious schools, caused a furore when he announced his school would no longer send pupils on annual trips to Auschwitz. This is a rite of passage for Israeli pupils. He called the misuse of the Holocaust “pathological” and intended to “generate fear and hatred” to inculcate extreme nationalism.

It is not by accident that these trips – imparting the message that a strong army is vital to Israel’s survival – take place just before teenagers begin a three-year military draft.

Increasingly, they receive no alternative messages in school. Degani was among the few principals who had been inviting Breaking the Silence, a group of whistle-blowing soldiers, to discuss their part in committing war crimes.

In response, the education minister, Naftali Bennett, leader of the settlers’ party, has barred dissident groups like Breaking the Silence. He has also banned books and theatre trips that might encourage greater empathy with those outside the tribe.

Polls show this is paying off. Schoolchildren are even more ultra-nationalist than their parents. More than four-fifths think there is no hope of peace with the Palestinians.

But these cultivated attitudes don’t just sabotage peacemaking. They also damage any chance of Israeli Jews living peacefully with the large minority of Palestinian citizens in their midst.

Half of Jewish schoolchildren believe these Palestinians, one in five of the population, should not be allowed to vote in elections. This month the defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called the minority’s representatives in parliament “Nazis” and suggested they should share a similar fate.

This extreme chauvinism was translated last week into legislation that defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people around the world, not its citizens. The Palestinian minority are effectively turned into little more than resident aliens in their own homeland.

Degani and others are losing the battle to educate for peace and reconciliation. If a society’s future lies with its children, the outlook for Israelis and Palestinians is bleak indeed.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

More articles by:

Trump Sends FBI To Israel, Arrests Jewish Terrorists: A collage of Jewish False Flags

British Academia Faces Zionist Hooliganism (must watch)

March 31, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

With Jonathan Hoffman in the Train- An expose of Zionist hooliganism at the heart of British academia. What you are about to see is disturbing, it is violent, it is vile, it is totally foreign to Western culture. Beware…

 

The Jews and Their Lies and B’nai Brith Canada by Arthur Topham

 

2017 marks the 500 Year Anniversary of the birth of Protestantism and Dr. Martin Luther its Founder. Luther spent much of his active life trying to help the Jews realize the error of their ways and realize that their only salvation was to convert to Christianity.

By the end of his life Luther realized that it was a hopeless task trying to convert the Jew to the religion of Jesus Christ and as he neared his death he published a small booklet with the title as shown in the graphic above.

In Luther’s last Sermon he issued a “Warning Against the Jews.” Some extracts from that Sermon are herein quoted:

“…Besides, ou also have many Jews living in the country, who do much harm… You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Saviour day by day… for that reason you, Milords and men of authority, should not tolerate but expel them. They are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so; in fact, many of them murder Christians, especially those professing to be surgeons and doctors. They know how to deal with medicaments in the manner of the Italians – the Borgias and Medicis – who gave people poison which brought about their death in one hour or in a month.

Therefore deal with them harshly as they do nothing but excruciatingly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, trying to rob us of our lives, our  health, our honour and belongings… For that reason I cannot have patience nor carry on an intercourse with these deliberate blasphemers and violators of our Beloved Saviour.

As a good patriot I wanted to give you this warning for the very last time to deter you from participating in alien sins. You must know I only desire the best for you all, rulers and subjects.” (This Sermon was held at Eisleben, a few days before Luther’s death, February 1546.)

****  ****

Let us now look at an article published on February 21st, 2017 on the website of B’nai Brith Canada the secret Masonic organization created by the Rothschild’s back in the mid-19th Century to act as a front for the Jewish criminal cartel that now controls the governments of all of the nations of the Western world.

[*PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO A COURT ORDER THAT DISALLOWS ME FROM PUBLISHING THE NAME/S OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO LAID THE “HATE CRIME” COMPLAINT AGAINST ME I AM FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR NAME TO “AGENT Z” RATHER THAN SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR IDENTITY. AS WELL I CANNOT POST A LINK TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. EDITOR]

B’nai Brith Canada’s primary purpose is to act as media and judicial bludgeon and work in tandem with the Jewish owned press to lie and slander and vilify and indict all Canadians who attempt to expose their criminal actions be they here in Canada or in Israel or anywhere around the world.

By Aidan Fishman
Campus Advocacy Coordinator
B’nai Brith Canada
February 21, 2017

 

The British Columbia Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Arthur Topham, who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jewish people in November, 2015.

Through his website, RadicalPress.com, Topham has called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized, claimed that Canada is “controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby,” and described Jewish places of worship as “synagogues of Satan.”

The decision of Justice G. Bruce Butler in B.C. comes as part of a long legal saga spearheaded by AGENT Z, a B’nai Brith Canada member who first reported Topham’s antisemitic screeds to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and then later to the B.C. Hate Crimes Unit.

“I’m pleased with the court’s verdict,” AGENT Z said. “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.”

“This is an important victory for tolerance and human rights in Canada,” added Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights.

“In recent years, police and prosecutors have been hesitant to charge individuals with wilful promotion of hatred, perhaps because they fear that the accused will successfully appeal against the charges. This verdict shows that the hate speech sections of the Criminal Code are constitutionally sound and should be utilized whenever necessary.”

Topham’s sentencing is likely to take place in the near future. He faces a maximum of two years in prison, and the forced closure of his hateful website. It is not yet clear if he will appeal the ruling.

****   ****

I have emphasized the LIES that these two Jews are telling here in the article. Fishman is stating that I called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized. Agent Z lies when he states, “Calling to sterilize an entire ethnic or religious group is not free speech – it’s a crime in Canada, and rightfully so.

Here is the TRUTH that these two lying Jews have twisted around and turned inside out and upside down and reinterpreted so as to convince not only the jury that found me guilty on Count One but the general population that it was I who stated those words.

On my website I have a digital copy of the actual book which speaks about “sterilizing an entire ethnic” group. That book is called Germany Must Perish! and it was written by a Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman back in 1941 in the USA.

As I stated in my Introduction to that book,

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

At the very beginning of the book Kaufman states:

Germany Must Perish!

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

Kaufman then expends about 83 pages vilifying the German nation and accusing it of the most insidious crimes possible. Finally at Page 84 of the 95 page book Chapter 7 appears and it is titled Death to Germany. It is here that we first find mention of the method which Kaufman affirms is the only expedient way in which to deal with German nation. On Page 86 the Jew author states:

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the German nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some seventy million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.” [emphasis is mine. A.T.]

Having read this small book through I was determined to somehow bring its existence to the general public and attempt to show people who, in truth, were the real haters in this world. The method I chose to do that was to write a satire of Kaufman’s book and change a few key words so that instead of Germany being the victim it would show Israel as the victim. The satire consisted of quotes found here and there in Kaufman’s original book and the intent of the satire was to show the utter hypocrisy of the Jews in attempting to accuse others of “hate crimes” when it was they themselves who were the actual guilty party calling for the absolute genocide of the whole German nation.

And so we see that the Jew media is continuing along in its same course and doing everything possible via its media and the Jew media in general to promote this false notion that I was calling for the “sterilization” of the whole Jewish population when I wrote my satire and titled it Israel Must Perish!

Throughout the trial in October and November of 2015 the Crown and the presiding Justice continually misrepresented my satire and did everything they could to convince the jury that I had actually written a real book and called it Israel Must Perish! and that in that book I was advocating the total genocide of the Jews. Other than this one satire there was no actual evidence of any of my personal writings that could be misconstrued as being “hateful.”

Now you know what Dr. Martin Luther was talking about 500 years ago when he titled his book “The Jews and Their Lies.” And now you know why B’nai Brith Canada is still carrying on with the same lies that their forebearers were guilty of throughout the past centuries.

****   ****

Maria Zakharova the “angry Russian”

It’s so cool to hate Russia that even the death of a Russian diplomat turns into a hit

February 22, 2017

 

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: