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.
He 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 later upon 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.