Wake Up Before They Shut Us Up!

r-limbaugh

The “Hush Rush Act” rears its ugly head again.

Democrats Pushing for Censorship with Fairness Doctrine

by Jeff Davis

One of the few remaining tatters of our once proud Constitution was the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Now it seems like the most important right which the Founding Fathers put first in the Bill of Rights will be under siege from the Obama regime. We can expect additional liberal attacts on the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as well.

An article in WorldNetDaily reports: “Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ adding, ‘I feel like that’s gonna happen.’ Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’: ‘I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.’ ”

obama-future

In other words: “How dare you criticize us, you horrible little peasants!!” What’s wrong with letting Rush Limbaugh and others have their radio shows and bring out little inconvenient facts about their “Brown Messiah”? We’re seeing the usual liberal arrogance and inability to take criticism. The only thing worse for liberals than criticism is RIDICULE, and some of these talk show hosts are masters at exposing liberal hypocrisy and making laughing stocks out of these pompous, puffed up liberals.

The article notes “Stabenow’s husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network. Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year ‘to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable,’ Stabenow replied: ‘I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen.’”

In other words, station owners will be subjected to political pressure to silence commentators who criticize the government. This is precisely what is NOT supposed to happen in America. And — for those who don’t know — Air America is the attempt at a left-wing answer to right-wing talk radio. Air America has been struggling to gain an audience. It seems as though most White people are not thrilled with the Gay/liberal alternative to incompetent, stupid and liberal Republicans in the form of George W. Bush and John McCain. 57 percent of White Americans voted against Barack Obama, and Air America continues to wallow with low ratings. The Republican party has self-destructed thanks to the Iraq War, neocons and pro-amnesty liberalism at the top level. Despite this, Air America isn’t growing, and Rush Limbaugh remains highly popular. The liberal solution to this would be to cut off free speech for the likes of Limbaugh.

The article continues “Meanwhile, as WND has previously reported, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders. But other Democrats in the Senate and House – and even a few Republicans – have made no secret of their support for such legislation. ‘For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country,’ Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. ‘I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.’ ”

In other words: “We need to get all these annoying white patriots and rabble rousers off the air by cancelling their shows.”

It’s coming, people. The Iron Heel of an African dictator right here in America. If you want a clue how an African leader deals with opposition, look at Haiti or Zimbabwe or the Congo.

SOURCE

Print Friendly
Download PDF

About INCOG MAN

100% White boy born and bred in the USA. Dedicated to awakening Whites to all the crap being done to our decent, fair-minded race and exposing the devious brainwashing rats behind it all. Wake the ef up, White people!
This entry was posted in Free Speech and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Wake Up Before They Shut Us Up!

  1. travisrice says:

    I wonder if this would lead to any effect on the Internet within the US

  2. American says:

    2% of the population is wreaking havoc on our Constitution. If we cannot examine, criticize, and share our opinions, we are all dead.

    Speak up!

  3. Carve_Dat_Possum says:

    oh yeah, the internet is next. Taking us out one bite at a time.

  4. Grumblingone says:

    This is a tough topic. Any regulations are often abused and used for nefarious purposes. The fairness doctrine I’m sure is likely one of them, but how?

    It appears that it used to serve a good purpose, when all TV and radio were BROADCAST by air, and those frequencies were/are limited. But when cable hit the scene, media owners claimed that since channels could be created as needed or wanted the doctrine didn’t matter anymore. (of course the channels would still be controlled by the owner.)
    Basically the doctrine required the owner of the media to allow opposing views to be presented, but set no limits on the balance. In fact it was up to the public to bring imbalance to the attention of the FCC.

    What I don’t seem to get is how bringing this back is going to relate to censorship. Where does it say right-wing political shows are going to be
    monitored for their views? (other than WND just saying that’s what will happen) How and where is this doctrine linked to the hate crime stuff, if it is at all?
    How exactly would big government Censor media with this doctrine?

    This reminds me of the Glass-Steagall Act. When they removed this regulation in 1999, banks created huge speculation bubbles with fictitious money and look where we are today.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

    When they removed the Fairness doctrine during the 80s…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
    “In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.”

    It just seems to me that the doctrine was removed due to corporate pressure and had little to do with freedom of the press.
    I’m trying to find reference to the rules that prohibited an owner from having a monopoly on media in a particular region. It’s being elusive.

  5. anarchore says:

    One byte at a time! Guess who just got suspended for violation of service!

  6. Don son of Robert says:

    very Orwellian. How does MSNBC stay on the air anyways? The smug sarcastic tone of oberman and maddow make me sick. Whats with naming bill oreilly the worst person in the world every night? Is that a joke? Why does liberalism always come across as elitism to me? Who is that one out of every four that can stomach that condescending garbage? Guilty whites? Cable news ratings in the link.

    http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/02/02/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-january-30/12004

  7. incogman says:

    One byte at a time! Guess who just got suspended for violation of service!

    Man, I see that, anarchore! People, go to the Zionofacism link and see what’s in my future — our future.

    http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/

    Any idea why, anarchore?

  8. anarchore says:

    No clue! I was terrorizing some pseudo-progressive blogs, and taking a decidedly less PC stance on using words like h*l*h*ax, and I guess one of the Cohens did not like that! I have no idea where the line is that I crossed however, it’s arbitrary Jew rule just like everywhere else. The good news is the Juden know they jumped the shark and are now desperate.

  9. anarchore says:

    I’m surprized my ‘gravatar’ is still showing up!

  10. Grumblingone says:

    The states that are submitting sovereignty bills is growing.
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3510

    If the Fed passes one more law that suppresses free speech or gun/ammo ownership and purchase these states are gonna tell the Fed to fuck off.
    I can only hope that means the Fed can take their national debt and stick it where the sun don’t shine!

  11. American says:

    Good to see you, Anarchore!

  12. American says:

    I have a possible theory. It seems the Zionists prefer these discussion sites have many splinters, so not to focus on the Jew too much. They don’t mind being one of many groups in the spotlight, but perhaps you were making them uncomfortable by being right on top of the problem,
    and only one problem?

  13. American says:

    If we trash Negroes or Muslims, along with identifying the Jew, then they can prove we are “racist”. But since the Jews acknowledge ONLY Jews and Goyim (everybody else), and we realize that, it made them squirm.

  14. Grumblingone says:

    BTW
    http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/
    “Exposing Zionofascism in Canada and the World”
    Note the word Canada again.

    Times like these I wonder if Professor Igor Panarin is right.
    http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html
    Mmmm, a Chinese state on the west coast. Awesome.

  15. Carve_Dat_Possum says:

    “The states that are submitting sovereignty bills is growing.”

    I’ve been following that for the past couple of weeks. It seems that those bastards are about to awaken a sleeping giant. I say “Let the pissin’ contest begin!”.

  16. Carve_Dat_Possum says:

    by “those bastards” i mean the federal government.

  17. gncarlo says:

    “It just seems to me that the (fairness) doctrine was removed due to corporate pressure and had little to do with freedom of the press.”

    Why do you assume that?

    If you allow the State to rule on the content of anything, who decides what is the “balanced” opposite view? Why, the State of course. Who decides that there are only two legitimate “balancing” POVs? Why, the State of course. In other words, who decides what are the parameters of legitimate debate, and what views are outside those parameters, in other words, who has the “prerogative to offend”, as Joe Sobran so succinctly put it? Why, the State, of course.

    The State decrees that the ‘Holocaust’ is a ‘historical fact’. Therefore it is not “balanced” to debate that point. It is “hate” to question it. “Balanced discussion” may permit one to quibble about a few of the details, provided the discussants are Jewish. “Goyim’ may not even quibble. It is “hate.”

    The State has spoken !

    If there is any question about who ‘the State’ is, you haven’t been paying attention.

  18. gncarlo says:

    Anyway, that’s what the Groundhog told me…. 🙂

  19. American says:

    The State decrees that the ‘Holocaust’ is a ‘historical fact’. Therefore it is not “balanced” to debate that point. It is “hate” to question it. “Balanced discussion” may permit one to quibble about a few of the details, provided the discussants are Jewish. “Goyim’ may not even quibble. It is “hate.”-gncarlo

    Well said.

  20. Chet says:

    Don,
    I agree. Liberalism is elitism; and it doesn’t matter what color you are. If you are different from the liberal elite, then you are ‘beneath’ them. I have relatives who are just such liberal elite. There are two facts about them:
    1) they have been subsidized their entire life, even as they approach 40, they still go to mama or daddy for the bailout check if they can’t make rent. Therefore, they think everyone should be liberal and universal, like them where welfare is a natural part of life. Unfortunately, they couldn’t earn their way out of a 10 gallon aquarium, because they never developed the skills.
    2) they never think that any of the bad things like discrimination, alienation, heavy taxation, and so forth will ever happen to them. It’s as if they are part of some imagined secret club for progressives who will be grandfathered into some insulation against persecution when they are no longer the majority. Total naivete.

    As for the attempted silencing of a private individual who happens to be Rush Limbaugh, our newly appointed third-world dictator potus wants us to think that the real work of gov’t is ‘hindered’ by the voices of private individuals. There’s your elitism(…and now we find that certain cabinet appointees are above the basic requirements of citizenship under the modern regime (e.g. paying taxes)). Gov’t is actually to the contrary.

  21. Grumblingone says:

    “Why do you assume that?”
    Well I didn’t assume anything. I was saying the situation “seems” similar to another set of legislature in how after it was revoked it gave corporations free reign to do what they wanted and focus on one view while ignoring or debasing another.

    “If you allow the State to rule on the content of anything, who decides what is the “balanced” opposite view?”
    There were never any boundaries set for balance, five spots about one view could be offset by ONE alternate view. And it was up to the public to bring one-sided views to attention.
    Basically if one view was presented and someone wanted to present/pay for a differing view, the differing view wouldn’t be denied due to the political view of the media owner.
    If the revised/newer fairness doctrine requires “balance” that is something new and different. If this doctrine puts “limits” on what can be reported, again, that is something new and different.

    From the above article:
    “In other words, station owners will be subjected to political pressure to silence commentators who criticize the government.”
    I still don’t see, in the old doctrine, how this happens. I’m trying.

    I’m as paranoid about what politicians promote as the next guy, but I’m just trying to understand exactly how they plan on manipulating it.
    Nancy Pelosi promoting it makes me very wary.

  22. Orion14 says:

    This is just more right wing fear mongering. The Zionist right wing in this country controls the radio airwaves as much as the jewish left controls the print and tv media. Fuck the Right Wing, they are as much an enemy as any kike.

    What the fairness doctrine will do, in theory, will allow our side a chance at the airwaves. If a white hating nigger or jew gets on the air, we have the right to get on the air with our side.

    Of course, they can change it from it’s original intent to exclude “hate” which is code for the truth, but we would have to wait and see.

    Frankly, I’m tired of Ross Limbo and and jackoffs like Fannity poisoning the airwaves with their pro Israel, pro racemixing, anti-white bullshit.

  23. Grumblingone says:

    “What the fairness doctrine will do, in theory, will allow our side a chance at the airwaves.”
    According to the old doctrine, seems that way.

    “Of course, they can change it from it’s original intent to exclude “hate” which is code for the truth, but we would have to wait and see.”
    This is where I get lost. How would one exclude truth/hate from “fair” exposure with a doctrine that requires an alternate view to be broadcast?
    Wait and see as usual. I can’t find any documents on what the, revised I’m sure, fairness doctrine will contain. I can’t figure out if I’m just being a noob or is this just scare-mongering.

    BTW – I have rarely turned on MSM news or commentary in years past. But lately I have left CNN running for the day just to hear the lies most are being programmed with. Better than a sitcom sometimes.

  24. gncarlo says:

    Fox News, as we all know, presents itself as “fair and balanced”. An example of a “balanced” discussion is four guests, all Jews, of course, discussing the recent unpleasantness in Gaza. Two think Israel did the right thing in invading and killing 1300 human beings in a few days. The other two Jews, no doubt disturbed at the world’s reaction, and satisfied with the slow extermination of the Palestinians via embargo and starvation, demurred. This is presented as a “balanced discussion.” Nobody from Hamas, or any other Palestinian or Muslim organization, or even anyone from this country objecting to Jewish depredations in general, is invited.

    And you want more of this “balance”, but choreographed by the f*cking Post Office?

    IMHO, government has no business regulating anyone’s thought or speech.

  25. gncarlo says:

    “Of course, they can change it from it’s original intent to exclude “hate” which is code for the truth, but we would have to wait and see.”

    Wait for what? They are attempting to silence you on the internet right now. Do you seriously think that, even if you had the money to buy the air time (which none of us do), that you would be free to give a 10-minute synopsis of your views on CNN?

  26. Grumblingone says:

    “Fox News, as we all know, presents itself as “fair and balanced””
    I know about Fox, and how balanced reporting works, that is the point.
    All TV and radio are scripted shows. Yeah, I get it. Yellow Journalism FTL.

    “And you want more of this “balance””
    Relax, I never said I wanted more of this. And I’m not sure how you even got that idea. I was discussing the original doctrine and surmising the new one is just scare tactics and wouldn’t pass because it wouldn’t benefit corporate interests. And even if it did pass in some form, I am trying to understand how it theoretically could be used to put right-wingers out of business.

    “IMHO, government has no business regulating anyone’s thought or speech”
    Pretty sure this has to do with regulating massive corporate control over the airways and media networks. There are others out there besides you and me that DO have lots of money who would love to be able to speak out, but most likely are denied by MSM media these days.

    “wait and see”
    As in, wait and see if they ever produce a document. As far as I know there isn’t one yet. To freak out over the content of something that doesn’t exist yet seems a bit silly to me.

    Since free speech really isn’t free anyway, it’s all bought and paid for by some corporation, what the hell is the difference if left or right gets more time if it’s all lies? It appears it’s just a ploy to try to get more airtime for the left since ratings suck.

    From a comment section elsewhere.
    “Follow the MONEY? this is from Wikipedia Tom Athans (born 1961) is a notable member of the Democratic Party from the state of Michigan. He is a co-founder and former CEO of the liberal-progressive Democracy Radio, an organization that produced and supported liberal talk radio shows that formerly included the Ed Schultz Show. He is now the executive Vice-President of another liberal talk radio organization Air America. Athans is married to Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat of Michigan.”

    Are we all gonna go running around like chicken little every time a bill or law is proposed? If so, I better get my tinfoil hat.

  27. Steve in TN says:

    Does anyone believe that Obammy that likens himself to be a present day Lincoln would actually allow a State to secede from the Federal-Zionist tyranny? Does this post have any merit? I seriously doubt it will get to that point. It was tried once before and we all know what happened. No one dare try that again. If it is successful you will see a host of States following suite. I’d like your thought on this. Maybe it is time!

    Michael K.
    February 9, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
    What follows is a letter by Phil Ledoux of New Hampshire which is posted on:

    http://educate-yourself.org/pnl/newhampshiresoverignty04feb09.shtml

    The purpose of posting this is to alert people to the danger that we here in New England, and America may be facing: a false flag terror attack to be blamed on discontented patriot extremists in the wake now of Ed Brown’s unlawful abduction by Zio-police.

    http://www.red-alerts.com/un-american-activities/why-i-dont-support-ed-brown-and-you-shouldnt-either/

    This in regards also to the surprise announcement of a constitutional challenge to the U.S. federal law, being made by a bill passing through the New Hampshire legislature. Note it is “HCR 0006? : there’s that number again.

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

    In a ‘North as South’ scenario, the States rights issues are to be revisited with Obama in the place of Lincoln, it is proposed.

    New Hampshire Sovereignty: Live Free or Die (Feb. 4, 2009)

    New Hampshire seems to be a rather unique state. When we were a colony, the King’s agents scoured the total North Eastern area of what was to become the united states of America. The agents burned a special kind of arrowhead outline into each white pine tree deemed qualified to be a main mast on the then sailing ships. By the way, the original colonists found white pine ONLY along the major rivers of New England and nearby areas. In the war which we called the French and Indian Wars, France lost sea battles to the English because France didn’t have the necessary quality pine trees for main masts on their ships. The French used spliced pieces of wood held together by steel rings. In full sail and battle condition, these spliced masts gave way, and many were dead in the water, sitting ducks for British cannon. This was behind the branding of the “Mast Trees” throughout the colonies, backed by a death warrant for anyone destroying such valuable trees.

    It is written that the New Hampshire colonists purposefully went out and cut down all these branded trees. Hmmm? That probably is behind our state motto seen on all vehicle number-plates: “Live Free or Die.”

    And, we may just put that motto into action! In our state legislature is a bill known as HCR-6. Cutting through all the legalese, New Hampshire is re-declaring its Constitutional Rights. We as a state and as individuals are sovereign; the only rights the Federal Government has are enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments; anything further is null and void including presidential orders that exceed those limitations. That’s a mighty big cud to chew on in this day and age!

    I saw a well worded analysis of a Super-Bowl advertisement that, as I understand it, was a blatant enumeration of Illuminati Objectives, sort of “right in your face.” And I’m certain that most thinking people have seen the gradual overconfidence of the Illuminati’s “King’s Men” increasing and becoming more open (as opposed to hidden or camouflaged) through recent history. Almost the school yard bully type of character.

    This has gotten me to thinking – it looks like there is going to be a meeting of irristable forces; New Hampshire and the Federal Colossus – David vs. Goliath. Is there a Trojan Horse in all this too? The enemy working within? Usually something of this importance is over the back fence gossip or serious commenting when people meet. Rarely is it sprung like a rat-trap. I might be hibernating too much this winter, but I’ve not encountered anyone making any comments on the subject, I found it on an internet forum I visit regularly which is chemtrails oriented.

    South Carolina fired the first shot which started the American Civil War. Fort Sumpter was the target, which was Federal Property(?), actually an island at the entrance to the bay. New Hampshire has a Federal Naval Base which is an island near the entrance to the river that separates New Hampshire from Maine. Are Feds setting up another False Flag operation and going to blow up the “powder room” at the Naval Base known as the Portsmouth Naval Base, and blame it on New Hampshire patriots?

    I am of the opinion that certainly we want to regain our sovereign rights, but there isn’t a 5% minority who will get out there and do something about it. We have been dumbed down so well that more than 95% are afraid of the consequences of bold action. This is why I referred to a “Trojan Horse.” All of a sudden out of nowhere there is legislation in the state legislature hopper that will set the basic smoke screen for a False Flag Operation on the New Hampshire coast, an island at the mouth of a river. In the past it is amazing how the evil planners set up repeating dates or repeating physical circumstances. Solomon couldn’t judge this one! And I certainly am not able to do it either; but “me smells rotten fish.”

    Philip N. Ledoux

  28. Done says:

    “What the fairness doctrine will do, in theory, will allow our side a chance at the airwaves.” -orion

    I doubt it. Anyways, who wants to control the air waves? I could cook up some pirate radio if anyone is interested. I’ve built a few radio broadcasters/recievers.

  29. gncarlo says:

    “There are others out there besides you and me that DO have lots of money who would love to be able to speak out, but most likely are denied by MSM media these days.”

    I doubt that those “who do have lots of money” would love to publicly give the kinds of opinions many of us are expressing here. They would like to hold onto their “lots of money.” They are not “denied by the MSM” but by their own survival instincts, the fear of the consequences of expressing un-PC opinions which would sharply curtail their own career paths. If you are a non-Jew and give the Jewish Lobby anything but the most fawning praise, you might as well clean out your desk. This sentiment has been expressed anonymously so often, it shouldn’t need mentioning.

  30. gncarlo says:

    Grumbling:
    “gncarlo sez:“And you want more of this “balance””
    Relax, I never said I wanted more of this. And I’m not sure how you even got that idea. I was discussing the original doctrine and surmising the new one is just scare tactics and wouldn’t pass because it wouldn’t benefit corporate interests.”

    Sorry, I was responding to comments by you and two others in the same post, since they all were on the same theme. I’ll try to be more specific in the future.

  31. American says:

    It is the Jew that has convinced you that money is of utmost importance. I have never had much money, and never desired it either. In fact, I was perfectly broke and happy, taking care of my own repsonsibilties, until I learned what the Jews have planned for all Goyim.

    98% vs 2% of the population…that is the math that really matters in the end. Besides, Goyim will never have money in Jew-rigged society, so might as well learn to love what you can. Loss of freedom, that is what I care about.

  32. gncarlo says:

    Grumbling: ” This is where I get lost. How would one exclude truth/hate from “fair” exposure with a doctrine that requires an alternate view to be broadcast?”

    You are assuming that those in government or the MSM who make the decisions as to what is “fair” and what are the legitimate “alternate views” share your values and worldview. What evidence do you have for making this assumption?

  33. gncarlo says:

    Steve, think about it: organized Jewry always asks “what is good for the Jews”?

    The most effective, economical, and believable “False Flag” would be an Obama assassination. Martial law and a “crusade against white supremacists” would be widely and enthusiastically supported by the mob.

    Why else would they spend $100,000,000 + getting him elected? Obama is more valuable dead than alive to these people. Joe Biden or any one of a hundred other more experienced loyal soldiers of Zion could have beat McCain.

  34. Grumblingone says:

    “You are assuming that those in government or the MSM who make the decisions as to what is “fair” and what are the legitimate “alternate views” share your values and worldview. What evidence do you have for making this assumption?”
    I am not making any assumptions, nor am I claiming any evidence. I am only looking for an example. The only thing I’m seeing is people getting all riled up over the name of a proposed piece of legislature that won’t affect business as usual in any major form due to how the system actually works. It won’t affect the majority of people whether it passes or not. It’s just manipulation to draw attention away from something else. Most likely the hate bills. This topic should die for the time being at least. Just my 2 cents.

    “The most effective, economical, and believable “False Flag” would be an Obama assassination. Martial law and a “crusade against white supremacists” would be widely and enthusiastically supported by the mob.”
    I 100% agree. And they wouldn’t even have to justify anything to the American sheeple. Obama dead = Martial law.

  35. PC_11 says:

    You’re right gncarlo. I’ve been telling people the same thing for quite awhile. Hell, Obama was able to raise about $700,000,000 to get elected! Well, his handlers “raised” the money. The skids were greased for him from the start. Most people thought he’d run in 2012 as the media was kissing his tail after his speech at the ’04 Democratic convention. But he being a power mad not able to thing too far ahead brother with the press fawning over his speaking ability (apparently any black who can speak clearly and not use ebonics is a brilliant speaker) had him ready to run for it four years early. The tribe then possibly accelerated some things. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the Mossad et al blasted the man from his seat and then blamed it on whitey, causing massive riots, the “need” for troops (from outside possibly) to restore order and create martial law, and an even higher level of hate against whites whom the tribe not only hates, but is jealous of to the core.

    I should say I’m with those who believe the jewish population is much higher than what is always crowed by the jewish owned press. They’ve been preparing to drop the hammer on us for a long time and they don’t care if they have to take out a bunch of the ‘little jews’, the regular folks not in on it, while they do it. Not that I have much sympathy for the little jews, as while a lot of them might not be a part of this mess, they enjoy the favored treatment this mess gives them and they usually fully support their masters even when they know they’re wrong. The big jews can let these people rot and then try and blame it on whitey.

  36. PC_11 says:

    Might as well complain about the “Fairness Doctrine”. What will happen when this is brought back is that the powers that be will morph the intent of the law to fit whatever agenda they are trying to push at that particular moment. They will then try to expand the law’s reach into other areas. The show going on right now is just that, a show for the public. Don’t be surprised if there’s some horrible event that occurs that will end up being blamed on ‘hate speech’ that was aired somewhere. In the end, they don’t want any dissent. Sure, we can turn off our radios, and then next they’re after our email, to protect us of course. Then they’ll tell people to call the authorities if they think they might have heard someone indulging in hate speech – even if it was private conversation overheard as the person or persons walked by. Don’t laugh, this is exactly what they want. To control whites period as we are their only threat. They know what happened in Germany when people wise to their plans almost derailed them. They stepped back and took it slower this time, using white technology to help them develop their current hold on the West.

  37. Grumblingone says:

    “David vs. Goliath”
    Good reference.
    David, the oppressed underdog (ie. Jew) against Goliath, the oppressor (ie. goyim and other barbarians), hurls a stone (materialism) with a sling (communication/propaganda) hitting the giant between the eyes (third eye, spiritual center) killing him.
    Just one analysis.

    “Is there a Trojan Horse in all this too?”
    Most likely, although the story is kind of messed up.
    The sacking of Jerusalem and Troy are most likely one and the same event.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA163,M1
    One used water ways and one used a horse. There was most likely a translation error causing the whole myth of the horse story to come about. (equine/aquine something like that I can’t remember atm)
    Anyway, the gift horse at the gates is the ploy to be ignored, where the real danger will most likely come by the water ways.
    There are lots of stories of jews and commies poisoning water wells.

    Also, using a river (snake) to poison a peaceful joint rule of the globe/empire (apple) between two peoples (Adam and Eve).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA304,M1
    Divide and conquer by water ways.
    This symbolism also works with a snake representing communication/propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *