Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
That's not what they called it, of course; they said they were trying to devise ways of keeping "hate" off the Internet. They want to protect children from being exposed to "hate," they say. They want to reduce the amount of violence in the country, they say; many people learn from the Internet to hate, and then having learned to hate, they run out and commit acts of violence. Keep "hate" off the Internet, and then there will be less violence. That's what they claim to believe.
Well, whether their theory about the Internet provoking people to violence is correct or not, it sounds as if the Senate Judiciary Committee really means well, doesn't it? I mean, who could be against reducing the amount of "hate" in America? That's really a Mom and apple pie issue, isn't it?
Of course, if you're a skeptical sort of person, as I am, you might want to know exactly what this "hate" consists of that the senators and the witnesses testifying for them are so eager to keep off the Internet. "Hate," it seems to me, could be a tricky thing to define. Would you call any expression of dislike or contempt "hate"? Maybe only a strong expression of dislike? How strong? Maybe whether an expression of dislike or contempt is "hate" depends on who is making the expression and who is the target of the dislike. I mean, really, how do you decide what is "hate" and what isn't?
Well, listen, you will be pleased and relieved to learn that we don't have to bother our little heads about that at all. We don't have to decide what is "hate" and what isn't. We have some very public-spirited people who have volunteered to do that for us. Lucky us! These are the very same public-spirited people who persuaded the senators to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the first place and then appeared as witnesses before the committee. They are Howard P. Berkowitz, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and several other like-minded citizens of the Jewish persuasion. Morris Dees's Southern Poverty Law Center sent a witness to testify, for example.
These public-spirited citizens are referred to uniformly by the controlled media as "civil rights experts" or "human rights advocates." Isn't that reassuring to know that these people who want to protect us from "hate" on the Internet also are concerned about our civil rights?
Reading the testimony of these Jewish witnesses and the comments of the eager-to-please politicians on the committee is a surreal experience. Their language is Orwellian. Nothing really means what it sounds like it means. Rabbi Abraham Cooper referred to the Internet as a "terrorism tutor" and implied that a substantial part of the violence in American life is the consequence of permitting "hate" on the Internet. The truth, of course, is that most of the violent criminals in America never have had their hands on a computer keyboard. There is no evidence that even one act of real terrorism in the United States had anything at all to do with the Internet.
If, in fact, terrorists learn their trade from the media or are provoked to commit violent acts by the media, I would suspect Hollywood long before I would suspect the Internet. But I guess that Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and Mr. Dees would want to change the subject in a hurry if you began talking to them about violence inspired by television or by Hollywood films, however. After all, it's their tribe which is in control of the television and film business.
The witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing spoke of Internet sites where one can learn to make a bomb. Perhaps there are such sites, although I've never seen one. But I cannot think of a single terrorist bombing in the United States in which the bomber could have learned from the Internet how to build his bomb. Neither Timothy McVeigh nor the people accused of bombing the World Trade Center in New York were ever on the Internet, so far as I am aware. Certainly, no evidence was presented by the government at their trials to indicate they were.
Really, the whole notion that people commit violent crimes or terrorist acts as a consequence of "hate" on the Internet is simply ridiculous. Do you know what these anti-hate crusaders presented as evidence of terrorism inspired or facilitated by the Internet? I'll quote directly from the transcript of the hearing. The committee chairman, Utah's Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, said that he was pleased to have as a witness the assistant U.S. attorney from Los Angeles, Michael Gennaco, who had gained "the first conviction against a hate-crime assailant for acts taken on the Internet." Assistant U.S. Attorney Gennaco then related his achievement to the committee:
"On the morning of March 5, 1998, 42 Latino faculty members turned on their computers at Cal State Los Angeles to read their e-mails. They read a mean-spirited derogatory statement against Latinos. Using the most demeaning racial slurs, the sender told the faculty members that he hated their race, that he wanted them to die, that the only reason the professors were hired was because of Affirmative Action, that their race was stupid, greedy, and ugly, and that the sender was going to personally come down and kill each of them."
The student who sent this message to the Latino faculty members was tracked down, arrested, tried, and convicted. Of course, the name of the offending student wasn't mentioned in the hearing -- just for your information, his name is Kwon -- and it also wasn't mentioned in the hearing that Kwon is Chinese, because that inconvenient fact doesn't fit the general theme the committee wanted to develop. Before we get into that theme, however, let us remember that what this Chinese student did -- essentially sending a death threat by wire -- certainly was nothing new, and it required no new laws for its prosecution.
The fact that this was the best example the committee could come up with of a genuine Internet-related "hate crime" ought to tell us that this whole pretense of being concerned about the connection between "hate" on the Internet and violence is phony. These Jewish "human rights advocates" like Berkowitz and Cooper understand that there simply are no convincing cases of violence or terrorism stemming from the Internet, so after giving us the pitiful example of Kwon and his derogatory e-mail to the Mexican faculty members -- and giving it to us in such a way that many of us would assume that Kwon was a heterosexual White male, their stereotypical "hater" -- after this they try to bolster their case with all sorts of innuendo and misdirection.
For example, much was made in the hearing of the facts that Benjamin Smith, the University of Indiana student who shot a Korean and a Black this summer, belonged to the World Church of the Creator, and the World Church of the Creator has an Internet web site. The not so subtle implication was that if the World Church of the Creator had been kept off the Internet in some way, then the Black and the Korean shot by Benjamin Smith still would be alive. But that's really a false implication. Benjamin Smith wasn't incited by the Internet to shoot anyone. He knew personally the man who heads the World Church of the Creator; he was his close associate and helper. That man is an attorney; he has a law degree and wants to practice law in Illinois. And when that man was denied a law license by the Politically Correct Illinois bar committee because they didn't like his religious beliefs, Smith went on a rampage. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the Internet had anything to do with it.
And there was a lot of other deliberate misdirection too by the politicians and the Jewish witnesses. The shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado were invoked by several witnesses. Rabbi Cooper claimed "In 1999 the Internet can serve as a terrorism tutor; it did for Eric Harris at Columbine." Rabbi Cooper seems to have forgotten that Eric Harris had a Jewish accomplice, Dylan Klebold.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's Joseph Roy, who was also a witness, testified:
"In Littleton, Colorado, the two youths who opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School may well have been inspired, in some part, by neo-Nazi propaganda they encountered on the Net. It seems clear that they found plans for building pipe bombs and other weapons there."
Now, that is really deceptive, and I'm sure that Mr. Roy intended it to be. He knows that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not "neo-Nazis"; he knows that one was a Jew and that both were anti-racist. He knows that Eric Harris had an Internet web site in which he said that he wanted to torture and kill White racists. If Harris and Klebold were inspired by anything they encountered on the Net, it certainly wasn't "neo-Nazi propaganda"; on the contrary, the evidence suggests that they were inspired by the sort of multicultural "love" and diversity-mongering with which the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith poison the Net. As to whether or not Harris and Klebold found plans on the Net for making pipe bombs, that's really beside the point, since they did all of their killing and wounding with shotguns and pistols. They neither killed nor injured anyone with a pipe bomb.
So without the least bit of evidence that Politically Incorrect web sites on the Internet have any connection to terrorism, why did the Jews and the politicians bother to have this hearing? Why try to persuade anyone that the Internet is a "terrorism tutor" when it plainly isn't? What's the point?
The point is that the Jews aren't concerned about the Internet as a so-called "terrorism tutor"; that is just a smoke-screen. What they are concerned about is keeping inconvenient facts and ideas off the Internet. They don't want to stop terrorism; they want to stop the spread of truth. Until the Internet came along the Jews had a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the general public. If they wanted to persuade the public that in most interracial crime White males are the aggressors, there was no one to contradict them with the facts. They could report -- over and over and over again, with non-stop coverage -- any interracial crime in which Whites actually were the aggressors and ignore all Black-on-White crimes, which is essentially what they're still doing -- but with the Internet people like me are embarrassing them with the facts.
Five or six years ago they could talk about "Russian" organized crime on television or in the New York Times, and there was no one to tell the public that it wasn't "Russian" organized crime at all: that it was 100 per cent Jewish organized crime. They could whine about how they were "persecuted" by the Swiss and the Germans and the Swedes and the Poles and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the Lithuanians and the Latvians and everyone else during the Second World War, and how everyone owed them hundreds of billions of dollars in "reparations" now, and there was no one to tell the world about the persecution of other peoples and nations by the Jews. There was no one to point out to the world that for every dollar taken from the Jews during the war, the Jews stole 100 dollars from those countries which fell victim to their communist racket. They could moan to the world about how the cold and cruel Gentiles just stood by and let six million Jews be led into the gas chambers, and so now the very least the world could do for the Jews was to give them a free ride. Anyone who questioned their story was immediately shrieked down as a "Holocaust denier," and the questioner had no way of presenting the historical facts to the public. People like me could print a few pamphlets and distribute them on street corners, but for all practical purposes we had no effective way of exposing the lies of the Jews.
The Jews liked it that way. They liked having a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and information to the public. The Internet robs them of that monopoly, and they don't like that a bit. They don't like having me and others exposing their lies and telling the public things they prefer to keep quiet.
Of course, even with the Internet available to us, we can't challenge the hold the Jews have on America's political system -- at least, not yet. The great mass of the voters, the couch potatoes, the ball game fans, don't use the Internet and never will -- except perhaps to access porno sites and check their horoscopes. But the perceptive and intelligent minority of White men and women capable of independent thought now have a new information medium, a new medium for the exchange of ideas, and the Jews aren't able to control it. That's what they don't like. That's what they're afraid of, certainly not terrorism.
They're afraid of the fact that as the sickness of American society becomes more and more evident to the perceptive few, that as the craziness and destructiveness going on in Washington and Hollywood take a greater and greater toll, more and more of the people who really count, the intelligent and productive White men and women in the universities and in the professions and in industry who somehow keep this civilization staggering along under its growing burden -- these people are looking for answers, and Rabbi Cooper and his fellow tribesmen are afraid they may find the answers. They are desperately afraid of that. And that's why they told the politicians to hold the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. They are desperate to control the Internet the same way they control television and the New York Times; they are desperate to censor the Internet, to choke off the free flow of information. But of course, they won't tell us that. What they tell us is that they want to protect us from violence and terrorism caused by "hate" on the Internet.
So what do you think? Are the American people too smart to fall for that sort of deception? Are we so fond of our freedom that we won't give it up just because the Jews have cleverly labeled it as "hate"? Can we relax because Senator Hatch and the other senators on the committee all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and therefore won't let these Jews get away with their scheme?
Listen, you know as well as I do that Senator Hatch and every other politician in the Congress would fall all over themselves to abolish the whole Bill of Rights in order to please Rabbi Cooper and Mr. Berkowitz and the rest -- if they thought the American people would let them get away with it. They know that the couch potatoes won't object, but they're still concerned about that minority of perceptive and responsible White Americans who aren't quite ready yet to give up their freedom without a fight.
So the hearing last week was well larded with assurances that new laws can be devised to keep "hate" off the Internet without infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. If that leaves you a little uncertain as to exactly what these Jews have in mind, let me tell you about something which happened this month in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, suburb of Oakland Park. Lloyd Shank is a 73-year-old retired carpenter who lives in Oakland Park, which is in Broward County. Mr. Shank doesn't much like the Clinton government, and he also doesn't like Jews. On August 23 he hand-delivered copies of a one-page letter he had written to members of the Broward County Commission. All but one of the members of the county commission are Jews, and the one who is not is a woman married to a Jew. After the Second World War New York Jews migrated in large numbers to Florida and virtually took over the southeastern part of the state.
In his letter Mr. Shank said some unkind things about the Clinton government, including the charge that the government is responsible for the deaths of more than 80 members of a church in Waco, Texas, that the FBI and other secret police agencies laid siege to and then burned to the ground on April 19, 1993, with most of the church members, including women and children, inside. Mr. Shank also said some unkind things about Jews in his letter, calling them "perverts" and accusing them of liking to be hated. He wound up his letter with the statement:
"When your holocaust reprisals come, hide in the New York subways for security from nuclear bombs. Don't forget your money."
No threats, just an expression of dislike.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see the point in sending letters to Jews telling them that they're bad people and that you don't like them. To me that seems like foolishness and a waste of time. But we have a right to be foolish and waste our time if we want to. We have a right to send letters to people and call them perverts and tell them that we don't like them, whether they are Jews or not. The Jews should not be exempted from criticism, and no one should be punished for criticizing them. We do still have a Constitution and freedom of speech -- except in Broward County, Florida, apparently.
The Jews ran immediately to the police with Shank's letter and demanded that he be arrested. Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne jumped to obey. With an eagerness to please that put Senator Orrin Hatch in the shade, Jenne arrested Shank and began making statements to the press: "We will not allow extremists to terrorize any member of our community." That sounds suspiciously like the sheriff of Broward County and his Jewish constituents believe that extremists -- which is to say, people who criticize Jews -- should have fewer rights than the rest of the citizenry.
A news story in the September 10 issue of the Miami Herald about Mr. Shank's arrest stated:
"In the wake of a shooting spree at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles last month, authorities are taking anti-Semitic rhetoric like Shank's seriously."
Yes, but apparently they no longer take the Constitution of the United States seriously in Broward County. And believe me, that's exactly what Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Mr. Howard Berkowitz and Mr. Morris Dees and their pals have in mind for the rest of the country, despite all of their deceptive claims that they're not out to abolish the First Amendment.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page