In Part 22 of “The Time and What Must Be Done,” we want to focus again on that “Synagogue of Satan.” I want to speak about “the charge of anti-Semitism,” and what that charge leads to.
“The First Amendment” of The United States Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And so, I would like to put before you the following questions:
How does one go from engaging in “free speech” that we assume is protected by The First Amendment of The Constitution, to finding one’s self facing possibly criminal penalties?
How does such a wicked claim of “anti-Semitism” move the accused one from speaking or writing the truth, and then to “legal jeopardy”?
What is a legal mechanism by which these “attack dogs” of The Synagogue of Satan activate “the governmental apparatus” to seek out, punish and destroy those that are labeled as an “anti-Semite” or as a “hate group”—and destroy their right to “free speech” in the process?
We want to look at the criminal effect of being labeled “anti-Semitic.” We want to look at how these private Jewish organizations who do the labeling, like the Anti-Defamation League and The Southern Poverty Law Center, manipulate the government law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the IRS to target and harass those who are so labeled. Then, we want to see how they work to “effect their scheming,” with the disproportionate number of members of the Jewish community working as “DAs” (or “district attorneys”) or federal and state prosecutors and judges, in the United States court system where these cases will ultimately be tried.
It begins with someone, anyone, who holds a “controversial view,” and speaks or writes about it in public. “Controversial” means “contrary to the popular version of the truth.”
However, instead of engaging in honest and open public dialogue and debate about the issue that the spokesperson raises, as is called for and encouraged by the United States Constitution, private interest groups start with “the labeling”: “He’s a hate teacher, with a hateful message.” And then the group he belongs to: If they don’t repudiate the spokesperson fast enough, they also get called “a hate group that promotes intolerance.” They don’t have to “prove it,” they just have to “say it over and over again”—and then “the drumbeats” get amplified by their brethren who control the media. And if that person does not apologize “quick enough” after that, they start to pick away at his supporters. And those who would defend that person: If they are not strong enough to stand up to the slander, they begin to fall away and distance themselves; and some may even start repudiating and “apologizing for” their former friend and ally.
Still, if he refuses to “bow down”: They connect certain inflammatory terms that are intended to generate real hatred, and even retribution, against the person who is speaking these controversial points. They start with: “He hates!” “He’s intolerant!” and that escalates to, “He’s threatening, and he incites hatred in others!” And then the word “violence” gets thrown in, and then “hate crimes” are mentioned; and ultimately, you hear the words “domestic terrorism.” This is all calculated to get the public to put so much pressure on that individual; that they, and their supporters, “relent,” “apologize” and “retreat.” Read more...